RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: jettejjane on Wednesday 18 November 20 17:19 GMT (UK)
-
Just have to share this with you. A fellow researcher helping with my Redman line found a rather interesting tree, however the finds should be taken with a kilo of salt! The owner is same generation as me , he/she descends from the brother of my Gt x 1 Grandfather. Whereas I can only go back with proof to our Gt x 4 Grandfather he/she goes back to 1100's, and no proof.
We have Knights of the Realm, Lords and Ladies, Members of Parliament, a Speaker of the House of Commons and more. Most of these can be found by googling. Apparently we come from France. After the Battle of Hastings one Adam d'Avranches was given land, the spoils of victory from the battle and became Lord of Yealand and Silverdale in Cumbria he also had land a few miles away called Redman . His son called himself de Redman (Redmayne) which means of Redman. The de was eventually dropped in 1500. After 400 years they are in Sussex no titles, no wealth, mainly labourers or farmers. .
For fun I looked into the tree and finds more closely and can not find a shred of evidence to connect my poor Sussex Redmans to the Yorkshire nobles. To add insult to injury he/she got the death of our Gt x 2 Grandfather completely wrong and mentioned a death of his mother which can not be found, believe me I have tried.
So I just don't believe it. Maybe Tree Owner will see this post and prove me wrong?
This is what the second lockdown had driven me too, lol. But its been fun.
Stay safe everyone
-
I don't believe it either. For the record, Yealand and Silverdale are in Lancashire. Anyone who gets this wrong has probably got much more wrong.
-
Oh and land near called Redman is probably the village Yealand Redmayne. Redmayne still exists as a surname - I suppose it could be corrupted to Redman, but not hereabouts.
-
They are not trying hard enough. A descent from William the Conqueror is not good enough. What is really needed is a descent from Charlemagne, Odin, Helen of Troy, and Adam and Eve.
-
I don't believe it either. For the record, Yealand and Silverdale are in Lancashire. Anyone who gets this wrong has probably got much more wrong.
I can’t see the point in all this make believe. Yes there is a lot wrong in the tree. Don’t suppose it’s worth contacting owner. Tree owner sounds like a lady from this line I had contact with but this one is different name. She refused to believe my help with the bits she got wrong when I had actual documentation. We parted company on bad terms after she slagged me off on this very site. I think she was banned.
-
They are not trying hard enough. A descent from William the Conqueror is not good enough. What is really needed is a descent from Charlemagne, Odin, Helen of Troy, and Adam and Eve.
LOL ;D
-
It's amazing how "happy" (what are they all on?) so many people are so very willing to accept all sorts of very loosely connected connections. I'm with you on this - I never believe it, either! I've sweated blood, money and ink to get my lot mostly back to 1500s (except of course for the really stubborn Irish ones, who refuse totally to be found prior to mid/ late 1800s) - and I'm amazed how many simply lap it up!
-
I've seen trees which confidently assert my paternal lineage back to Charlemagne and even back to Adam and Eve. I personally can't get past the early 1800s with my paternal surname line - there were just too many people with the correct name and too few details on parish records etc to sort them out. And that ancestor had the nerve to die before the 1841 census.
My favourite tree of all time was one which confidently provided the parents of a 12 century ancestor of mine as King Richard 1, and his lovely lady known as Concubine 2. Funny name that-- you don't get many girls called Concubine these days ----
-
... what do you think happened to "Concubine 1"? Answers please .....
-
What did pee me off was that he had the death of our shared gtx 2 Grandfather George Redman b. 1800 wrong. He just picked a Redman in Sussex who died in 1876 with obviously no checks. I did find this death when I started but ruled him out and it wasn’t that difficult. My George appeared on 1841 and 1851 census with family in Arundel then disappeared. Then I discovered through researching my gt x 1 Grandfather his son William on 1861 still in Arundel same address, but mother had remarried. Was easy to find death in 1852 in Arundel. I got death certificate. This was at start if my research when I was a total novice.
-
It's amazing how "happy" (what are they all on?) so many people are so very willing to accept all sorts of very loosely connected connections. I'm with you on this - I never believe it, either! I've sweated blood, money and ink to get my lot mostly back to 1500s (except of course for the really stubborn Irish ones, who refuse totally to be found prior to mid/ late 1800s) - and I'm amazed how many simply lap it up!
But some careful and initially sceptical people have thought to check for themselves and then spent many hours/days/weeks or more of blood sweat and tears looking through centuries old wills, land records and the like to check for themselves, and some have found the line is correct after all, and they do descend from nobility and royalty.
-
But some careful and initially sceptical people have thought to check for themselves and then spent many hours/days/weeks or more of blood sweat and tears looking through centuries old wills, land records and the like to check for themselves, and some have found the line is correct after all, and they do descend from nobility and royalty.
Yes I agree I am checking as i always do. I feel if tree owner can’t get the easy research right there is a fair chance it’s a made up tree.
-
;D ;D ;D
I've seen trees which confidently assert my paternal lineage back to Charlemagne and even back to Adam and Eve. I personally can't get past the early 1800s with my paternal surname line - there were just too many people with the correct name and too few details on parish records etc to sort them out. And that ancestor had the nerve to die before the 1841 census.
My favourite tree of all time was one which confidently provided the parents of a 12 century ancestor of mine as King Richard 1, and his lovely lady known as Concubine 2. Funny name that-- you don't get many girls called Concubine these days ----
... what do you think happened to "Concubine 1"? Answers please .....
Wait .... wait .... thats an excellent question .... I have seen a tree where all the males are even numbered, and unknowns are all occupying the odd number positions from grandparents back on a 6 generation tree.
Yes, so a female was named at the conventional spot for father, but at NO other spot. Babies born without a mother .... ::) ...
I acted with restraint.
JM.
-
Evening all from South Australia.
Just tonight I was on An...try,
perusing hints in a tree that I don't work on much.
Seemed to be 2 people with lots of hints.
When I brought them on screen to examine same they did NOT have my family connections, names or dates in common.
What these people did have were thousands of names in their trees.
Now I don't know but does 38,000 people seem a bit excessive?
How would you "flesh out" relatives? That's what I try to do....keep it real!!!!
-
Evening all from South Australia.
Just tonight I was on An...try,
perusing hints in a tree that I don't work on much.
Seemed to be 2 people with lots of hints.
When I brought them on screen to examine same they did NOT have my family connections, names or dates in common.
What these people did have were thousands of names in their trees.
Now I don't know but does 38,000 people seem a bit excessive?
How would you "flesh out" relatives? That's what I try to do....keep it real!!!!
So agree with all you say, I call these tree owners with thousands of names "name collectors". Plus it can be very confusing for novice researchers who see a tree and believe, thankfully I got wise to the fact that I should check and double check through this site. . When I started out I was lucky to have 2 black tin boxes full of family papers going back to a marriage of Gt x 1 George in 1827. I got back 2 more generations to Daniel in 1733 son of an Edward Redman, before that it remains guesswork. So i keep looking I have come to conclusion it cant be proved 100%. I have 4 candidates for Daniel's parents all called Edward in right location and timescale. I even employed a professional genealogist a few years ago who agreed with my finds and couldn't get back either.
In the early days of my research through a tree I did follow a wrong line. George and his brother both had a daughter born on same date, same name and within a couple of miles of each other. It was only through the child living with his grandparents my Gt x 1 that I was able to see my error. I put in the hard work and it paid off.
I have contacted many tree owners trying to ascertain proof of their finds, , very few reply and those that do are not receptive to me telling them they things wrong.
-
Exactly. One starts with what one has, and carefully one searches, researches, checks and re-checks - when you find you've made an error you "pull back" the fabric of your tree until you find where/how you went wrong, and then you continue cautiously to identify the right line - yes, there may well be a very very few who do go back to Noah, but you can often tell the "Name Collectors" - as you say, oodles of names, lashings of images of coats of arms (some wrong!) almost random images of medieval nobles and Royals ....
You're right, Jettejjane, and they really don't like the idea they may be in error (much less that they ought to enter their tree for the "Booker" Prize for fiction).
