Sorry, but family history really is bunk

Demetrios Hadjinicolaou

I would humbly but gladly endorse this article. You are absolutely right, Mr McKinstry.

Craig

I confess to being one of that growing number digging into my family history. This is not so much because I am bothered what my ancestors consisted of, so much as the actual origins of my surname. 'Oo, that's different isn't it - where does it come from?' is a frequent question and on some simplistic level I am irritated that I cannot answer.

Ann Jarman

I agree with you Mr. McKinstry.

TDK

The John Hurt episode was instructive. It is strange that a man who had many known English ancestors but only a suspected distant Irish ancestor, should regard himself as being "Irish". Even if the ancestor had been found the claim remains nonsense based solely upon proportionality. Clearly the value in claiming membership of a certain group, however tenuous, ranks higher than being English. This isn't inverted snobbery so much as victimhood poker. Far better to claim to be a victim of English oppression than to be English.

The Sue Johnson episode was another that revelled in bien pensant attitudes.

Angie

What a mean spirited piece. That people have a hobby they enjoy, which harms no one and gives them a sense of achievement along with (I venture to disagree with McKinstry here) an appreciation of the lives our ancestors lived, is admirable.

Perhaps Mr Mc would like to disclose his hobbies so we can see just how superior he fancies himself to be in his spare time. Was it bonsai or stamp collecting perhaps?

William Barr

Our bicentennial in 1976 produced a huge interest in genealogy. As a result, no organization grew so extensively, in terns of numbers and community involvement and activism. as did the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Good luck finding anything recognizably American today outside Dixie, where probably a third of the Saxons still know who they really are and why our brave history matters now more than ever.

Josh

Why bother with the study of history at all? Or is it that the personal histories of the 'plebs' are unimportant? This smells of the snobbish arrogance of which Mr McKinstry is so reproachful.
I agree that this is no substitute for real identity but to have sat in a pub which was frequented by a man through whom my name was passed, 300 years ago - well, it was interesting and quite a good feed!

Henry Fowler

The saddest (and oddest) case in 'Who Do You Think You Are?' was that of Amanda Redman, who found that her Protestant Irish ancestors were only Protestant for convenience – in divided 18/19th Century Ireland, ruled by Protestant England, this gave them a better chance of work than Catholics. When she discovered that her ancestors had really been Catholic, she celebrated this as some great triumph. She might as well have said "Hurrah! We're Catholics! We're oppressed!"

iskidmore

I suppose if my name ws McKinstry I would be hesitant in exploring my origins. Since I have genetic proof of my ancestry over 15,000 years and documentary proof that my family came to England at the request of Edward the Confessor, provided a Gentleman of the Bedchamber to Henry 8, had a finger broken by Elizabeth the First, refused to learn French when appointed Charles 2's Ambassador to France and introduced the cyder industry to Hereford my genealogy has enlivened a love of history

SNL

A timely article from Mr McKinstry and several pertinent comments posted so far from those who share his dislike of specious self-importance. Not mentioned, however, is the futility of ascribing significance to one's ancestry from a genetic perspective.

We have two parents and share 50% of our genetic composition with each; four grandparents with whom we share 25% each, and so on. After 10 generations (which means going back only some 200 years or so) we share less than 0.1% of our genetic composition with any particular ancestor.

So, if after much laborious research, we uncover an ancestral link to, say, William the Conquerer we can hardly bask in the reflected glory of this noble forefather as we are no more closely related to him, in terms of shared genes, than we are to anybody else in the general population.

Beyond a few generations lineage-hunting, focussing as it does on a mere scintilla of the ancestry of a living individual, is therefore not only dubious in terms of taste but also scientifically meaningless.

Gingerpig

What a strange and possibly snooty piece. I am sure that many have indeed found a sense of identity through Genealogy. Where they came from, why their ancestors moved, the impact of two wars as a couple of examples let alone a better understanding of our industrial past.

laurie macdonell-sanchez

I agree with the Chinese--we must revere our ancestors, if for nothing else, because their struggle to survive in far harsher times, their ingenuity & their sheer tenacity are what got all of us here for our turn on the planet. It gives us a greater sense of responsibility in choosing what we do with our own lives, prompting us to give our lives more dimension & meaning.

Murray Williamson

What a precious little piece!

No doubt McKinstry was engaged in something of monumental importance while he observed family historians pursuing their hobby. I'm surprised that he found time to write it.

In my expereince family history really does inspire a regard for more general history - eg, why did they leave there? Why did they go there? What was life like at that time in that place?

Janice Pink

I think this entire article has overtones of snobbery. Why assume that those of us who enjoy researching our families' past are ignorant of national history? For myself, and doubtless for many, it was my fascination with English history that led me to wonder about my ancestors' role in it. Yes they were as dull a crowd of farmers as ever ploughed the fields and scattered but they were part of England's history too.

Richard David Elliott

Imagine my surprise when I discovered I was related to Sir Evelyn Wrench (Editor of The Spectator 1925-32)