RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Mart 'n' Al on Friday 17 February 17 12:48 GMT (UK)
-
I wondered if anyone had any comments about finding out that you've made a mistake, and people who you thought were ancestors actually aren't. I recently had a mistake pointed out to me, that a branch of my Great great family aren't actually related. I'd grown quite fond of them and their adventures...
Martin
-
I did that year ago with my maternal grandfather - who died before I was born!
I knew he was named Sidney Sims from Wiltshire, but didn't know his middle name.
And there were 2 Sidney Sims, born about the same timeframe, in Wiltshire.
I followed the wrong one for a few months! :-[
-
I think that the thing about making a mistake is to be able to admit it. As we know from numerous threads on here, relating to mistakes on on-line trees, people are often very reluctant to acknowledge that they may have gone wrong and will carry on regardless. I'd much rather a mistake was pointed out, as long as the people doing so could show that they were correct.
I pointed out to someone that she'd given my grandfather a different middle name and married him off to the wrong woman, in a completely different part of the country. I offered to show her all the certificates etc. Her reply was that she thought it was wrong but it was the only one she could find that fitted! I notice that she still has him and his parents on her tree, but that's her loss, not mine.
-
Quite early in my research, I followed the wrong family.
Christopher Alston married Emily Fulham in late 1891, but I had trouble finding him in the 1891 census.
However, in 1881, there was Christopher only 4 miles away, with a different occupation and his age just a couple of years out, and a father with the right name and occupation to match the marriage. Well we all know of people whose ages are variable, and a teenager can easily end up with a different trade.
I traced this family back another generation or so, then searched the 1891 census more carefully for Christopher, who was no longer living with his now-widowed mother.
And I found him, as Christopher AUSTIN, living with his widowed father, within walking distance of his future bride. Right age and occupations too.
They were the AUSTIN family in 1881 and 1871 too. I was somewhat stunned. I'm not who I thought I was!
In 1861 though, it was AUSTEAD.
So I pruned a fair slice of my tree and started growing it afresh. I now know that my surname started out as Halstead, and it changed to Alston because that is what the priest THOUGHT he heard in 1891.
-
I've always read it as Walston, Andre!
-
I misread 'shoer' for 'grocer' ::) on a parish marriage record and happily traced back several generations of the grocer before realising it was wrong. Was quite sad as I'd found the grocer's house still in existence, but have altered my husband's tree :)
-
Many years ago I was following what I thought was my g.gran and her children. Names and ages fitted, it wasn't until someone pointed out to me that I was following the wrong family who lived in Norfolk and the correct family lived in Suffolk.
-
If you've enjoyed researching them you haven't really lost anything Martin... if anything you've now gained the opportunity to research a whole new line.
I have several 'fond of' lines which I've followed, even though I have no proof that they are related to me.
Also, don't throw away what you have done - unless they are wildly unrelated then you never know if maybe there is a connection albeit different to the one you thought.
Part of my research is in a small area of Norfolk. Yesterday I found a marriage which 'promoted' to first cousin status someone I'd added 15 years ago just for interest (linked only by a complex series of marriages and sibling relationships).
So always consider if a 'mistake' is just someone who is mislocated ;D
-
I've started off to do that once or twice - in part, that was why I started tracing all the possible lines I could find both backwards and forwards until I was completely certain - and with an unusual surname, that's meant that from time to time I've been able to provide a bit more easily accessible help to others hunting families with the same surname.
So don't regard it as waste - file it somewhere, either on paper as I do, where it can be retrieved fairly easily, or in an online tree that may help someone else. It's not a mistake - it's "wider research and elimination", isn't it?
-
If you've enjoyed researching them you haven't really lost anything Martin... if anything you've now gained the opportunity to research a whole new line.
I have several 'fond of' lines which I've followed, even though I have no proof that they are related to me.
Also, don't throw away what you have done - unless they are wildly unrelated then you never know if maybe there is a connection albeit different to the one you thought.
Part of my research is in a small area of Norfolk. Yesterday I found a marriage which 'promoted' to first cousin status someone I'd added 15 years ago just for interest (linked only by a complex series of marriages and sibling relationships).
So always consider if a 'mistake' is just someone who is mislocated ;D
I like what you have said. I have quite an unusual (or so I thought) surname in my tree and found lots of people and lots of interesting facts (sentenced to death and transportation to Australia etc), but then realised that they weren't directly in my line at all. However, I still feel that there will be a connection somewhere.... just need to go further back and try and find the common ancestor.