-
Been great thread and nice to know I am not alone in thinking as I do and it has spurred me on to check out other Redman trees to pass a few lonely lockdown hours ;D, although I have not finished with this one yet!
I am not sure I would be allowed to put the name of the tree here, although anyone can find it for free. It contains Redman and then 6 other "posh sounding" names. I just knew it was a non-starter the minute I saw all those names. Then to discover a Redman son born by the name of Elizabeth Davies :o. She was in fact a Redman wife. The wrong death for George and a date and year of a death that cannot be proved - i have been locking since I started. I love the detective work of searching census, parish records, and obtaining bmd certs. The feeling I get when through my own hard work (and sometimes a little help from the Forum boards) I breakthrough a brickwall is so rewarding.
-
Agreed. Great help on here. Also: keeping us all sane at the moment!
TY
-
So agree with all you say, I call these tree owners with thousands of names "name collectors". Plus it can be very confusing for novice researchers who see a tree and believe, thankfully I got wise to the fact that I should check and double check through this site.
Sorry but that remark disgusts me, that is what archivists used to call family historians when they tried to access records to back up their research. It is one of the reasons why some trees are not properly research as the family historian got embarrassed being overlooked and talked down to when they tried to research properly at the time when research meant travelling to the archive and researching in person, rather than clicking a few buttons on a computer.
Some archivists even refused to allow those researchers to even access the records because they thought the researchers were not worthy of looking at them.
It makes me ashamed to even think a fellow family historian would use those words.
With much anguish,
Guy
-
So agree with all you say, I call these tree owners with thousands of names "name collectors". Plus it can be very confusing for novice researchers who see a tree and believe, thankfully I got wise to the fact that I should check and double check through this site.
Sorry but that remark disgusts me, that is what archivists used to call family historians when they tried to access records to back up their research. It is one of the reasons why some trees are not properly research as the family historian got embarrassed being overlooked and talked down to when they tried to research properly at the time when research meant travelling to the archive and researching in person, rather than clicking a few buttons on a computer.
Some archivists even refused to allow those researchers to even access the records because they thought the researchers were not worthy of looking at them.
It makes me ashamed to even think a fellow family historian would use those words.
With much anguish,
Guy
You have your opinion I have mine. However the owner of this tree now has all the means at his disposal , as you said , to check it out on the internet etc. as I have done. In my opinion there is no excuse for getting the easy to find facts wrong. I will always listen if someone tells me I have an error on my tree and check it out. When I have mentioned errors on other Redman trees I do not talk down to the owners. I offer my finds to help them. If the owner of this particular tree contacted me with proof I would listen and be gracious and accept I was wrong calling him/her a name collector. Until such time comes ...............
-
I always like to make sure I access records to back up my research and have spent many, many times confirming lines and linking the odd ancestor back to landed gentry, and then an actual gateway ancestor, through a heck of a lot of meticulous research that i have spent ages on. For anyone to say all of that is just "name collecting" or "guesswork" it would be quite annoying, and would actually sound like they are jealous.
-
I always like to make sure I access records to back up my research and have spent many, many times confirming lines and linking the odd ancestor back to landed gentry, and then an actual gateway ancestor, through a heck of a lot of meticulous research that i have spent ages on. For anyone to say all of that is just "name collecting" or "guesswork" it would be quite annoying, and would actually sound like they are jealous.
For the record I am not jealous . Nor am I saying every single tree that goes back to medieval times is incorrect. I just find it hard to believe. I don’t yearn for nobility in my tree . I am happy with my proven finds. When this tree owner cannot get the simplest facts right it doesn’t really annoy I would like to think he.she would be pleased with my offer help. I would be. What does slightly annoy is those I have actually tried to help that still go their own way and chose not to believe me with my proof in the tin box of family papers. They are happy though to put my pictures on their tree together with the wrong dates, for others to add to theirs. I don’t have a proper tree online and these pics were sent to one person by email and now appear on many trees.
-
What did pee me off was that he had the death of our shared gtx 2 Grandfather George Redman b. 1800 wrong. He just picked a Redman in Sussex who died in 1876 with obviously no checks. I did find this death when I started but ruled him out and it wasn’t that difficult. My George appeared on 1841 and 1851 census with family in Arundel then disappeared. Then I discovered through researching my gt x 1 Grandfather his son William on 1861 still in Arundel same address, but mother had remarried. Was easy to find death in 1852 in Arundel. I got death certificate. This was at start if my research when I was a total novice.
Having something a lot more recent and more easily verifiable would make me more doubtful. I would say that that if you have the right ancestors it's not impossible to get back to 1100s,not easy but not impossible. So I think some people out there will be able to get their trees that far back.
Before anyone gives me grief I do not have my tree that far back, nor do I see it happening with my tree.
-
I traced my own tree back to William the Conqueror quite easily. Everyone was working class in the nineteenth century but then I found a route into a minor landed gentry family (Kinnersley) and soon found published works that detailed their genealogy. Although these didn't mention a royal connection I followed some of the marriages sideways and up into the aristocracy (de Ferrers), finally linking to Robert, the 1st Earl of Gloucester, bastard son of Henry I.
-
Having something a lot more recent and more easily verifiable would make me more doubtful. I would say that that if you have the right ancestors it's not impossible to get back to 1100s,not easy but not impossible. So I think some people out there will be able to get their trees that far back.
Before anyone gives me grief I do not have my tree that far back, nor do I see it happening with my tree.
Yes, and not for one minute am I saying all trees on a......y are incorrect. Just this one and a few others containing my line. Of course there are those who can get their trees back a long way.. I am not stupid enough to think it is impossible just because I am have difficulty doing so. I am sure there are many many researchers who do not put their trees on the internet. I can only base my opinion on those on the A site. I don’t have complete version of mine online.
-
Only your gt, gt grannie knows who your gt, gt grandfather was, maybe not even then ;D
Taking a lang pedigree of 1,000 years at face value is a bit daft. Many of these so-called royals were nothing of the sort. DNA proof required, starting with the present lot!
Skoosh.
-
Only your gt, gt grannie knows who your gt, gt grandfather was, maybe not even then ;D
Taking a lang pedigree of 1,000 years at face value is a bit daft. Many of these so-called royals were nothing of the sort. DNA proof required, starting with the present lot!
Skoosh.
Yes that is true. My grandfather was a great family man as was his father before him. Hence the vast collection of family papers. There are many memories that both gentlemen kept alive . My father too related them to me, if I had known I was going to start this journey I would have paid more attention or written it down. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. We take everything on trust and all know that census and other records are open to mistranscription which can lead down wrong roads. I am confident enough to say I go back to great x 4 , and will check and re check in case something has turned up or I have something glaringly obviously wrong. The prime example is following the 2 ladies born to 2 brothers same name, same date same ish location. Sadly the wrong lady appears on the tree I found. It was pointed out to by by a fellow research buddy and was able to work it out easily once I realised. I was happy for his input. That’s why I wrongly think other tree owners would accept help not take the blinkered attitude they are always right.
-
I think that some of the problem is the Ancestry advert which gives the impression that all you have to do is type in a name and your tree is miraculously taken back hundreds of years. New comers to genealogy don't realise that not all trees are well researched and they take hints as the truth, so accept without checking.
On another site there was someone claiming to have got back to the 1400s within days of starting their tree, but when questioned admitted they had a 200 year gap in the middle. ;D
-
My tree and my mothers are running into the thousands I am not a name grabber or seeking to go back to the middle ages
But I do expand my tree sideways I include all siblings and spouses in each generation .in laws and adopted and birth families
From experience I find that children,& adults can be found on censuses with relatives not necessarily immediate ones
Also im interested in dna links how they work etc so sometimes fill in decendants of second and third cousins removed
It has proved helpful to adoptees and descendants of adoptees
Tho I may delete some of these branches so the tree remains manageable
Its a hobby we all do in different ways
I find it frustrating when people only follow father line or don't include siblings but its personal choice
-
Great comments Groom and Brigid. Agree with you both.
