Genealogy Chat

Every bit of research I do is recorded on to my FTM program. I find that is the best way I can keep track of everything. This includes help I have given over the years to other researchers and contacts. Most connections are related in some way to me or my family but occasionally I will work on an unrelated connection too.

I don't haver a problem with using information that others have researched either but only after I have checked it independently for accuracy.

The hobby is there to be enjoyed. My philosophy is that you do what you enjoy and don't be swayed by what others think.

I do as Glasgow Lass does .........................


I find a marriage for a direct ancestor, the try to find the parentage of the spouse, and add their names.


but I don't usually then go trawling around that family.

I also try to find marriages for a direct ancestor **** and the parentage of the spouse, just to "round things out", but I don't usually follow those lines any further ...........


I have had a couple of cases where a future generation of my descendant has basically married a cousin or second cousin, so the research has come full circle, but 1 or 2 generations "in the future"




*** OOPS .............. meant to say, find marriages for siblings of a direct ancestor




edited Aug 13 6:35 am

one member on this site was always posting suggestions that trees be open to view by anyone, and that people should be "forced" to respond to requests ...................



he admitted he had well over 70,000 names in his "tree".

One advantage of Ancestry is you can view any connection to yourself.
Every person in tree has their relationship to home person and if you click on that relationship it will show a list of all the connections.
EG
John Rowe (1837 - )
is your 1st cousin 3x removed
John Huxtable Rowe (1809 - )
father of John Rowe
Daniel Rowe (1779 - 1877)
father of John Huxtable Rowe
Florence Rowe (1822 - 1897)
daughter of Daniel Rowe
Henry Abrahams (1845 - 1920)
son of Florence Rowe
John Henry Abrahams (1870 - 1952)
son of Henry Abrahams
Frederick John Abrahams (1915 - 1994)
son of John Henry Abrahams

Graham,
The wife of a tenth cousin etc would be exactly that.... his wife
However,as her husband shares your ancestry .... she would be the mother of their children who also share your ancestry
For me, that's what family research is, looking at direct descendants of direct ancestors.
Unless the wife, her parents or siblings have another connection, I have no interest in looking any further into her family.
There are some researchers who would take this further and find everything they can about her siblings, their marriages, children and their descendancy?
One dude had access to my tree as we have a set of ancestors in common.
For reasons that I never understood,he decided that absolutely every single person in my tree was related to him and attempted to add it all to his own tree, before I pulled the plug!

When I later asked him how he connected to a certain person ( My OH's line that he collected from my tree), he couldn't answer the question, because he couldn't keep track of how anyone connected to anyone else.
He insists that family history involves every person who is connected to another?
He has a tree with 27,000 individuals.yet his ancestry goes back just 4 generations.
I think his tree actually contains about 1000 blood relatives.

To be honest, my memory being what it is, if I didn´t make a note of info that I find, I would never know who was who.
As it is, I often have difficulty explaining a relationship when someone contacts me for info.

Just re-reading

You cannot add Gedcoms to your tree, all it will do is write over yours.

How many reliable records would you have for people from 10 generations ago? And is the wife of your tenth cousin four times removed really related to you?

Why would you want to print a large tree?

That's where computers excel. They cope with large trees and it is easy to make changes.

If a printout of a small part of the tree is needed it is easy to do with a family history program.

As for 23,000 relations, you only have to go back fifteen generations (on all branches) to have more than that number of direct ancestors.

OK so I am struggling with 8 generations on some branches, but if I were to include all siblings of direct ancestors and their offspring then I would have a tree of that sort of size.

I don't think Trees are about numbers. They are about accuracy of detail with one's ancestors . How do you print a Tree with thousands in it.? I raised this subject a few years ago and I seem to recall that someone had, or claimed to have, a Tree with 23,000......................how can you be reasonably related to 23000 people?.

I had a look at my own tree that I have on Ancestry.
Whilst I only research direct descendants of direct ancestors,the number of individuals in the tree is in excess of 17,000.

The "extras" are made up from parents and siblings of spouses who were married to my genealogical relatives.
When I locate a marriage, where possible, I try to find the spouse on the census prior to the marriage. This is to show that I have selected the correct person.

Although the parents and other siblings appear in the tree by default ( from census returns), unless they too have another link to any of my blood relatives, I do not do any further research on them.

If another researcher was to contact me to ask about any one of these individuals, I would, at least, be able to explain the exact connection

Yes,several times I have clicked on the "source" and found it bears no resemblance to the particulare tree-and has then been copied :-|

Citing records is helpful to others looking at your tree but not necessarily conclusive proof that the tree you have produced is correct.

Unfortunately there are far too many on-line trees about which have more source data than you would care to shake a stick at but which are completely incorrect. Some seem to thing that quantity over quality is what matters.

Conversely there are very many trees with no attached records or sources that are probably far more credible.

And then you get the `One Name Study` trees

I have seen one with all my grandmothers family in, because the tree owner was doing such a tree.

Not necessarily name collecting, just data collecting. And that kind of info may not always come from `scrumping` tress just some in depth detailed research.

I saw a Tree on Ancestry with 206,000 names - doubt the person had done more than upload other people's gedcoms. When I see huge Trees, I'm very reluctant to even contact owners; it's rare they can share anything relevant.

there are also the people who "name collect" from others :-)

Certificates aren't the only source of information. You can get a lot of information from parish records which won't normally show up as records on your tree.

Parish records are essential if you go back before 1837 and can also give you family members who were born and died between censuses.

I don't actually see the point of attaching 'records' to my tree. They aren't actually records; but entries from the bmd index that don't tell you the information you need. That information comes from certificates. Once you have the certificates you can add that information to your tree; but it won't show up as a record having being attached.

Having said that, it's unlikely that somebody with 4500 people on their tree would have all the relevent bmd certificates to prove that those 4500 people are related.

Only members who have paid for access can save records.

I don't remember seeing anywhere to add records on this site....went to ancestry after a few weeks..... Where they had a tree I could understand and records I could attach