-
Nick_Ips, good advice. I've also got the reverse problem, three families of Loughboroughs living within a very small area of Durham city, who I just can't unite. They even all used different churches.
-
"He who never made a mistake, never made/did anything" ;)
I might have the whole of one of my lines incorrect, because I found a burial of a child at the age of 6 months, but my ancestor had the same forename, born around the same time, in the right place with an uncommon surname. I can account for all his brothers, and all his children give the same forename for their father at marriage - BUT I do have it in the back of my mind that I might have gone wrong somewhere.
-
So always consider if a 'mistake' is just someone who is mislocated ;D
If someone shares the same name as your ancestor, and comes from the same area, there's a good chance they're a cousin. I'd always keep them on my tree and try to connect them somehow.
As far as I know, I haven't made any huge mistakes. I've recently gone back over my early researched when I was pretty inexperienced, and thankfully haven't spotted any glaring errors. Although I've now found a couple of distant cousins alive and well on the 1939 register even though I thought they'd died earlier than that!
-
I think there will always be a tension between the 'name collectors' who'll add anything and the 'purists' who won't add anything without a double cross-checked primary source. ;D We all have our own ways of doing things.
When I started out my main source of information was microfilms at the Family Records Centre in Islington. It was a day trip to London (none of this free Ancestry weekends stuff ;) ) So by necessity I would look through a census parish at a time and transcribe all the people who had names that looked 'right'. Back at home I'd assemble them into mini-trees to work out how the bits fit together.
I still have some of those mini-trees (and some larger ones!) in my main database, unconnected to my main family... but they are there ready for when I find that missing link :)
That may work ok because most of my early work was in rural areas with relatively limited movement of people. I guess you've found a similar thing in Suffolk and Essex Claire. :)
When you get to cities it is less clear cut. Martin's Loughboroughs in Durham is a good example... it might just be coincidence that three families with the same name lived so close together.. but without doing the research you just never know.
One of my big unconnected families are SPANTONs. A really interesting and colourful family, the only connection being a death of a member of this family being noted in the diary of a SPANTON who is related to me. One day I was on my way to the FRC on the 38 bus, looking at notes I'd made about the unconnected SPANTONS. The woman sitting next to me apologised for being nosey asking why I was interested in the name as it was her partner's family name. We subsequently exchanged emails, but couldn't see a connection between his family and the ones I was researching. But it was another interesting thing that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't bothered looking into this family. If you have the time, don't limit yourself only to who you can prove to be family.
-
I've never been challenged on my tree and only usually challenge the trees of others if a) something is so badly wrong that I feel I have to (like someone dying aged 160, or the mother dying twenty years before the child is born etc) or b) I have information that they don't and that they might not be able to find on their end- for example, recently I got an ancestor's death certificate where the informant was a previously unknown individual that we suspect is a daughter whose christening we can't find. I found an online tree who was descended from this child who had latched on to a slightly outrageous christening for their ancestor and I presented my supposition and attached the documents I had.
It is entirely possible I've got areas of my tree that I don't know are wrong yet. I wonder if I'll ever find out?
-
I once found out that my ancestor George Musgrave was born in Evenwood, Durham in 1856. I looked on the 1881 census on FamilySearch (this was before all other censuses were released) and found George Musgrave, he was married by then, but I then found a Henry Musgrave born c1858 in Evenwood still living with parents Henry and Elizabeth so assumed they were George's by name and birthplace. But when more censuses came online I found George was the son of Thomas and Ann.
A few times I have climbed (direct ancestor wise) the wrong tree but found the tree was extended family.
-
Isn't it frustrating though when the wrong family turn out to be more interesting than the right one. ;D
-
Nick_Ips, Nick, I am convinced my 3 Loughborough families are related, it is just such an unusual name, (disregarding the 31 alternative spellings). However, I am back to early 1700s and can find no link. One day...
-
I made a mistake with my husband's Lawtons in Cheshire. I was quite upset to discover it as I'd gone a good way back. I think it's made me check things more thoroughly. I have a Smith born 1800 in the Accrington area in Lancashire and looked at every Smith in the wider area to be certain of mine. I now have lots of trees for Smiths who aren't mine, cb
-
Isn't it also frustrating when you think you have found a possible ancestor baptism but then find a burial within a year of that person which says "infant son of..." or an inconvenient marriage in the same parish or a nearby one 20 years later to a totally different spouse and they had children for years after.