I started out just doing my paternal make line because it was easier, however I saw the error of my ways and researched the females, much harder, lol. And like you Bridgid I now go down many paths ;D
-
Ha haha jane we all change methods .I initially only sethad out to find my grandma s birth parents and if there were any half cousins for my mother didnt know it would be such an epic journey
Btw when was ypur ancestor mayor .he looks almost regal
-
My research started several decades ago was just to find out my grandmas name when my dad died as he always said he didn't know his mums name as she died when he was 4 yrs old... I know now ( but not then) all I had to do was look on his birth cert....
I like to research and PROVE my lines and like many I extend to siblings, their spouse and sometimes also research into their family especially when I have found really interesting people or interesting jobs or lives as I also like social history and soon found I learned about the connections of people in villages and families...as 'my lot' tended to be neither rich or rogues so less records, they have also enabled me to learn about new records I may never have had the opportunity to look at, like prison records etc...so 'my tree' is really 'my research' as it is not and never will be online anywhere no one can copy and paste it.
There is a natural end to every person or line as records get harder to 'connect' as the further back you get, for me it then becomes best guess or option and I clearly show that in my research and for some the line research stops as early as 1800 simply because I can't PROVE the right connection to the next generation as the records don't show proof ( for me) to go further yet that line ( Ketts of Norfolk) goes back to historical events like Ketts Rebellion and hangings in Norfolk re: 'Ben' Kett in the 1500s and back to Toka the Francigine c960 who was the grandfather of Harold Godwineson (King Harold II of England) BUT it was interesting to 'research' it and is only for my eyes
-
Obvs rolls in the hay with the milkman, or a female ancestor earning a bit of extra money on the streets to make ends meet were never documented, we just have to be as sure as we can ever be that what we have researched is correct. I think autosomal DNA gets less reliable after 6 generations, I have not done any DNA tests so am a bit of a novice with DNA and the cm markers and such.
If you do find royalty, you will be related to a certain Mr Dyer who is now a game show host as well as playing a character who runs a boozer in Walford.
-
Danny Dyer is my 29th cousin thrice removed ;D
DNA is irrelevant in such cases - but it's interesting to think that even allowing for adultery you could get 30 people in a room who'd all know each other intimately, including you and William the Conqueror. This could apply to most people in the UK and I see my tree as just an indication of who those 30 people might be for me.
-
Danny Dyer is my 29th cousin thrice removed ;D
DNA is irrelevant in such cases - but it's interesting to think that even allowing for adultery you could get 30 people in a room who'd all know each other intimately, including you and William the Conqueror. This could apply to most people in the UK and I see my tree as just an indication of who those 30 people might be for me.
I love it. People do say if you go back far enough we are all related.
Like Iluleah I record the could be’s where my lines stop but only for my eyes. I often revisit these names to see if there is anything I missed. Under my gt x 4 I have 4 sets of possible parents all sound right to me. In researching the tree in question I have learnt a lot and it has been fun examine all the names. Maybe one day I will find proof of a connection. Who knows and who cares apart from me :o
-
29th cousin? I don't have anyone further away than 6th cousin and those are from the Skelceys, which is a very rare name. In all other lines I don't go further than 5th cousin. Reason is, I don't fully trust anything before registrations and censuses - too little evidence, and as the OP posts, you often have a choice. With Davies, Morris, Lloyd in my tree, there are a lot of options.
Finding a gateway ancestor so soon is, dare I say it, lucky. I've not found one in decades of searching and have given up. I put my direct ancestors(only) into a Geni tree (a site I distrust anyway) and got zilch in the way of matches. Not even the fantasists link to me.
Chris
-
29th cousin? I don't have anyone further away than 6th cousin and those are from the Skelceys, which is a very rare name. In all other lines I don't go further than 5th cousin. Reason is, I don't fully trust anything before registrations and censuses - too little evidence, and as the OP posts, you often have a choice. With Davies, Morris, Lloyd in my tree, there are a lot of options.
Finding a gateway ancestor so soon is, dare I say it, lucky. I've not found one in decades of searching and have given up. I put my direct ancestors(only) into a Geni tree (a site I distrust anyway) and got zilch in the way of matches. Not even the fantasists link to me.
Chris
I think we are singing from the same sheet, lol. I can’t trust anything before registration or census, and even they can be misleading. I love your last comment, made me smile.
Nice to see I am not alone in my views in most of the replies here. Been an interesting thread.
-
BTW - Not an attack on Jamie, but I'd be looking for some corroboration on that noble lineage
-
Yes, always check it for yourself.
With most of your ancestors though, yes it does get harder the further back you go even during the census and BMD era. Especially ones who died before the 1851 census but were alive and well in 1841, and put the dreaded "No" for whether born in county or not. And when their surname is Smith, like my James Smith of Oxford, who died in 1849 and put no for born in county of residence. He could have been from Cornwall, or Cumberland or even born in my village of residence in Norfolk for all I know. :)
-
Unfortunately even "published works" get things wrong, especially ones that were published sometime ago. I know of 2 instances in my tree -
1. My direct line ancestor was mayor of an English town during the Regency period. The council website of that town lists all their previous mayors, with small bios of many. However it seems to have mixed up my ancestor with his son, and says that he died in the 1840s in a particular village. He didn't -- he died in a few years earlier, in his own bed in the town centre. I know this- I've got a copy of his death certificate and I've read newspaper reports of the inquest.
2. A more distantly related (to me) lass married a much older man in the 1780s. The groom's family tree is in Burke's peerage, so my distant relative and their children are too. However, the bride's father is incorrect-- they've used the name of her stepfather. I am certain of this due to family wills.
Meanwhile, I'm proud to announce that I'm sure I can trump you all! One wet winter weekend, with nothing better to do, I worked out that I am related to Prince William -- hold your breath -- he is the 5th great-nephew of the wife of the 2nd gt-grandfather of the husband of my 4th cousin x1 removed ;D I knew you'd all be impressed! :P :P :P
-
I have a Redman line too. Mine left England for Barbados in the mid-17th/early-18th century. Paper trail to someone born early 1700s, some educated guesses after that. Tough to cross the pond no matter what century you're in.
-
Meanwhile, I'm proud to announce that I'm sure I can trump you all! One wet winter weekend, with nothing better to do, I worked out that I am related to Prince William -- hold your breath -- he is the 5th great-nephew of the wife of the 2nd gt-grandfather of the husband of my 4th cousin x1 removed ;D I knew you'd all be impressed! :P :P :P
Well, my 5th cousin married a woman who'd previously married Sir Ronald Armstrong-Jones, father (through his first marriage) of Lord Snowdon. In the Peerage and independently checked. Doesn't count, I'm afraid.
-
I have a Redman line too. Mine left England for Barbados in the mid-17th/early-18th century. Paper trail to someone born early 1700s, some educated guesses after that. Tough to cross the pond no matter what century you're in.
What a coincidence I have one supposedly who went to Virginia mid 1600’s no proof the guy there is my ancestor. However my gt x 3 emigratedc1820 to Indiana and thankfully lots of records tomlrove it.
-
Well, I see different levels of tree. I have my verified tree which goes up to my 3xG grand parents. I research this for cause and age of death, which might actually be practically relevant to my family's health, and also for locations which broadly speaking tend to remain static beyond that point and along with occupations can yield interesting anecdotes.
Beyond that, of course lots can't be verified, even genuine historical documents may disguise all sorts of goings on. However that doesn't mean you can't find great interest in the supposed tree. For example I got back to Francis Kinnersley who married the daughter of MP Walter Bagot in the early seventeenth century. Turns out that a collection of letters written between these two have formed the basis of much research into the social relations of the time: https://collation.folger.edu/2014/03/aphorism-therapy-or-how-to-cope-with-dishonest-relatives/
Sure, Francis Kinnersley might not actually be the 7xg grandfather of my great-grandmother Clara Kinneresley, but it seems more likely than not on the balance of probabilities. I don't need absolute proof in order to enjoy thinking about how Francis's behavior and written demands of his father-in-law in the 1620s might have contributed to his family's consequent descent into the working class.
