RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: solidrock on Thursday 20 October 16 06:43 BST (UK)
-
There's a person on another site that has most of the names from my fathers side of my family in their tree. The tree is private so I can't see it but the names go from present back to the 1700's. I have contacted the person but they are not very forth coming with information. Their family name has no connection as far as I can see with mine and the only information that I can find about this person is their marriage in the 1990's. I have found a birth that may fit but in that they appear to take the mothers maiden name so I am assuming that she was unmarried. I have been trying for weeks to find the hidden link but nothing. It's getting a bit spooky.
-
I would assume that a child born before marriage would have the mothers 'maiden' name and therefore all descendants in the direct line would have that name. After marriage her children would have her married name and that direct line would have that name. Hence the family tree divides but has the same ancestors. Often the illegitimate child would have been brought up by maternal grandparents with the same surname.
I had this happen in my husband's family and this find has probably been my greatest success as neither of the two families knew of the others existence, we were able to meet up, compare photos for family likenesses and even meet at the grave of our common ancestor.
Hope this is what you meant, sorry if I've completely misunderstood your puzzle.
Thornwood
-
It's quite common for a child born before parents were married to use the father's surname later but I read the original query as more of a puzzle on how the tree owner could be related- perhaps I read it wrong?
Years ago I can across an online tree which included my grandfather's family for several generations. Slowly working through the tree (and it was huge) I discovered that the link was somewhere in his grandmother's family and thought I could pin it down to a particular branch of that family. Interestingly it included many of my early notes on this family (going by unique errors I originally made based on information from my grandfather's cousin). So, I contacted tree owner and then the confusion got worse...
I asked how they were connected to Blackrock Farm (the family residence) and got a reply about a Black family in a completely different area! I sent links to my family on that tree (where it mentioned Blackrock Farm!) and eventually got a reply along the lines of 'I have no idea who those people are. Must have attached them to my tree by mistake' ::)
-
I contacted someone who had my mother's family included in her tree - I hoped to find some living relatives since my mother was an only child and I am not in contact with any of her cousins. It turned out that the tree's owner was connected only by the fact that her husband was cousin to someone who had married one of my mother's cousins, so not much of a connection ;-)
-
I recently contacted someone who had my grandfather on his, turns out one of grandads sisters children married into the family.
Barb
-
I had a very frustrating "brick wall" which took about 3 -4 years of sustained effort to knock down. In the early part of this time, Ancestry was forever giving me "hints" to an enormous tree with around 65000 names on it, and I was intrigued to see that the person whose tree it was had apparently solved the puzzle of my brick wall so I messaged them.
(I've learned since then that such enormous trees are not usually worth even opening!)
Anyway, I got the response back that this ancestor of mine was something to do with some scottish relations of the husband of the tree holder ::) Now I felt certain that there was NO scottish link and I pushed for further details but none was ever forthcoming.
Next thing, I had put some photos on my Ancestry tree and foolishly not made it private and this name-collector pinched my photos and put them on her tree even though she had no idea who I or my family were! Another stiff message to her, one to Ancestry and making my tree private solved that problem - the "Scottish link" was left unproven.
Having now demolished my brick wall, I know there was NO Scottish link. I think these enormous trees are made by people who blindly follow those green leafy "hints" and add things without any checks (and often without any personal link to the person involved).
If I were the OP, based on my experiences, I'd be inclined to forget about it.
-
I searched for a birth with the Mothers maiden name and no results.
Then I thought, I wonder when the Father was asked what is Mothers maiden name, if he put HIS Mothers maiden name........yes he did haha.
I got the birth then.
Yes trees in Ancestry, I send messages and tell them to delete my findings when they take them to their tree and they are not related. I don't mind if they do it correctly.
One took my GGGrandfather, he said it was the first result on the list, twit! He said he died in the USA, I showed him the grave in Ireland.
Maggsie
-
:)I found most of my paternal family on a very large tree. I contacted the owner as I wasn't going to find a link on a tree that size. His answer was - His gt whatever grandfather had a brother who married but after his death his widow married my gt gt gt uncle. Both were in their 50s widowed with grown up children and no children to the 2nd marriage. The woman was only related to the owner of the tree due to her 1st marriage. No wonder he had a huge tree.
When I told him that the couple weren't related to him he agreed but said he liked to put all about their lives on his tree and that meant all their relatives as well :o ::)
I agree large trees aren't worth looking at they usually belong to people who add none relatives like the idiot I contacted. : ;)
-
:)I found most of my paternal family on a very large tree. I contacted the owner as I wasn't going to find a link on a tree that size. His answer was - His gt whatever grandfather had a brother who married but after his death his widow married my gt gt gt uncle. Both were in their 50s widowed with grown up children and no children to the 2nd marriage. The woman was only related to the owner of the tree due to her 1st marriage. No wonder he had a huge tree.
