RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Thornwood on Saturday 20 January 18 20:59 GMT (UK)
-
I started the search for my ancestors when retiring ten years ago. I still consider myself new to the hobby but recently thought back to how naive I was in the beginning.
I made many assumptions and just wondered what others believed in their early days of research.
Here are a few of mine:
All Ancestry trees were accurate.
All my ancestors would have a grave stone.
Census records were legal documents so must be 100% accurate.
-
I started the search for my ancestors when retiring ten years ago. I still consider myself new to the hobby but recently thought back to how naive I was in the beginning.
I made many assumptions and just wondered what others believed in their early days of research.
Here are a few of mine:
All Ancestry trees were accurate.
All my ancestors would have a grave stone.
Census records were legal documents so must be 100% accurate.
Family memories were based on fact.
A baptism year was an accurate indicator of birth year.
-
I spent 20 years and many hours of research following the wrong line if only I had brought the right marriage certificate back then.
Regards
Panda
-
My grandfather was a well known millionaire -and- I'd find him.
:)
-
Family memories were based on fact.
Took me five years to find my mother's cousins who supposedly emigrated to Australia when she was about 10. She knew they were on her mother's side and she clearly remembered them saying goodbye when they left after their father died.
No! It turned out they were on her father's side, so I'd been searching for the wrong surname. Also they didn't all go together - two went when my mother was 15, the other two went separately 5 and 10 years later. However, luckily she had got their first names correct and I eventually found them with help from people on here and I've made contact with one of their sons.
-
Believing some family stories that turned out to only loosely be based on fact.
Accepting that the census info for my Great Granmother's place of birth was accurate, which took my search to Alford, Lincs. When she was born in Salford, Lancs.
Believing my Uncle that my Paternal Great Grandma's maiden name was Marshall, after a couple of wrong paths a certificate proved it was Bucknall.
Learning that the Hull aviatrix Amy Johnson was not a relative as I had been told, again by an Uncle but a neighbour of my Grandparents.
Carol
-
Assuming that your ancestor was the only person born in a particular year with that name and surname.
My great grandmother by no means had a common name but there was another girl born in the same county, no relation at all, same name, middle name and surname, and only a few months different in age. This caused a lot of confusion.
Bev
-
Assuming that your ancestor was the only person born in a particular year with that name and surname.
My great grandmother by no means had a common name but there was another girl born in the same county, no relation at all, same name, middle name and surname, and only a few months different in age. This caused a lot of confusion.
Bev
Or on the other hand assuming that someone can't possibly be your ancestor as their date of birth is one year different on a census, or their surname has a letter incorrect.
Also assuming that because someone is with grandparents or other relatives on a census, they must live there, forgetting that a census is just a snapshot of where they were on one particular night.
-
Assuming that ages given in census records were 100% correct.
Assuming that birthplaces in census records were verified for accuracy by other documents when the returns got to the offices for statistical counting etc.
Assuming that surnames never had any variations.
-
Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" ;D
Carol
-
I'm a newbie to this, but even in the past few weeks many of my assumptions have been shot down in flames:
Assuming family stories are remembered correctly & were facts in the first place.
When an elderly uncle tells me that "at some point it was made known that (his) mother was adopted" when in fact she wasn't.
Assuming that once married, couples either got a divorce or were widowed before remarrying.
Assuming that the information given for the Marriage Certificate is true.
Assuming women used their maiden names when getting remarried.
Assuming living relatives will actually want to share info.
Assuming the transcriptions on A*try are mostly correct.
Assuming from reactions I've received that having 4 kids is a lot, until I came across an ancestor who had 11! :o
Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" ;D
Carol
;D ;D ;D Indeed!!!
-
Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" ;D
Carol
Oh yes Carol, definitely. We've had a few great ones haven't we when someone turns out to be someone completely different? ;D ;D
-
Assuming that the family story that my great uncle merchant seaman had been lost at sea during WW2 was true when in fact he had jumped off Tower Bridge a few years earlier!
-
Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" ;D
Carol
Oh yes Carol, definitely. We've had a few great ones haven't we when someone turns out to be someone completely different? ;D ;D
We certainly have...more entertaining than T.V. We have had plenty of family sagas on here ;D
How many times have posters told us that their relative definitely was not illegitimate, a bigamist, a criminal etc. ;D
Carol
-
Assuming that there would be records for my ancestors where records survived and I would know which ones they were
-
Assuming everyone in the family was correct when they said our Grandmother made 'that' story up, it couldn't possibly be true.