-
All this talk of "name collectors" is really getting me down. In total I have just over 6000 people in my tree. I have been researching my direct line and the paternal lines of my daughters so that I have it to pass onto them. Granted some people are just a name atm but that is because my research is a work in progress so I just don't have the information yet. I look at my direct line first then start adding siblings on each generation, I record the birth and death of siblings, and marriage if applicable. I am now working the lines forward. I do this not because I want to have as many names as possible but for the following reasons: 1.Ironically because I consider family history about more than just names and what children, siblings etc someone has is part of their life 2. I have learned that researching collateral lines can throw up interesting information about the lives my direct ancestors eg my 4x grt gran's fortunes were improved when she was granted my 4 x grt uncle's army pension and another direct was employed by his brother in law. 3. This is my hobby and I am addicted to the research process so it gives me some enjoyment.
As I said I do try and find out as much about each individual's lives as possible but there are some disclaimers. 1 for some people in my tree I have not, as yet found out much about their lives despite trying. As long as I have evidence that they existed I add them to my tree, record what that evidence is and hope that at some point in the future other sources will become available. 2 there are people on my tree whom I have established exist as in 1 above and recorded as such but haven't done much research on yet. Researching them is on my to do list. As I already mentioned my tree is a work in progress and as it's m hobby I like that I have lots to research 3 A lot of my research is in Scotland. From 1855 onwards Scottish marriage certificates give both parents of the bride and groom. I record these for all the marriages that have these certificates. I view it as another way of establishing for example which Elizabeth Jones married into the family. I record that the information is just from the marriage certificates as I am fully aware that sometimes people lied about their father's name in particular. Although these parents are included in my count I am unlikely to research them unless I suspect that my blood relatives married siblings or cousins and I want to test that out.
I do not have my tree back to 1000s, I have no gateway ancestors that I am aware of. I never blindly accept hints on Ancestry, I never copy from the trees of others. I do do my own research, I consider that there is no such thing as too many sources, I consider other possible explanations for my findings and examine all possible hypotheses to the best of my ability. I believe that I have got as far as I have because I have been doing it so long, the wonders of Scotland's people Centres which allow access to a lot of records in one day in quite a cost effective way. That before the advent of Scotland's People Centres I was able to visit New Register House several times which although not as fast as SP did allow for several certificates to be viewed in one day in order to find the correct ones. Also the layout of Scottish certificates makes cross referencing a lot easier as it provides more information.
I do not have my tree back to the 1100s as I have already said but with big families the numbers soon mount up. I will do another post to show how this worked out in my tree so that i don't exceed the post length limit.
-
For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills. It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me. We all approach research differently and at the end of the day do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way. If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters. I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two ;)
-
How the numbers mounted up in my tree:
I started with myself, i have my 2 exes and my 2 children giving me 5 people.
I have all 3 sets of parents for myself and exes bringing up to 11 people.
There are 6 siblings my generation bringing us up to 17 people.
Five of these siblings married so along with recording spouse's parents as explained in previous post. So with 5 spouses and 5 sets of parents that brings us to 32 people.
Between them they had 10 children taking us to 42 people
I have identified all 3 sets of grandparents for my generation bringing us up to 48 people
There are/were (some are deceased now) 33 siblings in our parents generations *by our parents I mean my parents and my ex's parents. This brings us to 81 people.
Twenty nine of these siblings married with 2 of them marrying twice giving us 31 spouses for this generation, along with their parents that adds 93 people bringing us to 174 people
Between them they had 79 children bringing us to 243 people.
I haven't sourced all marriage records for this generation yet but so far I have identified 34 marriages for this generation bringing us (with parents too) to 345 people
As above my research is incomplete but I have 66 children recorded on my tree bringing us to 411 people.
The previous 2 sections as stated my research is incomplete. I know for sure that there are more marriages and more children. I have met them but i have not got them recorded on my tree yet as haven't got round to sourcing documentary evidence. Research on my line is more advanced than my girls' paternal lines as I have been researching for longer.
Another section that is incomplete is recording marriages for the children in the above generation who are old enough. So far I have 5 marriages recorded for this generation as I have only done it for my line so far. This brings us to 426 people.
Between them they have 7 children so far bringing us to 433 people.
I have identified all sets of great grandparents (my great grandparents and those of my exes) That brings us to 457 people.
Grandparent's generation has 57 siblings bringing us to 490 people
So nearly half way to first 1000 by covering myself, spouses, children, parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great aunts and uncles, aunts and uncles, first cousins, first cousins once removed and twice removed. with the everyone born since the start of civil reg. I have too much to do just now to divide my count up more at them moment but will do an analysis of what I have of my grandparent's (and their grandparent's siblings later).
-
For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills. It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me. We all approach research differently and at the end of the day do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way. If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters. I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two ;)
But you're not just stating your personal preference for how you do your tree. The posts read as sneering eg "these people with 100s in their tree are just name collectors", implying just copying and pasting, don't care about research.
-
For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills. It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me. We all approach research differently and at the end of the day do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way. If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters. I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two ;)
But you're not just stating your personal preference for how you do your tree. The posts read as sneering eg "these people with 100s in their tree are just name collectors", implying just copying and pasting, don't care about research.
You think I am sneering , which I am not but that’s your opinion. I accept that , just like I have my opinion on name collectors. An opinion is .... a view or judgement formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. An interesting thread with differing views which I am enjoying and not taking personally.
-
We all approach research differently and at the end of the day do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way.
This is very true, so there is no need for anyone to explain what they do, why they have so many people etc. If they are happy with what they have, they don't have to justify or defend it.
My tree is relatively small, but that's because it is just mine, obviously people who follow partners or ex partners and children on the same tree would have a much bigger one. My trees stop at the moment around the year 1660 and I am quite content with that, as I can be as sure as possible that it is correct to that point. I couldn't care a less whether people have 100 or 100,000 on their tree that's up to them.
-
For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills. It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me. We all approach research differently and at the end of the day do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way. If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters. I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two ;)
But you're not just stating your personal preference for how you do your tree. The posts read as sneering eg "these people with 100s in their tree are just name collectors", implying just copying and pasting, don't care about research.
You think I am sneering , which I am not but that’s your opinion. I accept that , just like I have my opinion on name collectors. An opinion is .... a view or judgement formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. An interesting thread with differing views which I am enjoying and not taking personally.
You're right I do read it as sneering. I would view "I prefer to do...........with my tree" as a personal opinion and preference and that's great. But when a sentence starts "these people who......with their tree" is passing judgement on them because they have a different preference.
I guess it's useful to know what people think of me but it is incredibly unfair to suggest that I do not care about sources or accuracy. I have never claimed that I don't make mistakes but none of them have been because I haven't tried to get it right and when I do find errors I try and I fix it immediately I find it.
Edit: I really must add that I did not set out to have 6000 people in my tree. I set out to record my direct line as far back as records would allow and to record their family in terms of siblings, in-laws, nieces and nephews etc and for that all to be as accurate as possible. It's is just how many people it is so far.
-
Well I'm someone who agreed with jettejjane on sourcing (and didn't read anything as sneering) but who has a tree bigger than pharmaT - so I guess I must be a name collector. How shocking!
I once started a thread on name collecting, easily found, and the arguments went back and forth. We sort of agreed that it was an unfortunate phrase but couldn't agree on an alternative, so it seems to have stuck.
I think the opprobrium was mainly directed at those with 30000+ trees who copy whole branches into their tree of people who aren't even related to them. Following collateral lines is ordinary family history, surely. I do it for the same reasons pharma does, plus the additional one that it's put me in touch with some fairly distantly researchers and we've been mutually helpful. I've met some of them, it was great.
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698504.0
though sometimes I wish I hadn't bothered
-
For goodness sake I am not talking about you Pharma. I don't know a thing about your research nor do I care about it. Why on earth do you think I was attacking you? You don't have to explain the ins and outs of your research to anyone. . Enough now please this is getting personal which was not my intention.