When I told him that the couple weren't related to him he agreed but said he liked to put all about their lives on his tree and that meant all their relatives as well :o ::)
I agree large trees aren't worth looking at they usually belong to people who add none relatives like the idiot I contacted. : ;)
I agree that adding in swathes of ancestors to wives/husbands isn't necessarily helpful.
However, it can help sometimes as I've found that families are linked several times by marriage, and it really shows how close knit communities could be. You can theorise that Uncle so and so's brother-in-law's sister was present at a party and her son met your cousin there and that's why they married..... (if you follow that one! ;) )
Direct ancestors aren't always the most interesting, either....
-
What are the "creepy goings on"?
-
in my tree I do have people who aren't blood relations. I have started working on the siblings of my grandparents of each generation and I'm recording their marriages when I find them. Since a lot of these marriages are in Scotland both sets of parents are listed on the certificates so I put them on the tree. To me it is a way of specifying for example which John Smith Mary Jones married, secondly it helps me identify if siblings married siblings or first cousins, also with naming patterns knowing the names of the spouses parents helps my research by giving clues to the possible childrens' names (which obviously I would confirm by searching for certificates). Generally, I won't research those parents any further. Only once have I looked into a spouses family and that's because I was checking out a family story which I won't bore you with.
-
Pharma,
I'm not a "name collector" but likewise, I do put the names of the parents of anyone marrying into my family, direct line or otherwise (for my own benefit).
However, when I do a "Report" print off of my ancestor (whether direct or not), all it shows is:
Annie Banannie married James Bloggs, 12th of never, son of Joe Bloggs & Fairy Soap ;D
If I see someone is researching those "in-laws", I will contact them to say I have info. on their relative if they would like it & if they say yes then I send them what I have & have on a few occasions given folk info. which they didn't have.
Annie
-
I have been all through my tree to find a connection with this other tree and it draws a blank every time, I can only assume that I have not recorded a birth some where. The owner of the other tree is not very forth coming and all I know is that my 5x great grandfather is also their 5x great grandfather. My tree used to be public untill a year ago when I made it private as I found that so many people were copying.
-
Hi SR,
Is the person not asking you questions as to how you are related?
That would seem odd in itself as I would be curious, unless they already have the info?
Do they know how you are connected yet?
Annie
-
They're not asking any thing, I'm the one doing the asking. All I know is they say our 5x great grandfathers are the same. I gave them access to my tree but they did'nt accept it so I withdrew it. All their same names as mine, and there are dozens of them, say "sources" but no records so I assume that they are just name collectors.
Hi SR,
Is the person not asking you questions as to how you are related?
That would seem odd in itself as I would be curious, unless they already have the info?
Do they know how you are connected yet?
Annie
-
Did you note how many people were on their tree?
I find it odd them not asking anything as that's what real genealogists do ???
Annie
-
I can't see their tree, it's on Ancestry and private. They have my mother and father in their tree and my 5x great grandfather and dozens of names in between but they have'nt got me there. I also find it odd that they are not curious as to how we are connected.
Did you note how many people were on their tree?
I find it odd them not asking anything as that's what real genealogists do ???
Annie
-
Despite spending 20 h of 24 asleep I went to town to do family history.
I gave up totally and packed up in tears when I found someone had put grandparents' wedding on ancestry along with 3 generations back -- each side. Its all there granddad's service, nana's dead sister etc. A stupid picture of a 1920's woman to represent nan.
I couldn't even determine which side they came from they had so much of both. they can not be related to both sides.
Dad was an only child. This is identity theft.
Dad's father died when dad was 13 in 1939. The tennis club paid for her house and dad had legacy for support and the only rellie's he knew were his uncle bill (actually his dad's cousin) and his mum's cousin Fairy (a second cousin I think) and Aunt Adelaide who had no children of her own.
Nan took in washing and boarders to make ends meet.
I know that they have not put this online. Whoever has hijacked both sides. Yet they didn't send a card when dad died or help in any way shape or form when he was little. and his mum struggling.
I hope they are proud of themselves and their family.
It is identity theft pure and simple. Half my family history online and gone -- stolen. No-one else is related to both sides. In a way it's fraud.
If I can not own my own father's ancestors then they certainly can't.
I hope they are so, so proud of themselves. And athefttree goes bust.
-
How can you "own" your ancestors? What difference does it make to you, if someone takes online information you have provided? Are your ancestors any less yours, if someone else copies them?
