[Retlaw]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

It is definitely the early records which are problematic.
If you are descendants of what was once a land owning wealthy family, then there are far more clues to lead you down the right path...and you can usually find more than one confirmatory source.
It is much harder when you are relying on copper plate parish records, bishops registers and the faded census forms.
My Ancestry 'shoebox' is full of 'maybe' ancestors...and the sad truth is I will probably never really know for sure.
It is still a tantalising pursuit.

Never mind Margaret it will kep you alive even if you go insane trying, I remember when I was indexing parish registers, one family line on Clayton, there were 3 sons who all took their first born son to be baptiised, and each was named John after their grandfather, all born with 12 months of one another, you'd be in your element with that lot, another greaat stumbling block is when the calender change took place, and the year started in January instead of Easter, if yu didn't watch it you coud have children dead before they were born, or should I say baptised. another one is some times a sickly child didn't get baptised till it was much older, as folk couldn't afford the vicars fees, if it was guing to die any way, some times the parents either forgot or didnt bother until compulsory registation came in. Just for you to have a laugh Margaret, I have ever been baptised either, thats appen why I'm such a you know what heathen