08 April 2017

Were your family members "stay at home" or "adventurer"?

A study reported here for Britain shows that while "the previous generation lived just five miles from where they were born on average, compared with 100 miles now."
Does that apply in your family?
I live 3,300 miles from my birthplace, 10 miles away until migrating. When I was born my parents lived 260 mi and 350 miles from their birthplaces, grandparents 3, 105, 140, and 145 miles. -- all within Great Britain.
What's the situation for your ancestors?


Anonymous said...

Definitely adventurers: my great-grandparents were born & married in Sheffield, moved to Birmingham; three of seven children went to Canada, one of them went on to California, one to New England and one returned to England. Two children emigrated to New England and stayed. Mother was born in Canada then to New England where she married and moved 1,300 miles to Florida. Her sister moved 3,000 miles to California and her children all moved at least 500 miles from there. Born in New England, I grew up in Florida, married and moved over 700 miles to North Carolina to settle. Sons born in Florida and NC. We don't plan any more moves, but who knows? It makes tracing ancestors more difficult while much more interesting.

Old Census Scribe said...

My ancestors who were adventurers were followed by a generation of stay-at-homes. For instance, my maternal grandfather was born in Rothesay, Scotland, and went to Glasgow where he married a local girl. They shortly went to Portrush in Ireland where they only stayed 2-3 years. They left in 1903 for Toronto. In their luggage was a Belleek "shell" teaset and a ladder chair made by my great-grandfather. In 1965 I emigrated from Toronto to England and eventually the teaset (with somewhat less pieces than originally) and the chair joined my household.