-
lets assume you are an only child. And I a very distant cousin. I put online (when you would not publish yourself) your mum and dads marriage both of their mums and dads and all their grandparents. How would you FEEL. Now assume your name isn't smith but say Quidditch
how would you FEEL
-
Dear pharmaT and Rosinish
thank you for past kindnesses. I too collect names of rellies etc. People lived in families and had colleagues, employers etc. But I like you do not put them in public trees. Paper and home computer for me. Nothing in public.
More generally
If it is only 150 years or so and you are not a direct descendant then they are not yours. Do not put them on a public tree. They are not yours. Keep them private. Allow someone else fun and privacy. Its like not smoking inside or noise pollution.
As for the distant rellies who published my father's (an only child's) parents, grandparents and greatgrandparent's on both sides on line.
You can not be descended from both sides. dad was an only child.
And where were your rellies when dad was little. Busy neglecting a widow and child!!!
You get a sense of stolen pride from granddad's war record do you? Well your ancestors did not write to him at the front or afterwards. We have his letters.
Proud of yourself for following two rare names. It takes real cleverness that.
You should be proud of yourselves and the care your ancestor's did not take of a widow and child. And as for that 1920s woman you purport to represent nan
-- she was much classier than that -- you can shove it.
As for those RCs constantly demanding names and giving dictionary definitions and treaing others like dirt .. well surprise, surprise you get it wrong and muddy waters apart from stealing others fun
BE polite
LEAVE people their own history and room for fun
-
Why bother, then, putting any of your information online, if you are so protective of it? Keep it offline.
-
lets assume you are an only child. And I a very distant cousin. I put online (when you would not publish yourself) your mum and dads marriage both of their mums and dads and all their grandparents. How would you FEEL. Now assume your name isn't smith but say Quidditch
how would you FEEL
I am an only child, so was my paternal grandfather. It would only bother me if details of those still alive were made public. well I did get a little upset by the tree in which i was killed off. I don't feel they are any less my family by others having them in my tree. I fact that person is likely to be some sort of cousin, how ever many back. It doesnt stop me having fun researching or stop me getting satisfaction from confirming my research is accurate.
I do have others in my tree who are not blood relatives. I am slowing building up trees for my daughters so I am researching their father's side.
I would find it incredibly bizarre if they had a random person's picture attached to someone. It could be a genuine mistake, they could have been told it was her in the photo.
I have an online tree but it is private and non searchable. I did make it public for about 10 days after feeling pressurised by another thread on here in which I was called "the very definition of selfish " for keeping my research private. My main reason for keeping it private is that I consider it a work in progress and it was drummed into me not to publish incomplete research.
I also don't think I've ever been rude to anyone. I always reply to messages. Not necessarily the same day if I've worked a long day.
-
I agree with you Pharma. My tree is also private as like you I consider it a work in progress. I have a few trees, all private, each was done for a specific purpose. I am not an only child, nor were my parents, and some of my ancestors had many children.
The only tree that I have which is public is the one on Family Search and only because their records for South Africa are quite good and it is for one particular branch of the family. I have had lots of leads from that, but still have to check them out before adding them to my private tree.
The fun is in the search, breaking down a brick wall, connecting with others who share the same interests and don't look at you as if you are completely bonkers and perhaps finding new family along the way. ;) :D
-
pharmaT
Once again thank you
Always polite always kind
LUV
-
Why bother, then, putting any of your information online, if you are so protective of it? Keep it offline.
That is what I do. It is not online by me. Only by thieves.
If you did not feel a sense of ownership of your ancestors you would not be doing family history.
they have taken all my dad's history which in no way did I give them and to which they do not belong.
-
I agree with you Pharma. My tree is also private as like you I consider it a work in progress. I have a few trees, all private, each was done for a specific purpose. I am not an only child, nor were my parents, and some of my ancestors had many children.
The only tree that I have which is public is the one on Family Search and only because their records for South Africa are quite good and it is for one particular branch of the family. I have had lots of leads from that, but still have to check them out before adding them to my private tree.
The fun is in the search, breaking down a brick wall, connecting with others who share the same interests and don't look at you as if you are completely bonkers and perhaps finding new family along the way. ;) :D
Exactly.
It is not in having it hijacked.
I like going off on a distant rellies' employer but would not dream of putting it on line.
To some of them my early Australians own a great debt of gratitude for their kindness.
I would not dream of putting mine online.
Now how do I get to treasure my dad.