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698504.0
though sometimes I wish I hadn't bothered
How could i have missed that one, lol. Nah it always good to bother ;) Until it gets personal that is.
-
I really can't understand why anyone should have taken this personally!
6000 on a tree anyway, Pharma, isn't large compared to some trees I've heard about where people have over 30,000 or even larger. Their tree, their choice!
-
Well I'm someone who agreed with jettejjane on sourcing (and didn't read anything as sneering) but who has a tree bigger than pharmaT - so I guess I must be a name collector. How shocking!
I once started a thread on name collecting, easily found, and the arguments went back and forth. We sort of agreed that it was an unfortunate phrase but couldn't agree on an alternative, so it seems to have stuck.
I think the opprobrium was mainly directed at those with 30000+ trees who copy whole branches into their tree of people who aren't even related to them. Following collateral lines is ordinary family history, surely. I do it for the same reasons pharma does, plus the additional one that it's put me in touch with some fairly distantly researchers and we've been mutually helpful. I've met some of them, it was great.
Well I'm someone who agreed with jettejjane on sourcing (and didn't read anything as sneering) but who has a tree bigger than pharmaT - so I guess I must be a name collector. How shocking!
I once started a thread on name collecting, easily found, and the arguments went back and forth. We sort of agreed that it was an unfortunate phrase but couldn't agree on an alternative, so it seems to have stuck.
I think the opprobrium was mainly directed at those with 30000+ trees who copy whole branches into their tree of people who aren't even related to them. Following collateral lines is ordinary family history, surely. I do it for the same reasons pharma does, plus the additional one that it's put me in touch with some fairly distantly researchers and we've been mutually helpful. I've met some of them, it was great.
Why do we need a name for it. I just don't bother with other people's trees. I will discuss specific things with someone if they contact me but otherwise I don't really care. I used to look out of curiosity (not to copy) but I learned my lesson after looking at a tree and finding myself dead on it.
BTW I have 1000s of sources which I haven't got the time or energy to count right now. I even have notes in my tree where there are minor discrepancies with sources where I discuss what I think is correct. eg My ex's grandparents married in 1933, I have their marriage cert, I have the birth certs of all 10 children. The marriage date agrees in 9 of the children, in the other one it has the same date but 1932. I have concluded it is the correct child of the same couple because: the day and month match, the parents names match and there are no McCorgrayMcCulloch marriages listed in 1932 (I checked), in fact no other marriages a few years either side, the place of marriage on the 10th birth matches the place of birth on the other 10 sources and the address of the 10th birth matches the address on the 4 previous births.
-
Why do we need a name for it? We don't, but Guy gets annoyed by the term "n*m* c*ll*ct*r" (see referenced thread passim).
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
-
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
Or you could contact them and offer inside information from the other side at a price. ;D ;D
-
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
Or you could contact them and offer inside information from the other side at a price. ;D ;D
Wouldn’t it be great to have help on the other side. That or a time machine ;D
-
Why do we need a name for it? We don't, but Guy gets annoyed by the term "n*m* c*ll*ct*r" (see referenced thread passim).
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
I don't blame him tbh it's quite derisory. My point is we don't need to call other treeholders anything. If we are in actual contact with them we can call them by their names otherwise not worth considering.
-
Why do we need a name for it? We don't, but Guy gets annoyed by the term "n*m* c*ll*ct*r" (see referenced thread passim).
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
I don't blame him tbh it's quite derisory. My point is we don't need to call other treeholders anything. If we are in actual contact with them we can call them by their names otherwise not worth considering.
OK, I might reference "somebody on Ancestry with an impressive 59, 678 people in their tree"
-
Why do we need a name for it? We don't, but Guy gets annoyed by the term "n*m* c*ll*ct*r" (see referenced thread passim).
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
I don't blame him tbh it's quite derisory. My point is we don't need to call other treeholders anything. If we are in actual contact with them we can call them by their names otherwise not worth considering.
OK, I might reference "somebody on Ancestry with an impressive 59, 678 people in their tree"
Love it Chris :P
-
Why do we need a name for it? We don't, but Guy gets annoyed by the term "n*m* c*ll*ct*r" (see referenced thread passim).
I'd be chuffed to find myself dead on a tree. I'd contact them and threaten to haunt them!
I don't blame him tbh it's quite derisory. My point is we don't need to call other treeholders anything. If we are in actual contact with them we can call them by their names otherwise not worth considering.
OK, I might reference "somebody on Ancestry with an impressive 59, 678 people in their tree"
So, it's not my tree, why should I care?
-
So, it's not my tree, why should I care?
It was an example - if for instance I wanted to refer to somebody whose name or handle I didn't know or shouldn't use, without using the dread term n*** c*********
-
I've been following this thread with interest. I think the problem is that there's a big difference between having a well-researched large tree, and having a tree of any size which makes wild ancestral claims without research. I think there are probably some people who alight on something that suggests a direct line back to Methuselah; they grab this line, they look neither left nor right, they imagine this is "proof" - but it might only mention a couple of hundred names (I'm not sure how many ancestors you'd need to get back to Methuselah but you get my point!) So they might have a relatively small tree, but there's no research, just a wealth of credulity attached.
However -- I have just come across a tree on Ancestry that has these statistics:
801915 People 2 Records 2 Sources
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I don't think I'll bother messaging them to see if they can shed any light on the subject of my enquiry!
-
So, it's not my tree, why should I care?
It was an example - if for instance I wanted to refer to somebody whose name or handle I didn't know or shouldn't use, without using the dread term n*** c*********
I realise that but my point was that we have no need to consider these trees or their authors at all so we have no need to call them anything. Their trees have no impact on our trees other than to generate potentially useless hints on ancestry which we can ignore or even turn off.
As an aside to Annie's comment until recently I didn't have any of my sources entered into my Ancestry tree, I had them held separately. Only in the last year have a started the painstaking task of entering all my sources when I realised how much offence it was causing proper researchers. So far I only have 965 sources displayed on my Ancestry tree because I am having to free type a large proportion of my sources into the program as I did not find them on Ancestry. Well I guess I am at least I suppose I am giving people some enjoyment by giving them the chance to sneer at someone inferior to them.
-
I've been following this thread with interest. I think the problem is that there's a big difference between having a well-researched large tree, and having a tree of any size which makes wild ancestral claims without research. I think there are probably some people who alight on something that suggests a direct line back to Methuselah; they grab this line, they look neither left nor right, they imagine this is "proof" - but it might only mention a couple of hundred names (I'm not sure how many ancestors you'd need to get back to Methuselah but you get my point!) So they might have a relatively small tree, but there's no research, just a wealth of credulity attached.
However -- I have just come across a tree on Ancestry that has these statistics:
801915 People 2 Records 2 Sources
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I don't think I'll bother messaging them to see if they can shed any light on the subject of my enquiry!
Yes i agree that’s all I am trying to say. I think Pharma took this to a whole new level but am at a loss to understand why she threw her toys out of the pram and thinks any of my comments were aimed at her.
When I started researching I stuck to males as it was easier, lol. I did mention on a thread and got a lot of negative comments telling me that was wrong. Well it suited me at the times so I ignored it. But i did venture down the female lines and spurred on by successes continue to do so. Not because of what was said but because I wanted to expand my tree.
-
I've been following this thread with interest. I think the problem is that there's a big difference between having a well-researched large tree, and having a tree of any size which makes wild ancestral claims without research. I think there are probably some people who alight on something that suggests a direct line back to Methuselah; they grab this line, they look neither left nor right, they imagine this is "proof" - but it might only mention a couple of hundred names (I'm not sure how many ancestors you'd need to get back to Methuselah but you get my point!) So they might have a relatively small tree, but there's no research, just a wealth of credulity attached.
However -- I have just come across a tree on Ancestry that has these statistics:
801915 People 2 Records 2 Sources
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I don't think I'll bother messaging them to see if they can shed any light on the subject of my enquiry!
Wow! I thought my fictitious figure was high but - if this tree has been growing since the net became generally available (say 25 years) that's adding an average of 87 new people a day all that time - or more likely they're copying whole chunks of other trees across without looking at them.
