Early Assumptions

[groom]

How about a new TV show where relatives recount what they believe is the family history as told to them.  We could call it "Who Do You Think You Are Kidding" 

That's a good idea - people could tell us what they believe about their family and RCers could set about showing that it isn't true! Mind you the best ones have always been when someone starts off thinking that their ancestor was quite ordinary and we've shown otherwise.

[Treetotal]

Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" 
Carol

Oh yes Carol, definitely. We've had a few great ones haven't we when someone turns out to be someone completely different?   

We certainly have...more entertaining than T.V.  We have had plenty of family sagas on here 

How many times have posters told us that their relative definitely was not illegitimate, a bigamist, a criminal etc. 

Carol

How about a new TV show where relatives recount what they believe is the family history as told to them.  We could call it "Who Do You Think You Are Kidding" 

(p.s. - Carol - my late father was all three!)

Your family history certainly isn't boring and run of the mill then. A bit of mystery and scandal can add a bit of spice to the family history...certainly a talking point eh Philip 
Carol

[Rishile]

I wrongly assumed that the parents knew the ages and names of their children but when there are 16 children, they can be a bit difficult to keep up with.  Two children (both living) were named William but 'called' something totally different on the census.  Ages were totally mixed up and the only definite people were the parents.

I also assumed that I would be able to work my way back quite easily and that all marriages, births and deaths would be recorded accurately.

Rishile

[philipsearching]

I wrongly assumed that the parents knew the ages and names of their children but when there are 16 children, they can be a bit difficult to keep up with.

So funny, and so true.

[aghadowey]

I wrongly assumed that the parents knew the ages and names of their children but when there are 16 children, they can be a bit difficult to keep up with.

My father only has two daughter and I assumed he knew not only their names but exactly when and what order they were born since there's four years difference in age... until the census form where the younger one almost became two years old than her sister

I also assumed that my parents would have remembered to baptise all their children but I was mistaken there too 

[Geoff-E]

Armed with burial dates and places of  several ancestors, I thought I could simply go to those places in Lincs and see gravestones.

The first day, four churchyards and one cemetery later, I realised things weren't quite as easy as that. 

[groom]

Oh yes, that's another one - assuming they all had headstones and an obituary.

[philipsearching]

And perhaps my biggest incorrect assumption - that I would be able to trace all my ancestors in England back to the 16th century 

(three men named James Carter in the same village in the 1780s, two of them with wives named Ann, all three couples had daughters called Ann - no way of knowing which ones were my ancestors!)

[familydar]

You mean you didn't have a butcher a baker and a candlestick maker, you had three ag labs?  How inconsiderate of them!