One of my genealogy books said the IGI has very few burials unlike baptisms and marriages so the person you think is an ancestor may have died as a child.
-
I've not been challenged that often once I'd just made a stupid typo, in the form of 1780 rather than 1870. Once I was told that I had the wrong birth for myself because I don't exist and my parents didn't have me and another time it turned out we both had the correct James for our tree but were researching different James.
The biggest mistake I have discovered in my tree so far (barring the umpteen typos I've had to fix) was the father of my grt grt grandfather Campbell. On his death and marriage certificates his parents were John Campbell and Jessie Macpherson. His age on death and in the census suggested he was born about 1856 yet I could not find his actual birth record. I also found a record of a marriage for john Campbell and Jessie MAcpherson which fitted what I knew in my grt grt grandfather's older siblings. Years of research later I still couldn't find my grt grt grandfather's birth and had all sorts of theories ie he's been born earlier than I thought and before civil reg or he hadn't been registered because it was early days and they lived rurally. I then found John's death in September 1855 and on a whim searched for a birth under Macpherson and found my grt grt grandfather registered that way over a year after his "father's" death. Fifteen years on compeletly the wrong track.
-
Also I once discarded an entry of a marriage in 1866 that took place far away from the usual place of residence due to the distance but I found the mothers maiden name on a children's birth cert matched the marriage. It shows that while it may be a long way away, dont immediately discard such an entry, at the same time dont blatantly accept it if it is the only one you can find. Investigate further.
My ancestor vanished after 1891 in England and I found him in 1900, in America.
-
Once I was told that I had the wrong birth for myself because I don't exist and my parents didn't have me
:o
This boggles the mind! Who on earth did this person think they were talking to if they were convinced you didn't exist? A figment of their imagination with an Ancestry account?
I've made lots of mistakes, partly from making wrong assumptions and partly from a lack of understanding and knowledge about the past.
For example, just recently I re-added a relative I had previously discounted because I was confused about his profession. I knew he was a weaver, but I had other records that suggested he was in the army for years. I thought these two seemed mutually exclusive but then I found his Chelsea pensioner records and found that he was both a soldier and a weaver.
We are all on a learning curve!
-
I've done it only once and learned from my mistake. A great grandmother, turned out she had the same name, born in the same year, in the same town, and having the same father's name as another! - Common name being Elizabeth Brown, with a father - William and the mother Elizabeth!. Followed the line all the way back, links to a 'big house'. It was only at a family renunion when someone mentioned something that made me think twice. I hadn't bothered to buy the birth certificate as I thought I had the correct one and I'd spent so much money at the time on certificates. Now I always buy certificates.
-
Thanks to Ancestry's free weekend, I've unearthed a mistake on my tree, so a whole branch of relatives have been moved back onto the "maybe" pile.
I'd reached a brick wall with my ancestor, Elizabeth Pardoe - all I had was a rough date of birth and a county, and a possibly baptism. I was chasing up her possible siblings, and one of them (Hannah) turned up a few doors down from Elizabeth's family in 1851. Only it turns out it might have been a completely different Hannah. So I'm back to square one with Elizabeth again.
-
The good bit with an unusual surname like Threlfall, is that if you trace any line far enough back they usually end up related, and all in the same small area in modern lancashire! So the "dead end" lines I've followed back and forward to eliminate them from my line, have sometimes been useful to other searchers after people with the same surname.
-
Regretfully I was actually responsible for chopping off a whole branch of some one trees. We had entered into correspondence about an ancestor when I realised that some thing didn't quite add up. We infact didn't have a common link. He had identified the wrong Edward Nicholson on his tree. I debated long and hard about revealing his mistake to him but in the end knew that if it were me I'd rather know. He did seem grateful but I still feel quite guilty about my drastic pruning of his tree. Elaine
-
Not sure if this might be repeating something already stated but the GRO now show the mothers Maiden name on their birth records which can be searched for free. This means that you are now able to identify siblings more easily. I was finally able to put a name to a great Aunt who I knew existed from the 1911 census but hadn't been able to name. Eureka!! There are a few pit falls to watch out for though. I was very confused for a while during one search. I wasn't ablle to find a marriage that fitteed until I realised that the lady in question had been married previously.