You and your dogs are far from silly.
phenolphthalein
-
Phenolphthalein, no-one can take the memories that you have of your dad away from you. Those will always be unique to you and you alone and for you to treasure always. ;)
Not being an only child, I will always have to share memories with my siblings, so in a way you are lucky, you have him to yourself. Don't worry about other folk, they didn't share what you had with your dad.
(if you knew my dogs you would know they are silly ;D ;D)
-
Despite spending 20 h of 24 asleep I went to town to do family history.
I gave up totally and packed up in tears when I found someone had put grandparents' wedding on ancestry along with 3 generations back -- each side. Its all there granddad's service, nana's dead sister etc. A stupid picture of a 1920's woman to represent nan.
I couldn't even determine which side they came from they had so much of both. they can not be related to both sides.
Dad was an only child. This is identity theft.
How on earth is it identity theft they have simply constructed a family tree, which according to you contains errors.
That does not make it identity theft.
Anyone can compile trees of anyone they like if that’s what they want to do.
Dad's father died when dad was 13 in 1939. The tennis club paid for her house and dad had legacy for support and the only rellie's he knew were his uncle bill (actually his dad's cousin) and his mum's cousin Fairy (a second cousin I think) and Aunt Adelaide who had no children of her own.
Nan took in washing and boarders to make ends meet.
I know that they have not put this online. Whoever has hijacked both sides. Yet they didn't send a card when dad died or help in any way shape or form when he was little. and his mum struggling.
Compiling a tree is very similar to writing a biography. The person does not need to be related to the subject or even know them. Anyone can compile a lineage of anyone they decide interests them..
You seem to think only descendants can compile family lineages, sorry but you are wrong.
I hope they are proud of themselves and their family.
It is identity theft pure and simple. Half my family history online and gone -- stolen. No-one else is related to both sides. In a way it's fraud.
If I can not own my own father's ancestors then they certainly can't.
I hope they are so, so proud of themselves. And athefttree goes bust.
Perhaps once you calm down you will see sense and realise they have not stolen anything, committed fraud or identity theft but simply complied a tree from the information they have.
Nothing more, nothing less, nothing sinister.
You are over reacting about something that has been done certainly since the 15th century and in some cases previous to that.
Cheers
Guy
-
There's a person on another site that has most of the names from my fathers side of my family in their tree. The tree is private so I can't see it but the names go from present back to the 1700's. I have contacted the person but they are not very forth coming with information. Their family name has no connection as far as I can see with mine and the only information that I can find about this person is their marriage in the 1990's. I have found a birth that may fit but in that they appear to take the mothers maiden name so I am assuming that she was unmarried. I have been trying for weeks to find the hidden link but nothing. It's getting a bit spooky.
I would never use an online tree for reasons of privacy. If your tree is compromised, it could be quite damaging for your privacy.
Ive been the victim of ID theft, so I know what im talking about. I can perfectly understand why people use online trees. They are a good way to find new family members.
-
I agree that adding in swathes of ancestors to wives/husbands isn't necessarily helpful.
However, it can help sometimes as I've found that families are linked several times by marriage, and it really shows how close knit communities could be. You can theorise that Uncle so and so's brother-in-law's sister was present at a party and her son met your cousin there and that's why they married..... (if you follow that one! ;) )
Direct ancestors aren't always the most interesting, either....
I used to add very little about spouses of relatives but time and time again I've kicked myself for not realising that a husband and wife were related.
The first time was when I assumed that a Mrs X in Ireland was related by marriage. I repeatedly ignored her in my quest to find cousins because she was related by marriage. Part of her husband's family (not our family) were included (with errors it seems) in John O'Harts book of Irish genealogy and those errors didn't help.
Thanks to HistoricGraves I found her headstone in Ireland and learned that her middle name was the maiden name of Miss X's maternal grandmother. She'd married a paternal
first-cousin once removed and had gone from Miss X to Mrs X. So she was a cousin. Subsequently I've realised that Miss X's brother also married his first-cousin once removed (the sister of Miss X's husband).
Having worked out the error on Heber genealogies which had also been misleading me (but my own assumptions were just as misleading) it appeared that a man I'd been corresponding with was no longer a relative though. A few weeks later (thanks to finding Nick Reddan's work) we discovered we were related, but it was three generations further back, and that maiden name on the headstone is one of his ancestral names as well.
I still have a lingering hunch that there are other connections in this family. A cousin has visited some of the churches and graveyards in Ireland and photographed them (the surviving parish registers have not been digitised) and has a tree going back centuries up her paternal line.
Miss X's maternal grandfather's first name was a surname. That surname is also in Miss X's maternal grandmother's ancestry. I can see a possible couple a few generations back on one of Nick Reddan's trees (without any descendants recorded). IF our gtgtgtgt-grandfather was descended from this couple and not the line she has recorded then our gtgtgtgt-grandparents were third cousins to each other.