-
Believing that all I had to do was type in my name and date of birth, then follow the little green leaves......
-
Assuming that surnames never had any variations.
Oh yes, took me ages to trace my James family in the UK, they had changed it to Janes. Then just to confuse things further one changed back to James. My great grandfather kept it as James when he came to Australia.
My mother's grandparents families were not all from Wales. Some moved from Somerset to Wales to work in the mines, but most on that side only moved as far as Bristol area.
-
My father told us that Granny came from Glenmore and her mother came from Tullagher.
Eventually found marriage certs, which proved the other way round. Granny married in Tullagher.
To add to confusion both surnames are very common in that area.
jfch
-
Believing that my great grandfather on my mother's side was a twin. Not so. Research revealed that he had a brother and sister, no twins in the family at all.
Don't know why Mum thought he was a twin.
-
Assuming that the "given" name was in fact the given name! ;)
So many times I have searched for someone and eventually discovered that the first name was not even a short form of what appears in the birth register.
-
When census age not exactly 10 years different from the censuses 10 years before/after, believing that would narrow down the birth date to a very small window.
Jane:-)
-
Assuming that in small villages, we would be able to instantly find out which house in the village my ancestors lived in through the census returns. When in truth it usually says "cottage" and each individual family is marked with a dash only.
-
That Parish vicars and/or clerks did enter every hatch, match & despatch into the PR's along with the right names and parents
Edward
-
Assuming that the people who shared the family tree with you had got it right!
-
My assumption that my mother's family, the Tweedies, were completely Scottish and then discovering they were Irish and not being able to take them past the 19th century.
-
Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" ;D
Carol
Oh yes Carol, definitely. We've had a few great ones haven't we when someone turns out to be someone completely different? ;D ;D
We certainly have...more entertaining than T.V. We have had plenty of family sagas on here ;D
How many times have posters told us that their relative definitely was not illegitimate, a bigamist, a criminal etc. ;D
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!)
-
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.
-
Some of the stories on Roots would make great reading if turned into a book...."Who Did We Think They Were..."RootsChat Revelations" ;D
Carol
Oh yes Carol, definitely. We've had a few great ones haven't we when someone turns out to be someone completely different? ;D ;D
We certainly have...more entertaining than T.V. We have had plenty of family sagas on here ;D
How many times have posters told us that their relative definitely was not illegitimate, a bigamist, a criminal etc. ;D
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 :D
Carol
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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. ::)
-
Oh yes, that's another one - assuming they all had headstones and an obituary.
-
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!)
-
You mean you didn't have a butcher a baker and a candlestick maker, you had three ag labs? How inconsiderate of them!
-
[
I also assumed that my parents would have remembered to baptise all their children but I was mistaken there too ;D
I had that problem with the above family too. They were all baptized in neat batches of two or three, all in the same church except one which happens to be my gt-grandfather and I can't find his baptism anywhere. Typical!!
Rishile
-
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!)
Have you worked the trees of the other families to rule out the possibilities of the daughter being theirs?
Cheers
Guy
-
Assuming that the name they gave on the census was the name they were registered or baptised with.
I spent ages looking for the marriage of Henry Woodman, and bought a few incorrect certs, until a helpful fellow local genealogist pointed out that he was actually George!
I've no idea where Henry came from or why George suddenly decided that he was Henry.
-
Assuming that the name they gave on the census was the name they were registered or baptised with.
I spent ages looking for the marriage of Henry Woodman, and bought a few incorrect certs, until a helpful fellow local genealogist pointed out that he was actually George!
I've no idea where Henry came from or why George suddenly decided that he was Henry.
Assuming that the "given" name was in fact the given name! ;)
So many times I have searched for someone and eventually discovered that the first name was not even a short form of what appears in the birth register.
:D Evidently a common assumption!!
-
I found my great gran on the 1901 census in Camden. Her father's age was a year out. He was 41 but was said to be 40. I looked on the IGI and found his baptism which gave his DOB as 5 Feb 1860. I thought the one year age discrepancy meant it cannot be the same guy. How wrong I was.
-
I thought unusual names would be easy to research. Ha ha ha.
-
When I started researching, I expected my ancestors to hail from the hamlet of ALSTON, on the outskirts of Longridge.
I ought to have realised that from the mis-spellings of surname which appear through my letterbox that this was not to be.
