Beware Ancestry trees!!!

[majm]

Age 52 is on familysearch from a cemetery transcription

Here's the link for that index   

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FLJP-T21

Cheers,  JM

[mgeneas]

Thanks for adding the link mjam. I tried to copy and paste the image but couldn't.

[bugbear]

Many, many threads on ancestry trees have been started and the moral is, always check the info yourself to see if it is correct.

That being said, they sometimes represent the family/personal knowledge of a descendent, available from no other source.

The trick is telling the difference...

 BugBear

[clairec666]

Many, many threads on ancestry trees have been started and the moral is, always check the info yourself to see if it is correct.

That being said, they sometimes represent the family/personal knowledge of a descendent, available from no other source.

The trick is telling the difference...

 BugBear

No harm in contacting them and asking where their information comes from....

[Flattybasher9]

"Do they all point to a lass who came to New South Wales, Australia? Yes they do. She was caught in the act trying to steal 10 guineas and 14 half guineas at Brigstock in 1803."

And you all thought that identity theft was a relatively new thing. 

Regards

Malky 

[ThrelfallYorky]

"And the moral of that is .... don't let yourself be one of the sad souls who adopt people almost at random onto their family tree".
It happens, I've also seen a family group that shows two brothers with the same name - born three years apart - and attributes the wife and family that results, and future generations, to the first born brother, (despite him dying within the year of being born!) Even the semi-relevant census entries do give ages more appropriate to the actual, younger brother, but - no, no notice is taken.
I've also seen families that I know are offspring and descendants of one man and his wife grafted onto another, (his cousin, actually, born in a slightly different place, and a few years older, who happened to have the same name, and wife with the same first name.) Researching a little further or more deeply would surely have shown the mistake - and the sheer tribe of children ascribed to the original couple would have required some very truncated gestation periods, and an inordinate fondness for giving their children the same names as their siblings!

[clairec666]

Ancestry's Hints have a lot to answer for. People see a record that looks like it fits, assume it's right, then set off down a completely wrong path.

[Ray T]

According to several trees on Ancestry, My 3x great grandmother is someone called "Ellen Knabby"; whoever she might be. At least they have the "Ellen" bit right! I've been thinking, for a while, of putting a couple of spurious people in a tree just to see how soon one of the name collectors takes up on it - rather like the company who produce the AtoZ maps insert spurious roads to catch out people who copy their maps.

[coombs]

You can use the trees as inspiration of course, but always double check, esp if some stuff looks iffy such as they appear in the 1880 US census as well as the 1881 UK census and 1900 US census as well as 1901 UK census or they die aged 150.