I could give numerous other examples of how I was rather slow on the uptake and how in-laws were the missing piece of the puzzle. If there hadn't been intermarriage I'd probably still be looking for a gtgtgt-grandmother called Eliza Rigg in Lancashire or Yorkshire. The reason I couldn't find this elusive ancestor is because she was infact Martha Holmes. I searched Rigg marriages. Originally I looked for a Rigg bride, then I tried Rigg grooms and found a marriage where our gtgtgt-grandfather was the witness, along with his future wife, but I hadn't realised she was the future wife yet. Finding that marriage then tracing back Eliza's ancestry was the connection I needed. Eliza Rigg née Holmes was Martha's sister and Martha and Eliza's husbands were first cousins.
When Martha's son died the informant said his mother was Eliza née Rigg. The informant would have never met Martha.
-
I have heaps of side branches in my trees. I love following all the family lines. And by doing this, I have found many "distant" relations are still in contact with my direct lines - sometimes living at the same address! One of my family lines all lived in the same small area for many, many generations and the various branches still knew each other, lived together, had businesses together, supported each other in bad times, etc. You bet they are all going into my family tree because they are family even if not in my direct line.
In one case I was able to break through a brick wall by identifying a second cousin relationship and following the generations back. The second cousins came out to Australia together on the same ship! Those side branches are incredibly useful.
In another case, by understanding all the relationships between all the different in-laws, side branches, very distant relationships by marriage, I was able to break through another brick wall. They were all connected to each other, in each other's wills, going through chancery court, suing each other's estates, and most of them weren't even blood relations (i.e. in-laws of in-laws)! But the whole picture proved relationships and provided what I needed to break my brick wall.
It is absurd to think that people live in isolation. They are the product of ALL the people in their lives - friends, relatives, business partners etc. Family research that covers only the names, dates, places without investigating the stories of their lives is just genealogy. I'm interested in more than than. I want to see a little way into their world. And that means understanding the other people in their lives.
A very important person in my husband's life was not even a blood relation but a very, very close family friend. I intend to do some family research on his life. He had no children of his own but was a wonderful man, an important influence on my husband in his childhood, and he deserves to be remembered by his "adopted" family.
I'm finding cousins all the time researching the same family trees. Just because they have information about my family tree is not stealing. They are just doing the same thing as me. Researching what is already in the public domain. I've even found academic articles about ancestors by people who were doing a thesis and are in no way related to my family tree. And I don't see that as stealing. In fact, it was incredibly helpful. Collaborating with other people can sometimes be the best part of family history research.
I do not "own" my ancestors. They were their own people who lived their own lives. I'm just trying to get to know them a little.
-
I agree with much that you say hsfam. But my heart sinks when I see a tree with thousands of people.
A distant cousin has a large tree and we've exchanged information.
She is adding a LOT of side branches (including OUR side branches) and the sources are "Ancestry Family Trees". She isn't verifying anything or getting original certificates. I suspect this copying of trees is the reason another cousin has recently made her tree private. I think adding in-laws is fine if you take more than two seconds to think about whether the connection looks right. I doubt that some people give each person they add more than two seconds of research.
Her information about our mutual relatives is good but further out it's not. I don't think that's helping anyone.
-
I'm not arguing against going sideways. I do that myself but my tree isn't public never will be. I'm not with anthefttree and never will be. Keep those who aren't yours private.
I've linked up lines too and learnt because of that.
But leave people their privacy and fun.
If they want to, they'll find you.
Or contact them privately.
These are also distinct lines and not what I call part of family lace.
Guy with respect I understand what you are saying and your voice is always sensible.
I mean no offence.
But with a biography one can determine someone's credentials and purpose in writing it. The person being written about is usually in the public eye or closely related -- not a distant private person.
One can readily determine if it is an autobiography and someone who publishes an autobiography and is not the person concerned would be sued for fraud. One can also discover readily if it is an unauthorised biography and people do get sued for writing those.
This in some ways purports to be both. Ie it is a pretend autobiography of my father -- he the only descendant and it is an unauthorised biography.
Just because these public trees are unregulated space does not mean that others should be permitted to do as and what they like and pollute the space.
That is accepting the lowest common denominator -- and well plumb rude.
If we can celebrate our successes we can also mourn our greatest losses.
I would not have my dad's or grandparent's ancestry online given my choice. Someone has stolen that choice.
Regards
phenolphthalein
-
I am fairly sure that there is not any RChat policy that's stopping us from using the word Ancestry in our posts when referring to submitted trees at Ancestry dot whatever.
