You know how the Mormons keep genealogy records for, like, everyone they possibly can? I am American so we may be more mixed than some places but those records went back pretty far and out in a lot of directions geographically. No overlap, lots and lots of people. I mean at some point mathematically it’s more people than the population of the world so you have to be right but they had 20 or more generations in some directions, it was thousands of people on that chart going back hundreds of years, it was crazy.
I also did notice that most of my ancestresses did marry between 25-28, not 14 as Little House on the Prairie had me believing before.
25-28 sounds about right for men. For women that seems way to old, 14 is still very young, but around 20-23 was common.
Also keep in mind that a church could bend the truth and just not publish the overlap. You can have a few branches going way back and just be unknown on those that overlap with them.
I was very surprised too, but that’s what the records showed. Of course the records that go on are well off Europeans and English and Irish, and the ones who were in Louisiana since it was French. I can’t know anything about the rest. I did expect to find what we would consider child brides but no, way more were mid-20s. I was under the (apparently quite mistaken) impression that the past was more “marry young or be considered unfit”. Didn’t really note the ages of the guys, as I didn’t have any preconceptions about that.
My own mom was 30 when she married, had 4 kids pretty quickly. Her mom married at 24. Her grandma, though, at 18. But on my dad’s side it’s 25, 27, 20, 22, 25, if I go up the patrilineal line. Which gets up back to the freaking 1700s, seems so long ago. But even back to the 1600s, one 16 year old & 2 who were 25.
I found that remarkable but more it seems likely that my perception was shaped by stories, and less likely that my dad’s family was outliers.
Mathematically it’s a lot. Realistically a lot of those ancestors end up being common after 4-6 generations.
You know how the Mormons keep genealogy records for, like, everyone they possibly can? I am American so we may be more mixed than some places but those records went back pretty far and out in a lot of directions geographically. No overlap, lots and lots of people. I mean at some point mathematically it’s more people than the population of the world so you have to be right but they had 20 or more generations in some directions, it was thousands of people on that chart going back hundreds of years, it was crazy.
I also did notice that most of my ancestresses did marry between 25-28, not 14 as Little House on the Prairie had me believing before.
25-28 sounds about right for men. For women that seems way to old, 14 is still very young, but around 20-23 was common.
Also keep in mind that a church could bend the truth and just not publish the overlap. You can have a few branches going way back and just be unknown on those that overlap with them.
I was very surprised too, but that’s what the records showed. Of course the records that go on are well off Europeans and English and Irish, and the ones who were in Louisiana since it was French. I can’t know anything about the rest. I did expect to find what we would consider child brides but no, way more were mid-20s. I was under the (apparently quite mistaken) impression that the past was more “marry young or be considered unfit”. Didn’t really note the ages of the guys, as I didn’t have any preconceptions about that.
My own mom was 30 when she married, had 4 kids pretty quickly. Her mom married at 24. Her grandma, though, at 18. But on my dad’s side it’s 25, 27, 20, 22, 25, if I go up the patrilineal line. Which gets up back to the freaking 1700s, seems so long ago. But even back to the 1600s, one 16 year old & 2 who were 25.
I found that remarkable but more it seems likely that my perception was shaped by stories, and less likely that my dad’s family was outliers.
And in certain parts of the world a significant portion of those ancestors is Genghis Khan.