Becoming too invested in one ancestor?

[coombs]

When doing genealogy do you ever become invested in one certain ancestor or one certain line, so much so that you totally leave other lines?

For instance I have become invested in my ancestor James Smith c1789-1849. Tin plate worker and brazier. (As said in my "Should I give up due to the common name thread")Lived in Oxford, Oxfordshire in 1841, not born in county, and was dead by 1851. And with a name like James Smith it is no easy task. In the past week or so I have made a few leads which could help so I feel a bit more relaxed but if I find the trail goes cold again, it may make me even more determined, or totally give up on him. He may be connected to Marsh Gibbon, Buckinghamshire. When he married in Oxford in 1819, one of the witnesses was Hannah Hawkes. More sleuthing found that her aunty Elizabeth born 1767 married a Joseph Smith in 1786. A good possible lead, but with a name like Smith, you must use caution. I since found a Thomas Smith aged 70, not born in county, a tin plate worker living in Marsh Gibbon in 1841.

FindMyPast has some Bucks records but unfortunately the Marsh Gibbon post 1754 marriages are from bishops transcripts instead of the original register. Often I have found that BT's just listed the name, date of wedding and parish for post 1754 marriages whereas the original register has witnesses, what parish, and often marital status. Witnesses to marriages in our ancestors are very vital.

James Smith is an example of an ancestor who I have virtually been channelling all my energy into in regards to my ancestry lately. It can be overwhelming.

[River Tyne Lass]

I think the thing to do is just follow your heart when researching.  If your heart is telling you to just focus on one ancestor then I would just follow that course.

I once read a line on here .. sorry I can't remember now who penned it .. along the lines of 'they will be found when they want to be found'.

In my case, there is one ancestor in particular who maddenlngly, apparently doesn't want to be found.   This is my Great x 2 Grandmother, Elizabeth Conroy wife of James Conroy last seen in Durham living with daughter Mary Watson in 1881.  I am starting to think she may have gone to Scotland.   Over the census, different people in the census keep nipping of to Scotland, Lanarkshire in particular.  Perhaps she may be hiding there!

Coombs don't give up with an ancestor with a common name.  I have been able to find common name ancestors several times.  You just never know when a lucky break may be around the corner!

[iluleah]

Oh yes and lulled me into a false sense of security about my research abilities
One line stayed in the same village for at least 800 yrs and it was only when I had exhausted all and any records from PRs to manorial and started to find nothing did I go to another line  and it was like I knew nothing at all about how to research as they moved around, changed their names and married people with surnames like 'Smith'...   

[Mariblog]

Definitely YES!  My mission was to identify my great grandmother, who, it became evident, was my adoptive GGM. Her own heritage was misidentified in the documents at hand. Thinking them true, I stubbornly sought her out, for far too long. Moving on to other relatives as proxy, I found the biological side of things (maybe: no DNA) to finish my book Double Genealogy: the Adoption Witness.

Adoptive GGM's past actually emerged late in the research, but there are many who will remain hidden in the past, who can be well hinted by the study of those around them.

[coombs]

Oh yes and lulled me into a false sense of security about my research abilities
One line stayed in the same village for at least 800 yrs and it was only when I had exhausted all and any records from PRs to manorial and started to find nothing did I go to another line  and it was like I knew nothing at all about how to research as they moved around, changed their names and married people with surnames like 'Smith'...   

I remember you saying in my Smith thread that you had a John Smith who died before 1851 and alive in 1841, and he said he was not born in county of residence in 1841, and how in the end you managed to find the right John Smith? Was he born in a neighbouring county or even further afield?

We are both in the same boat with a common name ancestor not born in county in 1841 census but dead by 1851 census.