I have PARDOE relatives in my tree to( Worcestershire) can I help at all.
-
In the last few days I have corrected an error right at the top of the tree so no major pruning thankfully. My mistake was taking a transcripted overview of an early memorial deed (Ireland) as being correct. Up until this point, I had at the top of this line, Francis Creed born around 1680, married 1702 to an Elizabeth. The deed had Francis Creed, living in the same place with a wife called Sarah Owens daughter of Jeffery Owens. I thought, this must be the father of my Francis. Now, having seen an image of the document on Family Search (recent release!) It states quite clearly that Francis Creed bought the land from Jeffery Owens and his wife Sarah Owens! So scrub Francis and Sarah... and browsed around looking for more deeds for names I recognised and low and behold I found it! Francis Creed of... eldest son and heir of John Creed senior of.... Within a couple of days I had gone removed a generation and now back on plus the other siblings. I had already drawn up a rough tree for John Creed (he lived within a mile of my Francis) as I had guessed there was a connection somewhere, just I didn't know where. It's all now falling into place.
So the moral is, don't assume a transcription is 100% correct, always try and see the original if possible. we all make mistakes but I had transferred someone else's error into my tree because of it!
-
Oh I've done this a few times. Traced back what I thought was my 3 x great grandmother, to 17th century France. Only to discover it was the wrong person. Her name was Janet Boa, born in Peebleshire around 1818. Trouble is there are around 5 people with the same name, born in or around that area, with different parents all called Boa. Turns out my Janet died in the poorhouse in 1902. Cant find who her parents were, just that it is written in the poor law records in the mitchell library that she was the illegitimate daughter of Mary. Her daughter was called Marion, and apparently she also had two sons, William and John who I'd never heard of either. Being illegitimate, her real name might not even be Boa. Dont know if that was her mothers name or her fathers. Marion was registered as Boa when she was born, although her marriage cert says her father was John Wilson. Also all of marions children were called Boa at some point in their lives, despite most of them being born out of wedlock, to different men. Very hard to trace people when they give themselves their fathers names later on in life, when you assume they have the same name as the rest of their brothers and sisters. Still might be a French connection tho......
-
We've all done it.
The question is ... what do you do when you reach something that you can't be sure about? Do you stop researching further back until you can be sure, or do you keep researching the line and hope that you're right?
I keep researching ... because sometimes you find something further back which either confirms or undermines your assumption (like a will two generations further back that names loads of grandchildren but not your ancestor ... ).
What I do when I know that an attribution is uncertain is to mark it as tentative ... and everyone further back is at least single tentative, but may become double tentative or even triple tentative.
Then again, I've had to remove some who weren't tentative at all, but still turned out to be wrong!
I never regret or resent having to do so. Once I'm certain they aren't my ancestors, they don't belong in my tree, so it's over the side they go. But I've usually gained some useful research skills while looking them up, so it's all to the good in the end. :)
-
Also, don't throw away what you have done - unless they are wildly unrelated then you never know if maybe there is a connection albeit different to the one you thought.
I keep separate trees for each grandparent. I didn't have a marriage for a distant cousin called Mary Holmes but I hadn't tried very hard either.
Recently I was looking at some other cousins of a different grandparent. Their son was Fred. Up popped a marriage to Mary Holmes whose father was a maltster. It's the same Mary Holmes. That tied up some loose ends nicely.
-
Isn't it frustrating though when the wrong family turn out to be more interesting than the right one. ;D
Yes. The wrong line seems to have been involved with the law, or they travelled a lot, had army service or been local landowners, then you find you made a mistake and the right family were mundane ag labs who never ventured more than 2 miles from their birthplace.
As said we are only human and any genealogist who says they never made a mistake in their research would be exaggerating I think.
-
The question is ... what do you do when you reach something that you can't be sure about? Do you stop researching further back until you can be sure, or do you keep researching the line and hope that you're right?
The answer to that must depend a lot on the rarity of the family surname. My research has been fairly easy, as my tree has no surname less rare than a Robinson, who was female so lost the name on marriage ;). All the rest were uncommon (see the list below).
Even with an unusual surname, in a small village, and with a strong tradition of recycling forenames, it can still get complicated. I visited an ancestral churchyard in Suffolk and was surrounded by Edmund tombstones, but none of them the ones I was looking for ....
