Finding out that you've made a mistake

[Bearcub]

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 

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.

[Mart 'n' Al]

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.

[BumbleB]

"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.

[clairec666]

So always consider if a 'mistake' is just someone who is mislocated 

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!

[Nick_Ips]

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. 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.

[Ayashi]

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?

[coombs]

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.

[groom]

Isn't it frustrating though when the wrong family turn out to be more interesting than the right one. 

[Mart 'n' Al]

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...