For the record I have NO records or sources on my Ancestry tree, for the same reason that I have no photos or documents - a lesson learned when my tree was public. (I have those details elsewhere). The Ancestry tree is just for people to find me and my relatives, and if they do I'm very happy to share what I have. Happens rarely these days.
-
A common tendency is to categorise people with broad brushstrokes. Even if someone HAS decided to put al the folk in the phone book with same name on their tree, if it makes them happy and you know that your research is as meticulous as you can make it , so what?
-
A common tendency is to categorise people with broad brushstrokes. Even if someone HAS decided to put al the folk in the phone book with same name on their tree, if it makes them happy and you know that your research is as meticulous as you can make it , so what?
Oh dear. Someone else I have offended. I think this thread should be removed . I can’t be bothered to explain myself anymore and fed up trying.
-
You don't need to explain yourself, you've made your views perfectly clear. You just appear to not grasp that we cannot see how someone having a ridiculous tree is any or our business or harms someone. Yes someone could copy it but that's their lookout. They seem to be getting enjoyment out of it so let them be as it won't negatively impact the accuracy of your own tree.
-
You don't need to explain yourself, you've made your views perfectly clear. You just appear to not grasp that we cannot see how someone having a ridiculous tree is any or our business or harms someone. Yes someone could copy it but that's their lookout. They seem to be getting enjoyment out of it so let them be as it won't negatively impact the accuracy of your own tree.
For goodness sake give it a rest . Don’t tell me what I can and cannot grasp. I think you should look closer to home. You are the only one who is being confrontational towards me. Everyone else is being reasonable wether they agree or disagree.
-
I am a passionate genealogist and like to, as I said, check everything and back up any research, and find out for myself if any published records are right as they can be wrong. If I cannot prove it for myself then the people will not be added to my tree but if I do find the smoking gun and the books are right, I add them to my tree. No one can say that is non viable.
As for name collectors well it is their prerogative if they choose to add maybes to their tree. If they have a James Smith who was married to a wife called Kerrenhappuch in Truro, Cornwall in the 1750s, but then find an Ancestry hint which has a James Smith marrying a Kerrenhappuch Keeble 250 miles away in Loddon, Norfolk in 1745 and add it to their tree without checking to see if it is the right marriage, that is their business. They think "Oh well they must have come from Norfolk originally".
They then say they found the right marriage and tell relatives about the new found Keeble line, then find a James Smith wed a Kerrenhappuch Trevelyan in Truro in 1748. Uh oh.
-
And this is why I refuse to have a public tree on Ancestry or anywhere else.
I have had my well researched information copied/pinched/hijacked too many times in the past.
Even if you find the original perpetrator of false information, they may not listen to you if you try and point out the error.
I'm all about truth and correct data. If I have something likely, but not proven to my satisfaction, I will put a note in the tree accordingly with the current date.
-
I no longer update my tree on Ancestry and have removed my sources. I do not even know how many people I have. Not even interested to have a look.
I am also Deceased on 2 tree's (not Mine ) Once in my maiden name and once in my married name.
I did contact 1 tree owner to point out that I was alive and maybe it was someone else with a similar name.
I received a very rude reply and was told they have my death certificate and maybe I should buy it myself.
Everyone does their tree the way they want. I only worry about my tree and nobody else's.
Stay Strong Stay Safe
Carol
-
I prefer not to put my research into an public online tree - my choice ! But I don't quite understand those of you who are genuine researchers who, having chosen to post up a public tree, whether on Ancestry or any of the other sites, do not show sources.
I sometime search the online trees to see if there are any hints towards breaking down one of my brick walls. If I come across a tree that shows no sources, or merely refers to other trees as sources, I assume that the poster is not serious about their work and that they have not attempted to confirm what they are posting and that, therefore, the work should be ignored.
Now I know it is up to each of us to decide how we handle our research and results but it seems to me that if you are sure enough of your work to post the results publicly on line then it follows that you would give your sources (which, after all, is just good academic practice !). From what several of you have said on here I may be wrong about this, but perhaps somebody could explain the reasoning, please ?
-
I received a very rude reply
Of course they are right, we are wrong, I was tersely told that I had my father's death date and year wrong. I just can't understand why even if they have certificates, they ignore that the parent's are wrong and still post to the tree because the name fits.
Apparently my Father's grandad had half siblings, no stepmother mentioned. Someone added two and two and guess what, I will give this chap another family of children. I don't bother to correct people now, I just drop the rope a little bit more.
Cheers
KHP
-
I've come to the conclusion, though, that some people are rude without meaning to be. I used to think that it was rude or ignorant to reply in just a stream-of-consciousness babble without capitals or punctuation, but of course it's only text-speak. I don't want to be a grammar nazi.
GR has a feature where you can just choose stock answers like "Sorry, not my relative" for those who can't be bothered to write a sentence. I thought it was rude when I got one of those about MacDonald Green who married in, since there was only one such birth found in all of Britain and Ireland. Sure, there were two marriages in 1922 and 1929 but so what? In fact the Barnet marriage to a Hogan had children all the way to 1939, and lo and behold in that year both MacDonalds were on the pre-war register. So that reply wasn't rude at all.
I now think that the Warwickshire MacDonald Green was registered with a first name which he then dropped. Suspects include a George in Sheffield and a John in West Derby, both in the right quarter (Dec 1900). I'm not too bothered because his was a childless marriage.
-
I prefer not to put my research into an public online tree - my choice ! But I don't quite understand those of you who are genuine researchers who, having chosen to post up a public tree, whether on Ancestry or any of the other sites, do not show sources.
I sometime search the online trees to see if there are any hints towards breaking down one of my brick walls. If I come across a tree that shows no sources, or merely refers to other trees as sources, I assume that the poster is not serious about their work and that they have not attempted to confirm what they are posting and that, therefore, the work should be ignored.
Now I know it is up to each of us to decide how we handle our research and results but it seems to me that if you are sure enough of your work to post the results publicly on line then it follows that you would give your sources (which, after all, is just good academic practice !). From what several of you have said on here I may be wrong about this, but perhaps somebody could explain the reasoning, please ?
Personally my tree on Ancestry isn't public. I have a whole list of reasons for this which I have explained in detail before. I realise many people think I am a bad person for not having my tree public. I treat my Ancestry tree as an online backup. The reason all my sources aren't uploaded onto Ancestry is tbh laziness. The majority of my sources weren't obtained on Ancestry and many of them aren't data sources on Ancestry. This means that for every source I have to scan it, upload media, click add source, type in all the details freehand which is very time consuming and mind numbing. When I first started my tree on Ancestry I had about 12 years worth of research so that was a lot of scanning and typing. I have recently started entering them all after I found out how offensive proper researchers found it but as I already said it is time consuming and I only have 956 sources entered so far. I'm sorry but I really think it will take me years as I have 1000s and I get distracted as I keep remembering something I was going to look into, I will try and improve my focus.
Any family members I am in contact with I send them the sources relevant to the are we're looking at.
However I also made my tree unsearchable after receiving a nasty message telling me that my Dad's date of death was wrong and that he hadn't died but moved to NY and remarried. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and replied thanking them for the information but explaining that i was physically present when my Dad died and had the original death cert (ie the one issued at time of registration). I suggested that it must be a different James they were looking for and as I was in Scotland and they were in US I told them I was going to the SP centre soon and would they like me to look for their James. They replied telling me I was delusional that my Dad hadn't died when he did and I just told myself that because I couldn't handle the fact that he had abandoned me.
-
They replied telling me I was delusional that my Dad hadn't died when he did and I just told myself that because I couldn't handle the fact that he had abandoned me.
Again? You do seem to come across a lot of people like this, at work, online, in the street, at school....
-
Has anybody ever criticised anybody for not providing sources on their tree? Not on Rootschat as far as I know. Certainly never happened to me, and my reasons for my "blank" Ancestry tree are the same as Pharmas, if you read my earlier post. (I accept that one might get this criticism from some best-ignored ancestry idiots).