It turns out that the name underwent a couple of major changes from the earlier HALSTEAD. The first change was in the 1790s, the second in the 1890s, with many variants between.
-
I thought unusual names would be easy to research. Ha ha ha.
Me too! So far I've found nine variations for Boraston and three distinct lines that no one has yet managed to link.
My other assumption was that first son was named after the father.
So my G'g'dad was initially the son of his uncle and to compound it, his wife was in fact married to his brother! It took me some time to sort it out, but I was young and naive then. ;D
(I started less than ten years ago and am approaching seventy.) ;D ;D
-
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!)
Have you worked the trees of the other families to rule out the possibilities of the daughter being theirs?
Cheers
Guy
Yes. The three Anns did not die young and there is no pattern to the names of offspring. No parents named on marriages in those days. The ages given on the burials are missing or inconclusive. No family wills.
-
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!)
Have you worked the trees of the other families to rule out the possibilities of the daughter being theirs?
Cheers Guy
Yes. The three Anns did not die young and there is no pattern to the names of offspring. No parents named on marriages in those days. The ages given on the burials are missing or inconclusive. No family wills.
Soooo frustrating ain't it!!
-
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!)
Have you worked the trees of the other families to rule out the possibilities of the daughter being theirs?
Cheers Guy
Yes. The three Anns did not die young and there is no pattern to the names of offspring. No parents named on marriages in those days. The ages given on the burials are missing or inconclusive. No family wills.
Soooo frustrating ain't it!!
Ain't dat de troof!
That line is "on the back burner" while I research other lines, but I'll have another think about it in a year or two.
-
And perhaps my biggest incorrect assumption - that I would be able to trace all my ancestors in England back to the 16th century ???
Soooo frustrating ain't it!!
Ain't dat de troof!
That line is "on the back burner" while I research other lines, but I'll have another think about it in a year or two.
Good plan. More comes on-line continuously. Who knows what will show up in a year or two.
-
Yes. The three Anns did not die young and there is no pattern to the names of offspring. No parents named on marriages in those days. The ages given on the burials are missing or inconclusive. No family wills.
No I meant did you check to see if the the parents had other children male or female a few months before the birth or even the baptism of Ann?
Many parish registers give birth dates as well as the baptism date (but when you need it the birth date will be missing).
Did any of the families come under the Poor Laws?
Are there mentions in quarter sessions etc?
Cheers
Guy
-
I assumed that once I got back before 1900 they wouldn't move much. Boy was I wrong! And before anyone asks, yes I'm sure they are the same people I have reference to them in their new home town referring to where they came from etc.
-
I assumed that once I got back before 1900 they wouldn't move much. Boy was I wrong! And before anyone asks, yes I'm sure they are the same people I have reference to them in their new home town referring to where they came from etc.
I think that is another assumption - "They can't be mine as mine came from xxxxx and yyyyy is miles away." People moved around far more than a lot of people think.
-
I assumed that once I got back before 1900 they wouldn't move much.
Strangely I assumed the opposite. I already knew that both sides of of my family arrived here with the steel industry in the early 1870's, so I was constantly questioning myself when my husbands family never moved more than about 20 miles from where they are now.
-
Assuming that people who I shared information and photos with would reciprocate. :-\
Carol
-
Assuming that if I had Irish ancestors, I could get back to the 1600s. I have no known Irish ancestors yet, if I did I;d be lucky to get past the immigrant. I have some Scottish ancestry, and Scottish and Irish surnames can be quite similar. Luckily Scotland records have survived much more than Irish.
Assuming that there were things such as "English DNA" or "Scottish DNA" when in reality DNA is DNA, there is no such thing as "English DNA". It is just certain DNA markers can be found in certain countries.
-
False assumptions:
1) People had a fairly good idea how old they were. WRONG. My ggg-grandfather managed to "lose" 7 years during his lifetime.
2) People knew how many children they had. WRONG. Several examples of the 1911 census prove otherwise.
3) Parents used different names for all their children. WRONG. The worst offenders in my family had two Williams and three Charlottes, all of whom died as infants. Another family had two Thomases who both lived to adulthood - I guess they were known by their middle names.
-
I assumed that everyone knew their DOB and even before civil reg begun, they had their DOB written down and was strictly recorded, and everyone knew exactly how old they were. How wrong I was.
Assuming that an illegitimate person whose mother never married and whom put a made up fathers name on their marriage did that because they knew who their father was and he was the real father.