[iluleah]

John Smith lied or maybe he didn't, he was 'baptised' in the county of Huntingdon but as far as I researched his mothers family were from there. He was in Rutland and that is where he lived in 1841 and I have his parents as witnesses to peoples marriages in Rutland, I have 'work invoices' showing his father worked in Rutland so maybe his mother returned home to mum for the birth and baptism in the 'family' church ( all this found afterwards, it took me a long time and the research was completely illogically found)

I found him by researching his children and then their extended lines  and went off on lines completely unrelated to me finding one of his  childrens' husband as a visitor on later census in Huntingdon...........and an off the wall AhAh moment of 'could Huntingdon be a potential place? Looked at the PRs ( just in case)...and found his baptism and his parents marriage.
Lots of piecing bits and pieces together, checking and double checking, cross referencing etc

[coombs]

John Smith lied or maybe he didn't, he was 'baptised' in the county of Huntingdon but as far as I researched his mothers family were from there. He was in Rutland and that is where he lived in 1841 and I have his parents as witnesses to peoples marriages in Rutland, I have 'work invoices' showing his father worked in Rutland so maybe his mother returned home to mum for the birth and baptism in the 'family' church ( all this found afterwards, it took me a long time and the research was completely illogically found)

I found him by researching his children and then their extended lines  and went off on lines completely unrelated to me finding one of his  childrens' husband as a visitor on later census in Huntingdon...........and an off the wall AhAh moment of 'could Huntingdon be a potential place? Looked at the PRs ( just in case)...and found his baptism and his parents marriage.
Lots of piecing bits and pieces together, checking and double checking, cross referencing etc

Similar to what I am doing with my James Smith. The witnesses on his wedding are the 2 leads I have been following. I think the London born witness Andrew Carney may have just been a friend who worked in the same trade as I have done lots of research into James Carney's (Andrew's father, as Andrew said on his 3rd wedding in 1842) in London. The most likely is a James Carney who wed Mary Mattison in 1777 in St Martin In The Fields as I think Andrew came from that area as he wed in Soho in 1809. Andrew was born c1788. Not yet found his baptism or any siblings. I cannot find any Mattison marriages to a Smith or Carney marriages to a Smith that would fit.

But as said, the 1st witness to James Smith's marriage:- Hannah Hawkes had an aunty who wed a Joseph Smith in Marsh Gibbon, Bucks. Food for thought but nothing concrete. Hannah may have been a friend of the bride or groom and her aunt wed a Smith, and Smith is a popular name.

I am following my heart and doing lots of digging into James Smith, he is my ancestor of interest.

[iluleah]

I did 95% of my John Smith research pre internet so it was very difficult and took years of visiting records offices, grave yards etc however have found other records online since.

I often find trying to prove someone isn't an ancestor easier (reverse psychology maybe) and I tend to go off on a tangent with non related extended family especially if I find the family interesting or they open up other records I have not researched before ( as my lot are normal hard working, non criminals) however this has helped me.

[coombs]

I did 95% of my John Smith research pre internet so it was very difficult and took years of visiting records offices, grave yards etc however have found other records online since.

I often find trying to prove someone isn't an ancestor easier (reverse psychology maybe) and I tend to go off on a tangent with non related extended family especially if I find the family interesting or they open up other records I have not researched before ( as my lot are normal hard working, non criminals) however this has helped me.

I bet you were over the moon when you got your breakthrough.

I am lucky to have a lot of resources online. I have been to plenty of record offices, and Oxford twice but at the time, James was not an ancestor of interest. I wish I had checked to see if there was Oxford city rate books etc, to see if they survived and left a clue.

He may have been from Berkshire, Bucks, Gloucestershire or further afield. He may have come from Devon or Cumberland for all I know. Oxford in the mid 1800s had people from all over Britain living there. In the 1851 census, people from as far away as Cornwall, Norfolk and Cumberland were living in Oxford.

But I think if James Smith's birth was handed to me on a silver platter and he lived to the 1851 census, it would not be as enthralling. The Marsh Gibbon link is good but it may be another red herring. I did find a 70 year old Thomas Smith in Marsh Gibbon in 1841, same occupation as James Smith. If he was a relation, he may have been his uncle as I think he first married in 1794 and had no children called James. Unless the marriage says he was a widower. Seems the Hawkes family moved from Buckinghamshire to Oxford city as well.