Ahnentafel numbers, I am curious ......

My lowest entry is my paternal grandfather (at no. 4) in 1911. (He is long since dead - the last survivor of my direct ancestors in the 1911 census died in 1982)
My highest is no. 125 in 1841- I think, it's not very easy to scan the 'My ancestors' page for Ahnentafel numbers.

 

2 is my lowest also, father aged 10 months on 1911 census.
My highest is 100

 

My lowest is 4 - my paternal grandfather. My highest is 82 - my 4x great grandfather born 1756.

Nobody from the 1911 is still alive, although I knew my Aunt who was born in 1906 very well. My mother was born too late for the census in 1914, but she is still alive age 100 and counting!

 

I love this feature and wouldn't have embarked on this thread if we didn't have access to it. I've also just had another look at the new feature that allows us to see the order in which we enter cousins. My very first entry, a family I marked, in properly hesitant fashion, as "possible relative", is still one I can't properly identify.

 

My lowest is also my father - age 6 - on the 1911 census. My highest is 62. I have a lot of gaps in the numbers because a quarter of my ancestors were Scottish.

 

I'm surprised how different our results are, Susan. My father was 13 on the 1911 census so older than yours, but not THAT much. Yet my highest are 31 and 32, forvone set of great-great grandparents, born (according to the 1841 census) in 1783 and 1791. I, too, have gaps because of Scottish and Irish ancestors.

 

This thread has reminded me that my ancestor number 227 was also still alive in 1841 but I have so far failed to find her in the census, despite now checking again. I also revisited numerous Ancestry trees which show her (along with some very strange information about her in some cases) and it seems no one else has found her in 1841 either.

In 1851 she was living with one of her married daughters so I checked out where all her children were in 1841. I still didn't find my ancestor but at least I now have her children and their families entered at LC, and I even managed to track down a couple of her siblings who were still alive in 1841. No new matches, though.

 

My 3xgt-grandparents - 6 sets on Lost Cousins - were all born in the 1780s and 1790s, so my family have somehow squeezed in an extra generation compared to yours, Gillian. My father was 43 when I was born, so I suppose most people of my age would expect to find grandparents rather than a parent in the 1911 census. My grandfather, on the other hand, was only 20 when my father was born.

 

Ah that explains the extra generation. My father was 41 when I was born but my grandfather was 43 when my father was born and my great grandfather was 42 when my gfather was born. Plenty of scope for an extra generation!!.

 

My lowest is also 2 - from 1911, my father, and then 5 - his mother. The rest are in double digits except for a 112 and 113 on my maternal side, from the 1841 census.

 

Generations can get badly out of step. I have a number of 4G grandparents around in 1841, but one of my 2G grandfathers was already middle aged then, and HIS father would have been nearly 100 had he lived until 1841.

 

As previously mentioned, my lowest is no 4 on 1911 census.
My highest alive on 1941 census is no.71
Currently highest on my tree is 265 (lots of gaps along the way)
Recording them as a list shows me where I need to try and fill in the missing ancestors. Some are as low as 24 - 27 and 48 - 63, it's a reminder that you can't be climbing all over your tree all of the time, and that following off - shoots can be very rewarding.

 

I do so agree and have been doing just that recently, following the movement of several brothers, including my 2xgt-grandfather, and their families from a village in Somerset to Portsmouth in the late 1800s. They started as smiths of one sort or another - black-, gun- or bright smiths - and ended up as engineers, some in the navy. It's also been a thrill finding great-aunts and great-uncles, whom I remember well from my childhood, on the 1911, 1901 and even the 1891 censuses when they were young themselves.

 

Following the tip to sort by type I can correct myself to say that the highest number on my ancestors page is 239 - with a birth date of '1761'

 

Looking at my list, these are my Irish ancestors, which will not be easy to trace,( hmm....if only I had a WDYTYA team...)
I must try harder with my Irish roots...spoilt by the relatively easy English online resources.

 

We can but dream emjay

 

Dusting off an old thread from 2015. I'd be interested to hear progress from the original contributors and comments from others.

 

Just picked up on this thread. I'd never sorted by type before, so thanks for the tip. My highest number is 238 (b. 1771) and my lowest is 4 (as both my parents were born after 1911). My husband's highest are 194 and 195; this couple were both in their 90s in 1841 (b. 1747 and 1750).

 

I would be surprised if anybody has because they would be 108 years old now.

My father was in the 1911 England census as a 1 month old but as he was born on 10 Feb he would have been 51 days old.