-
Has anybody ever criticised anybody for not providing sources on their tree?
What someone does on a private tree is their own business. But there is plenty of criticism of unsourced profiles on public trees such as Wikitree.
-
They replied telling me I was delusional that my Dad hadn't died when he did and I just told myself that because I couldn't handle the fact that he had abandoned me.
Again? You do seem to come across a lot of people like this, at work, online, in the street, at school....
Because I am a bad person. I wouldn't expect proper people to understand as proper people have different experiences.
-
Has anybody ever criticised anybody for not providing sources on their tree? Not on Rootschat as far as I know. Certainly never happened to me, and my reasons for my "blank" Ancestry tree are the same as Pharmas, if you read my earlier post. (I accept that one might get this criticism from some best-ignored ancestry idiots).
I have come across several posts on here complaining about people who have no sources on their Ancestry tree over the years.
-
OK, I've never noticed it. I don't trust Wikitree anyway. I can believe people complaining here about unsourced trees on Ancestry without naming anybody - but has any Rootschatter ever publicly called out another on here for not sourcing?
-
OK, I've never noticed it. I don't trust Wikitree anyway. I can believe people complaining here about unsourced trees on Ancestry without naming anybody - but has any Rootschatter ever publicly called out another on here for not sourcing?
I have never seen anyone complaining here about unsourced trees apart from giving it a mention to warn people not to take ancestry trees on trust. Always verify the finds. I would not dream of publically calling anyone out for not putting sources. It’s up to them, albeit confusing for anyone starting out on their research. I believed all tree at the start thank goodness I learnt from this site .
Most comments here whether i agree or disagree I find quite helpful. Who I listen to is my business and I go my own way . If I am happy with my tree and proud of my finds that’s all that matters. Opinions, debates and discussion can be a minefield here , good job I didn’t mention religion or politics, lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have spent the morning checking out this tree in more depth. There are sources quoted some like birth, marriage and deaths which may or may not be my ancestors but many are just for other a******y trees. How can I gain access to these trees? There are a couple of books quoted on the Redmans (Redmaynes) of Levens going back to 1100 explaining where they originally came from. France after The Battle of Hastings. . The further forward I progress i can't see the connection , for want of better words from "Up North" to "Down South", (Sussex). From Lords and Ladies born in Castles, with 3 coats of arms, with professions such as Sherriff, Politicians, Speaker of House of Commons to ordinary farm workers. Its a great leap of faith. Not out of question but its back to the proof thing again. Obviously I don't have access to his private research so who knows?
In between some older names under their profile it says in a blue box unverified. But the son is not and sources are cited. More confusion.
As the tree owner has only 3000 odd names in tree does this make them less of a you know what?. For fear of opening flood gates I refrained from saying those 2 words :D
I am enjoying the challenge and honing my research skill plus learning a bit about the Battle of Hastings. So its not all bad. Who knows one day you may have to call me Your Ladyship.
-
If you come across my tree or my cousins tree or a relatives tree which I.manage you may well find families where the only source is "ancestry trees".
I have copied wholesale .....from my mothers tree .......which I have meticulously researched .
I didnt know you could add more than 1 dna result to same tree
It takes a lot of time to add all documents to each tree
Also not being very good with computer I cannot put refs to sources from scotlands people so it may look unresearched but I have paid for and seen original documents.
Interesting discussion ....
-
If you come across my tree or my cousins tree or a relatives tree which I.manage you may well find families where the only source is "ancestry trees".
I have copied wholesale .....from my mothers tree .......which I have meticulously researched .
I didnt know you could add more than 1 dna result to same tree
It takes a lot of time to add all documents to each tree
Also not being very good with computer I cannot put refs to sources from scotlands people so it may look unresearched but I have paid for and seen original documents.
Interesting discussion ....
To put in sources from SP you have to go into add source and type in all the details, they first tim you have to set up a new repository. I could show you better than trying to put it into words here. I'm not very good at explaining steps in a computer program in words when I am not with the person trying to use it. It is very time consuming and frustrating which is why I keep giving up adding them to Ancestry. I promised today to work in fixing it and it took hours to get into my tree as Ancestry was down. No idea how long it is going to take me, but sure it won't be this week.
-
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I just type "SP 655/ 31" or "SP OPR 651/ 60 187" in the description box. Given that the name and date of the person involved is already there, anyone who wants to confirm the information can easily find the document for themself if they wish.
-
I would never, ever, name and shame anyones tree.
Yes there are a lot of questionable trees online and in the case of Ancestry any tree I look at that has other Ancestry trees as the source immediately receives extra caution from me.
I can certainly see a privacy benefit of a tree where each person has zero supportive references, just BMD dates.
-
They replied telling me I was delusional that my Dad hadn't died when he did and I just told myself that because I couldn't handle the fact that he had abandoned me.
Again? You do seem to come across a lot of people like this, at work, online, in the street, at school....
A little too personal perhaps?
-
Maybe I'm just lazy, but I just type "SP 655/ 31" or "SP OPR 651/ 60 187" in the description box. Given that the name and date of the person involved is already there, anyone who wants to confirm the information can easily find the document for themself if they wish.
That won't come up on the tree summary under the number of sources and that's part of what people complain about, saying there are no sources, or only number of sources. Thanks to Ancestry being down I only managed to add 2 more sources last night so I'm now only sitting at 958 sources.
-
One thing I was curious about. Who was your earliest recorded Redman ancestor in Sussex? I haven't followed all of the discussions in detail. Was it this mortgage with Edward Redman of Pulborough in 1726?
(a) John Humphery of Pulborough, carpenter
(b) Edward Redman of Pulborough, husb
The is in TNA Discovery and West Sussex archives.
-
I have a branch in my tree going back to "Gille Chlerig Gylocher 1st Earl of Mar." His dates are circa 1082 and 1131. A mention of his father is on the web, but how accurate is that information, I do not know. This line has come down through the "Leith family of Leith Hall". Finding proof of actual dates and names involved is problematic, to say the lease, but I have recorded the individuals and relevant dates involved based on information gained through many searches. I accept there may be discrepancies, and I will correct them when I can obtain more accurate information, but the catch 22 is, will that information be more reliable than what I already have?
Malky.
-
One thing I was curious about. Who was your earliest recorded Redman ancestor in Sussex? I haven't followed all of the discussions in detail. Was it this mortgage with Edward Redman of Pulborough in 1726?
(a) John Humphery of Pulborough, carpenter
(b) Edward Redman of Pulborough, husb
The is in TNA Discovery and West Sussex archives.
My earliest that I have proved to my satisfaction is Daniel Redman b. 1733 Pulborough. I believe his father could be an Edward Redman born 1694 in Wisborough Green who married Margaret Jays in 1726 Pulborough. Although I cant prove birth is same Edward as one who married . Out of the 4 possible father's for Daniel this one is the most plausible.
I have not found this mortgage so in the dark on what it is.
-
You can find it in TNA Discovery.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/11f48287-0d32-4374-92c1-7dd20010e029
Reference: Add Mss 42,095-42,096
Title: Mortgage for £25 by 1000 year lease, with bond
Description:
(a) John Humphery of Pulborough, carpenter
(b) Edward Redman of Pulborough, husb
Property as before
Date: 7 January 1726
-
You can find it in TNA Discovery.
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/11f48287-0d32-4374-92c1-7dd20010e029
Reference: Add Mss 42,095-42,096
Title: Mortgage for £25 by 1000 year lease, with bond
Description:
(a) John Humphery of Pulborough, carpenter
(b) Edward Redman of Pulborough, husb
Property as before
Date: 7 January 1726
Thank you, I found it , interesting.
-
As a postscript About the proof issue. Another tree owner with a connection to my Redmans, had a criminal record with proof ? for my Gt x 2 Grandfather George. I viewed the original pages which gave the trial date 1838 . A George Redman aged 38 of Sussex. So birth date 1800 location Sussex could be my George. It took an hour with help to discover it was a different George.