JM
-
Phenolphthalein,
I have only read a few postings since my posting about adding the parents of persons marrying into my family.
I think I see a different thing going on here?
My father was not an only child but 1 of 4.
He had 2 brothers & 1 sister, none of whom married nor had any children (that I know of)?
My dad is on many trees but as a descendant of other's relatives just as I have their families in my tree, being descended from the same g, gg or ggg etc. g/parents.
I don't feel anyone is stealing my father's identity but rather, recognising him as part of a bigger family going back decades.
I am also glad that my mother's name appears too (even although she can't be related to them), however, she was my mother, the wife of my father who deserves her name to be beside his on anyone's tree as they are from whom I descend.
I have never understood anyone who doesn't add the wives/husband's of any relative as we all descend from 2 humans equally (my own opinion).
I also have a tree which I add to all the time which is bigger than my own tree!!!
I have a "UIST" Tree which is all people born on the island of South Uist, Inverness-shire with 1000's in it!!! and 1000's to add as & when I get the time.
I started this "Project" many years ago as I had collated so much info. whilst researching my own Paternal line & have literally heaps of info. i.e. whenever I find a connection, I add the relevant info.
I do this as a hobby & have helped so many people with Uist ancestors.
I do not have it online though! as it's for my own personal use & to assist others.
Annie
-
I am fairly sure that there is not any RChat policy that's stopping us from using the word Ancestry in our posts when referring to submitted trees at Ancestry dot whatever.
No, I'm sure there isn't.
I find that I can't use the abbreviation F M P because RC overrides it to show the full name (see what happens if I leave out the spaces: FindMyPast )
So if we have to mention FindMyPast in full, it must surely be acceptable to mention Ancestry.
-
I was told by someone who is very computer knowledgeable etc. that RC "must" be paid to advertise F M P & that's why the full descriptive name appears when no spaces are included :P ???
Annie
-
I agree with much that you say hsfam. But my heart sinks when I see a tree with thousands of people.
A distant cousin has a large tree and we've exchanged information.
She is adding a LOT of side branches (including OUR side branches) and the sources are "Ancestry Family Trees". She isn't verifying anything or getting original certificates. I suspect this copying of trees is the reason another cousin has recently made her tree private. I think adding in-laws is fine if you take more than two seconds to think about whether the connection looks right. I doubt that some people give each person they add more than two seconds of research.
Her information about our mutual relatives is good but further out it's not. I don't think that's helping anyone.
I admit I don't think that much about the in laws of my aunts and uncles etc but at the same time I believe my research to be as accurate as it can be. I check the marriage certificate and cross reference it to check it is my aunt or uncle's (however many greats). The rest of the information on the certificate I just record. So my reference to the in laws is as accurate as the marriage certificate is.
-
I think that the reason do not use the full name of ancestry is because if you do this thread will crop up on a google search a lot earlier than if it was not used.
This thread will probably put a lot of people off of using RootsChat, and maybe even deter them from pursuing genealogy.
-
I was told by someone who is very computer knowledgeable etc. that RC "must" be paid to advertise F M P & that's why the full descriptive name appears when no spaces are included :P ???
Annie
RootsChat software transcribes some abbreviations into English.
F M P is one, as is O M G
Which get transcribed as FindMyPast and Blimey! ;D
-
Blimey FindMyPast
Edit. So it does! I learn something new every day.
-
I think that the reason do not use the full name of ancestry is because if you do this thread will crop up on a google search a lot earlier than if it was not used.
But why would that matter to anybody? In any case, the word 'ancestry' must appear in countless places on the internet every day. It's a great deal less distinctive than ... the name of the other main genealogy site (http://www.4smileys.com/smileys/devil-smileys/devil_smiley_019.gif) (http://www.4smileys.com)
-
Surely anyone typing the word "ancestry" into "google" is interested in genealogy ::)
So why would that put anyone off coming to Rootschat ???
Annie
-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sloe+gin&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=rRIOWP3BD-bv8AeohbqoAQ#q=creepy+goings+on
-
Not Ancestry. [typed in, that is]
-
Yt,
Sorry,
I'm not understanding you.
No matter what we look for online we will always have heaps of other things which are not relevant "popping up".
As an e.g. I was googling an area last week by place name in Forfar, Scotland & it threw up a list of car owners from the 1970's with all owners names, car models they owned & complete with their addresses (which I have since posted a link to on here).
I was of course interested but that was irrelevant to what I was actually searching i.e. I really can't understand what you mean?
