When is There Too Much History?

Once you get famous, or "historical" people in your family tree, you might find that you are just copying the history books instead of doing any real research.

I'm starting to wonder about my family tree research, and whether I need to come up with some new boundaries for collecting data. I spent a long time yesterday adding a list about 20-generations long of Gaelic and Scottish nobles, taken from an online published family tree. It was basically just a list of male heirs, with names like Iarn Gleo-Fhathach. No real hunting, just copying name after name (after name).

While I'm glad I found the information, because it led to ties to Roman Emperors and even back to the kings of Judah, I'm starting to feel like I'm just copying down the history books. There is little challenge in finding the parentage of most Roman Emperors. Everything I am finding at this point of my tree is well-documented and easily-found historic fact.

Yes, technically they are relatives. But how much time, energy and paper do I spend collating the information? I might be better off just adding a notation "See any encyclopedia to continue".

Well, it might be easier but I doubt I will do so. The thrill of seeing my tree branch out so hugely is worth the extra effort. I guess history comes to life in this manner, when I can see that I am a direct descendant of Charlamagne and so many other colourful figures. When I get the urge for more challenge, I can always go back to trying to find my American grand-parents on my father's side. My constant brick wall.