-
If you've enjoyed researching them you haven't really lost anything Martin... if anything you've now gained the opportunity to research a whole new line.
Also, don't throw away what you have done - unless they are wildly unrelated then you never know if maybe there is a connection albeit different to the one you thought.
In my case I had terrible trouble locating the origin of one of my ggg gfs, James Johnson Donbavand. The only likely James in the 1841 census had been ruled out by everyone else as dying as a teenager. They had an exact date of death, which usually indicates sight of a death certificate or gravestone.
I ended up with a separate database of possible families, covering several variant of the surname, hoping to locate his by a process of elimination.
Eventually I sent off for the death cert, and learned that the teenager was actually my chap's cousin, and the lad seen in 1841 HAD to be mine.
But what to do with all this data?
The Dunbabin One Name Study was born!
-
I have Cackamole/Cattermole ancestry. Dorcas, daughter of Joseph and Martha born in 1712 in Monk Soham, Suffolk. I believe they connect to the Cackamole family of Dickeburgh/Garboldisham but cannot yet find cast iron evidence. Some trees on Anc seem to have Joseph's parents listed but I cannot find a baptism myself in the said village. You can end up climbing the line of recycled name cousins instead of the direct line, but it can help in the end, as it can be one line of the family that you had researched.
-
Dorcas, daughter of Joseph and Martha born in 1712 in Monk Soham, Suffolk. I believe they connect to the Cackamole family of Dickeburgh/Garboldisham
Now, admit it ... the effort you have invested in your research has all been worthwhile, just for these names alone, has it not??
-
Dorcas, daughter of Joseph and Martha born in 1712 in Monk Soham, Suffolk. I believe they connect to the Cackamole family of Dickeburgh/Garboldisham
Now, admit it ... the effort you have invested in your research has all been worthwhile, just for these names alone, has it not??
Yes very much so. Dorcas born 1712 had a namesake born 1652 so they probably are related. Pity people with the name Smith did not use Dorcas more often, or even Cornelius Smith.
-
How wonderful to have such colourful names!
I very much envy those whose families seemed to stay in a local area for generations so that visiting churchyards, villages can bring back some life into those now departed. So far I've not been that lucky!
One side of my family BANGERTER is a lovely one to research though (in the UK) as typing in just the surname brings up the whole family who are related to my gt. g'father and his brother. I have been very fortunate to find quite a few living cousins and extended family and we have corresponded and helped move along up and down the line.
Now my GUY family I've hit a block with the whereabouts to my 2xgt g'father Henry Guy. I have him married in 1825 to Sarah Sophia Dunn and on downwards through to current family BUT I can't quite determine who his parents were. I think I've found them and have worked the family through with siblings but so far no definite confirmation.
Now my Harris or Harriss( apparently correct as g. G'ma always made of saying with 2 'R's and 2 'S's) I've had a few wrong turns with them as they suddenly added this extra S!! It doesn't help when all the children's names from all the different families were the same. I often wonder if a child got lost somewhere and turned up at the home of Fred Harris(S) anyone would notice as they had one with the same name!! Sorry that being quite flippant.
I love all this detective work but sometimes it drives you to distraction and you almost feel 'well I'll add that person in because I've exhausted everything else and you never know he could be right'....
Just going back to Henry Guy for the moment his wife was Sarah Sophia Dunn and they were both born around 1800-1805. Now her father was Joseph Dunn a draper mother called Elizabeth Dimery. I've found a John Guy who seems to have had a connection with the drapery trade and just wondered if that could be a link?
Can't find any details for an Elizabeth Dimery outside Gloucestershire and all the rest of Guys and Dunn's are London based. So really stuck now and not sure where to go! If anyone has any bright ideas please feel free to suggest.
It's all too easy to get carried away and add a line that isn't right and that seem more interesting.
Caroline
-
One big mistake I made was when I ordered the birth cert of George Musgrave in 1856. I got the cert and got Robert and Jane as parents instead of Thomas and Ann, correct birthplace. I thought he was really the son of Robert and Jane and was adopted by his uncle Thomas. Then I found 2 George Musgrave's baptised in 1856 in Evenwood, son son of Thomas and one son of Robert and Robert's son died in January 1860 aged 3. One registered, one wasn't one died, one didn't.