Annie
-
Some people believe everything that they read on the internet (seemingly without question)
-
http://www.trafficestimate.com/profiles/keyword-ancestry/
-
http://www.trafficestimate.com/profiles/keyword-ancestry/
So? ???
I would have thought that the majority of researchers on here have benefited from Ancestry (even if indirectly). My own research would have been greatly hampered without it, that's for sure.
I don't understand why some people seem to treat it as though it were a dirty word.
-
You may notice I have no qualms about using the word Ancestry. It would seem some people do not like to be linked to Ancestry on their posts and try to stop, or minimise this by not posting the word Ancestry, effective or not I do not know.
Others seem to have an aversion to Ancestry, or a love/hate relationship, going by previous threads on RootsChat.
-
I don't understand why some people seem to treat it as though it were a dirty word.
Here's what one of our moderators had to say on the subject http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,593032.msg4435209.html#msg4435209
-
I also think that in terms of speed it's easier to type A*/Anc/F M P etc. as we are pretty aware of what they stand for just as we type SP for scotlandspeople.
Annie
-
Why is there a need for speed?
How many milliseconds does it save, typing Anc* instead of Ancestry?
-
Why is there a need for speed?
How many milliseconds does it save, typing Anc* instead of Ancestry?
Possibly depends on how well your know your keyboard - as an ex-Secretary it is much easier for me to type out the full title, rather than have to remember where * is (how often do you use * ?)
Yes, I do use "FindMyPast" rather than the full title. That didn't work, did it? ;D ;D Should have perhaps used F M P :-\
-
........ I found someone had put grandparents' wedding on ancestry along with 3 generations back -- each side. Its all there granddad's service, nana's dead sister etc. A stupid picture of a 1920's woman to represent nan.
I couldn't even determine which side they came from they had so much of both. they can not be related to both sides.
Dad was an only child. This is identity theft.
Dad's father died when dad was 13 in 1939. The tennis club paid for her house and dad had legacy for support and the only rellie's he knew were his uncle bill (actually his dad's cousin) and his mum's cousin Fairy (a second cousin I think) and Aunt Adelaide who had no children of her own.
Nan took in washing and boarders to make ends meet..........
Hi there
I am fairly sure that phenolphthalein’s grandfather’s death in 1939 occurred in Australia. I apologise if I am wrong.
But if he died in Australia, may I please mention that any member of the general public would be able to access the official record of the civil registration of that death simply by ordering a copy of the death certificate.
There are eight separate jurisdictions across Australia and each has their own parliaments. Six of those parliaments date from the colonial era (19th century) and each has their own system of civil registrations of BDM.
If grandfather died in New South Wales, then the 1939 dc would be available from NSW BDM as part of the historic records, so any person including people who are not family members, and people who are not seeking to compile a family history chart, can purchase that document without providing any identification to the NSW BDM. So people researching medical issues in a location or in a particular era, or people looking at local history, are some of the people who may be interested in that 1939 death.
A NSW BDM death certificate is likely to contain a great depth of information, so too a Queensland dc, and a Victorian dc, and a Western Australia dc. The information can include identifying details about people who were living at that time (in this instance 1939). The system is informant driven and dates from the mid 1850s. One of the administrative functions of a funeral director is the completing and the lodgement of the paperwork for the formal issuing of the NSW BDM (Registrar-General’s) certificate.
My involvement in family history dates from ummmmmmm back in the late 1950s ..... (so I have been around fh buffs since before it was a popular hobby, and definitely pre internet !, but while the research tools have changed, the concept of seeking out primary sources to validate and to find new questions to pose, has not :) )
So, a NSW BDM dc from 1939 for a chap who was a married man and who had a child aged 13 would likely include the following:
Grandfather's (the deceased’s)
:) full names (given and surname)
:) sex
:) age (at death)
:) where born
:) date and place where he died (including in some instances the full street address)
:) usual place of residence (including in some instances the full street address)
:) occupation (including in some instances the employer’s name)
:) marital status (single, married, divorcee petitioner, divorcee respondent, widower)
:) where married (including in some instances the name of the church, the street address, and not just the town, state, country).
:) Age when married, and the name of his spouse (so Nan’s full name when she married Grandfather, plus any former names that she may have been known by).
:) The names of the living children of the marriage listed in chronological order with their then age next to their name, and at least the gender of any who had not survived.
:) The names of Grandfather’s parents, including if possible his mum’s nee name
(I pause and comment ... so basically the above is the information most frequently collected by the funeral director when speaking with family when making the arrangements for the funeral, and from a family history perspective, we need to remember that it is information likely sourced from grieving family members so it can be misunderstood by the recorder as well as the questions may be misunderstood by the informants).
