Home› Welcome to the FamilySearch Community!› Ask a Question› Search

No Records Before 1400? Just a question out of curiosity. It seems there are virtually no records

LegacyUser
LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
September 19, 2020 edited August 16, 2024 in Search
Holmes Moody said: I just wonder why there seem to be few records prior to 1400. Is it a system capacity issue? Is it that no one kept official records before that date? Purely a question out of curiosity; not a problem. FamilySearch is a great system.
Tagged:
  • New
0

Best Answer

  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 19, 2020 Answer ✓
    Jordi Kloosterboer said: The churches only started collecting info for baptisms, marriages, etc after 1500s for most European countries I think.
    0

Answers

  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 19, 2020
    Holmes Moody said: Thank you. I would have assumed that absence of an official recording and collecting mechanism was the principal reason.
    0
  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 19, 2020
    A van Helsdingen said: Generally, you are lucky in European countries to trace back to 1700. Older records often exist only for the wealthier and aristocratic parts of society.
    0
  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 19, 2020
    Holmes Moody said: Point taken. I had noticed that in the distant centuries everyone was Sir or Lord or Baron or Knight or Sheriff, etc. I concluded that only the nobility and royalty kept records, and until the 1700s (apparently) that was true. Thankfully, the church decided there was value in recording everyone. Thank you for your input.
    0
  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 19, 2020
    A van Helsdingen said: Yes, only in the 16th century did both Protestants and Catholics start keeping records for the entire population. But many of these earlier records haven't survived.
    0
  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 19, 2020
    Holmes Moody said: I have observed that even royalty records had a stopping point about the 14th century. I have encountered instances of King So and So with Unknown Parents, and I know that historians must have that information. Surely, kings did not just pop up from unknown sources. It is an interesting and rewarding pastime, to be sure.
    0
  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 20, 2020
    Gordon Collett said: Here is a very nice blog article by James Tanner that gives a pretty thorough discussion about research prior to 1400 that has very interesting information related to your question:
    https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2...
    0
  • LegacyUser
    LegacyUser ✭✭✭✭
    September 20, 2020
    Holmes Moody said: The article is extremely informative and has given me an understanding of records and sources that I should have thought about but did not. My own "research" rides on the shoulders of others, as I have not attempted to do anything original, just use the work of true researchers to build a tree of my own ancestors. Thank you very much for providing the link to this valuable article.
    0
This discussion has been closed.
Clear
No Groups Found

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 42.7K Ask a Question
  • 3.3K General Questions
  • 568 FamilySearch Center
  • 6.7K Get Involved/Indexing
  • 640 FamilySearch Account
  • 6.5K Family Tree
  • 5.1K Search
  • 994 Memories
  • 2 Suggest an Idea
  • 473 Other Languages
  • 62 Community News
  • Groups