When you can't quite prove two people are one and the same...

[Mart 'n' Al]

I see many requests over the years for help in trying to (dis)prove that two people are one and the same.  Many of these requests go 100% unanswered.  I've got two of these, but rather than giving specific and extensive details, I thought I'd ask for any general ideas or guidelines. 

So, if you've got two sections of timeline that don't coincide at all, relating to someone with the same name, how can you prove or disprove their independence or co-existence?  For example I've got a probable ancestor who is in one place in 1860-1880, then elsewhere from 1885 to 1920, but I can't be sure it is the same man, even though his two forenames and surname are the same.

I think many here will be grateful for suggestions.

Martin

[Mike in Cumbria]

Other than digging and digging to find some connection, I don't think there is a way. It depends on whether you're happy with the balance of probabilities.  I take it you've tried tracing the second man backwards, and the first man forwards to see if there are any alternative candidates.

I've got similar scenarios, and my own approach is that if I can't find a definitive link, they stay out.

[Mart 'n' Al]

It is so hard, Mike.  It is almost unlikely that my two people are different people.

Martin

[Paulo Leeds]

Other than digging and digging to find some connection, I don't think there is a way. It depends on whether you're happy with the balance of probabilities.  I take it you've tried tracing the second man backwards, and the first man forwards to see if there are any alternative candidates.

I've got similar scenarios, and my own approach is that if I can't find a definitive link, they stay out.

What would be a definitive link? I guess we can hardly ever be 100% sure

[Mike in Cumbria]

Other than digging and digging to find some connection, I don't think there is a way. It depends on whether you're happy with the balance of probabilities.  I take it you've tried tracing the second man backwards, and the first man forwards to see if there are any alternative candidates.

I've got similar scenarios, and my own approach is that if I can't find a definitive link, they stay out.

What would be a definitive link? I guess we can hardly ever be 100% sure

Agreed - I realised that after I posted. However, I would need more than the same name and age, before joining two people as one - perhaps finding connections via siblings, witnesses, employer etc.

[Paulo Leeds]

Other than digging and digging to find some connection, I don't think there is a way. It depends on whether you're happy with the balance of probabilities.  I take it you've tried tracing the second man backwards, and the first man forwards to see if there are any alternative candidates.

I've got similar scenarios, and my own approach is that if I can't find a definitive link, they stay out.

What would be a definitive link? I guess we can hardly ever be 100% sure

Agreed - I realised that after I posted. However, I would need more than the same name and age, before joining two people as one - perhaps finding connections via siblings, witnesses, employer etc.

I think the problem with this sort of thing is when you reach 'dead ends'.

I also only include someone in my tree when I have very definitive 'evidence'. I always think that one error will lead to several more errors.

How would you find out about witnesses or employers?

[BillyF]

My gt grandfather took his mother`s maiden surname  when he left his wife and child in the 1890s.
 I have not been able to find him on the 1901 Census using that name, although his death certificate
 ( 1911) gives clear indication that it is him as it states that he was the widower of his first wife
 ( Scottish records really helpful ) There is no record of a marriage between someone using that name and the name of the first wife.

Just to give me more frustration, he left the Army in March 1901 , if he had held on for another month there would have been more to go on ! The same in 1911, he died in March !!

[coombs]

I would ask you for the man's details so we could help you but you did say just asking for general ideas or guidelines. I know how you feel, trying to prove it is them or isn't them.

Thanks to a marriage from 1834, I was able to prove that a lady who kept witnessing the marriages of my ancestors older brother and registered his children's deaths was the right lady, and the mother who had remarried after her first hubby died.

Some family historians may "claim" someone but leave a strong note saying "A strong possibility but not yet confirmed". I tend to exclude them if I have no conclusive "evidence".

Last year I struggled to find that a woman born in 1694 was the same woman who wed in 1725 but I managed to keep looking and I then found her mentioned in a will of her sister who also mentioned nieces and nephews of 2 siblings who had died by 1764. I was so pleased.

[Ruskie]

.... For example I've got a probable ancestor who is in one place in 1860-1880, then elsewhere from 1885 to 1920, but I can't be sure it is the same man, even though his two forenames and surname are the same.
Martin

Are both men the same age?
Do both men have the same occupation?
Do their families tally (same wife/children)?
Are there registrations of births of two babies with those names in the two places around the same time?
Is there a death for first man in the right area?
Is his a common name?
No will I suppose?