:) The name and address and relationship of the informant to the deceased is recorded on the certificate. Perhaps it would be Grandfather's widow who provided the information.
:) Cause/s of death, and duration of the illness
This is information certified by the medico or by the coroner if an inquest was held.
:) Burial/cremation details
This is information certified by the funeral director, includes naming the cemetery/crematorium and may include noting the denomination.
In NSW, there is restricted access to the death registration for the first thirty years after the death. That restricted access provides some personal privacy to the living persons named on that civil registration. All the Australian states and territories have their own laws, regulations and practices that provide restricted access, and not all have a 30 year limit on death certificates (some may have longer, some shorter).
But the depth of detail on NSW BDM dcs is extensive.
http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/family-history/registry-records.aspx
ADD (on NSW BDM dc)
:) How long in Australia (as per informant)
JM
-
In short JM,
The restrictions of downloadable certs. from SP (scotlandspeople) do not apply when ordering by phone (I haven't used any other method).
I have had to order 2 birth certs. within the given restriction dates but (by telephone), I have had to give d/y.o.b (approx), parents names & where born.
The same info. can be had if visiting one of the main SP Centres, with no restrictions.
Annie
-
KG & BB,
Why is there a need for speed?
How many milliseconds does it save, typing Anc* instead of Ancestry?
Possibly depends on how well your know your keyboard - as an ex-Secretary it is much easier for me to type out the full title, rather than have to remember where * is (how often do you use * ?)
Yes, I do use "FindMyPast" rather than the full title. That didn't work, did it? ;D ;D Should have perhaps used F M P :-\
KG,
My opinion on that was not referring to speed in terms of "milliseconds" & I think most people reading it would have got my meaning?
Someone who types with 1 finger would find that quicker even although they know where each key is & as we are in the stage of "txt typing" that's how we do things.
So it's ok to type F M P, SP, FS etc. but not A* (finger on caps lock for both A & *) typed with 1 finger & was quicker than F spacebar M spacebar P ::)
BB,
Regarding using the '*', you'd be surprised how many of us know exactly where that key is, having many surnames with many variants & having to use it frequently.
I could name a very prominent RC'r on here who would find it difficult not using the '*' & that person has admitted that it is a personal preference because of variants/ transcription errors & would be 'lost without it' (one of our best researchers) ;D
Sometimes if we use a bit of thought we can come up with a feasible answer ???
I just wonder why you both picked out my 'thought' with negative replies?
Annie
-
KG & BB,
I just wonder why you both picked out my 'thought' with negative replies?
Annie
My reply wasn't intended to be "negative"?
It's just that I reckon I can type out the full name of Ancestry just as quick as typing any shortened form?
Maybe it's because I have been in IT since I left school? And, while I am not a competent touch-typist, I do use more than a couple of fingers? ::)
-
My apologies Annie, my response was not intended to be negative. :'(
-
Returning to the idea that "married-ins" should not be added to trees, when I was fairly confident I'd got good accuracy on main lines, just for interest, I started pottering about on married-ins - and two or three times that's been incredibly helpful clearing up problems.
On one side, doing that and then going back 80 years and drawing it all out as a tree helped untangle a massively confused family - basically whatever the surname was, they were all cousins/ married to cousins/ related to cousins of each other!! The tree I drew out after that marathon could have been used as a pattern for bobbin lace, it was so convoluted in threads - but it did "prove out", and I'd never ever have sorted that mob out without pottering back on that married in line, which gave me further clues, that proved right when i followed them up.
I really don't think that means I've hijacked anyone's family or ancestry, just clarified how and where they linked in over several generations, to the main line.
It's perfectly clear with all that information, but it wasn't without it. I don't "do" public trees, but would help out if someone asked me directly about any of that mob, for anyone would have been confused who was who there. In fact, I have done so, and was not accused of kidnapping a family group, but thanked for untangling it.
Can't really see that as creepy goings on - it's not intended, I'm sure to debase one's own personal links, if independently people come to the same results, and relationships should be clear.
I agree though that's not at all the same as online trees "Adopting" huge wodges of other people's trees, just because it's "near enough", that's simply sloppy and not serious research, and could mislead beginners badly.
Don't worry about people linking with your trees - if the info's right, then that's a good thing. If it's wrong, either point it out, and hope they are clever enough and polite enough to amend their tree, or relax, and try to forget them and their mistakes.
After all, if you KNOW you're right ....then you're in the right.
-
To add to the idea of researching "married in" individuals, it can also be extremely helpful to research all the families that lived in a single village as it will invariably turn up some mutual ancestors, potentially breaking down some brick walls.
-
Agreed.