-
As a postscript About the proof issue. Another tree owner with a connection to my Redmans, had a criminal record with proof ? for my Gt x 2 Grandfather George. I viewed the original pages which gave the trial date 1838 . A George Redman aged 38 of Sussex. So birth date 1800 location Sussex could be my George. It took an hour with help to discover it was a different George.
And that is why so many trees on Ancestry are deeply flawed.
The tree creator simply adds what appears to be a logical hint without doing due diligence.
My Wife’s tree has a xGGF of hers born and baptised in the village he lived in, the same village his parents were born and baptised in, the same village his children would be born and baptised in.
Many Ancestry trees have him born to different parents sixty miles away because that cones up first in the hints and it must be first because so many trees have the error it has become self perpetuating.
-
As a postscript About the proof issue. Another tree owner with a connection to my Redmans, had a criminal record with proof ? for my Gt x 2 Grandfather George. I viewed the original pages which gave the trial date 1838 . A George Redman aged 38 of Sussex. So birth date 1800 location Sussex could be my George. It took an hour with help to discover it was a different George.
And that is why so many trees on Ancestry are deeply flawed.
The tree creator simply adds what appears to be a logical hint without doing due diligence.
My Wife’s tree has a xGGF of hers born and baptised in the village he lived in, the same village his parents were born and baptised in, the same village his children would be born and baptised in.
Many Ancestry trees have him born to different parents sixty miles away because that cones up first in the hints and it must be first because so many trees have the error it has become self perpetuating.
I have exactly that problem. The Redmans were rife in the Billingshurst area, many bearing the same Christian name and very close birth dates. I have found my Great x 1 Grandfather and others on trees born in totally the wrong location but marrying the correct spouse??? It’s very easy to find his bmd. I don’t think there is any excuse for these type of errors.
-
I know what you mean. In my tree I have a Thomas Dowdeswell, born in 1747 in Temple Guiting Gloucs. There are a myriad of trees that have him marrying in 1775 in Guiting Power, the next parish over.
How hard is it for these tree owners to check the Gloucs records as I did, and find his burial in 1758?
These same trees have another error a couple of generations back too. Because a John Dowdeswell had children baptised in Temple Guiting, he must be the right one, according to these trees. Reading through a couple of wills points you easily in the right direction to another John living in Hasleton, a short distance away.
-
I am pleased I was taught to research before the internet came into being, so I already knew what researching your FH meant...from experience in the early days when I ran a 'start your FH class' and as part of training IT also ran a genealogy class ( for people who could research FH but wanted to understand how the internet could help with FH) a couple of newbies came to the second or third class very proud ( or showing off) with a huge tree they claimed was 'their FH' which they had 'found online' I remember the look on the faces of some in the class, jealousy, shock, surprise.... it took me about 5 minutes to show the class that copy and paste/name collectors was not the way to get 'your' FH and just because it is online and lots of people copy so have the same information it doesn't make it true/real/researched...so all they had was a collection of unrelated names ( although I didn't tell them that I let them realise that for themselves)
The internet is one tool and you would never use one tool to build a house you use all the tools you need...it is great for quickly checking lots of areas, it is great to connect you to others and their knowledge and experience (like rootschat) but 'trees', 'collections', 'transcriptions' are not and never will be records, they are if used just a clue about where to look and find real records.
We as humans want/demand everything quick...we microwave food it tastes dreadful but its quick, we buy sandwiches and prepare meals instead of making them ourselves, we want already trained /socialised pups...but they don't come like that it takes effort and lots of work, we don't knit and sew and make our clothes instead we buy at an expensive price and inferior quality....and researching your FH takes time there is no magic quick fix...and 'one error' means it is a tree of unrelated names
-
Great comments Iluleah. I can’t imagine how hard research was before the dreaded internet. I have only been researching about 7 or 8 years but learnt the hard way not to take anything from the internet genealogy sites at face value, always do your own checks. Before I start a riot here I am not saying everything is untrue or that every tree has not been properly researched.
-
A big pitfall is assuming that people who post photos are close relatives
I tend to give credence to trees with photos but of course they can be copied to
Just had this problem ..a lady had added photos of her brother in.laws grandparents
Shebwas very helpful in helping me find living relatives of her brother in law ...but when she actually contacted one of his siblings was told that their father was NOT the descendants of my ancestors
We have both now changed our trees and agreed that it is an easy thing to happen when researching SMITH s .
I was helping an adoptee so really should have been more careful with assumptions
But tho she had the wrong grandparents her research was good and my adoptee does have dna matches with the grandfathers second wife who was not on my original tree
So not an entire waste of time
-
Has anyone else ressurrected the dead !
Is it ok to assume if someone appears on uk 1939 register thay they are deceased ?
I found out that someone ive added may still be alive ...which is odd because I also found a matching death record ....two people with same name I suppose
My mothers cousin appears with full birth date too ..and is alive but lives in Australia
I wrote to the closed tree owner asking if they were a descendant they replied I had the right SMITH grandfather
& they would ask their mother .!.
who from birth & married name from 1939 must be the same lady !
I asked them if there were mistakes on.my tree and promptly ressurected their mother
-
I still blame the subscription sites and their television adverts - "Just type in a name and trace your family back." People don't realise that even with an unusual name, there is more than one person called that, so it's very easy to go down the wrong path unless you check, double check, look for births, marriages and death etc. The further back you go, the harder it becomes as you have to rely on Parish records. Not all are on line, and it is far too easy for people to accept a hint for someone with the same or similar name, even if they are not where they expect them to be. Some people get caught up with the excitement of getting a long way back without realising, or perhaps caring that they have gone wrong.
-
I still blame the subscription sites and their television adverts - "Just type in a name and trace your family back." People don't realise that even with an unusual name, there is more than one person called that, so it's very easy to go down the wrong path unless you check, double check, look for births, marriages and death etc. The further back you go, the harder it becomes as you have to rely on Parish records. Not all are on line, and it is far too easy for people to accept a hint for someone with the same or similar name, even if they are not where they expect them to be. Some people get caught up with the excitement of getting a long way back without realising, or perhaps caring that they have gone wrong.
The adverts do annoy me, verging on false advertising but the people falling for it don't annoy me. What they do with their trees is none of my business.
-
Lots of trees have been properly researched by passionate genealogists who check, check and double check. I cannot tell you how many years I have spent looking at old wills, poor law records, parish records and more to verify and back up my research. Never underestimate how much I will do to back up my research and to try and solve a brickwall. I even have done blanket searches of everyone of the same surname on SEAX Essex wills or the PCC wills. And a blanket search of wills of a parish my ancestors lived in, and have found some that way.
-
Lots of trees have been properly researched by passionate genealogists who check, check and double check. I cannot tell you how many years I have spent looking at old wills, poor law records, parish records and more to verify and back up my research. Never underestimate how much I will do to back up my research and to try and solve a brickwall. I even have done blanket searches of everyone of the same surname on SEAX Essex wills or the PCC wills. And a blanket search of wills of a parish my ancestors lived in, and have found some that way.
I have done that too, gone and recorded all mentions of a name, analysed the sources, sketched out tree(s) to work out which records refer to the ones from my tree. Whenever someone has told me that my tree is wrong I always start with the assumption that it is me who is wrong and examine everything I can find on that person again to make sure
-
And me, everything is open to review in this game.
-
I’m currently debating with myself if it’s worth contacting the owners of 3 trees of 2 of which to are sourced from the 1st, I have doubts about a marriage, I believe the gentleman in question married a great x a few Aunt not the lady they have. I hold the marriage certificate.
This a problem caused by a relatively common name and if they had examined each census they would see this gentleman who they have mixed up is born in Devon pre marriage and Yorkshire post marriage 😔
-
I’m currently debating with myself if it’s worth contacting the owners of 3 trees of 2 of which to are sourced from the 1st, I have doubts about a marriage, I believe the gentleman in question married a great x a few Aunt not the lady they have. I hold the marriage certificate.
This a problem caused by a relatively common name and if they had examined each census they would see this gentleman who they have mixed up is born in Devon pre marriage and Yorkshire post marriage 😔
It’s always worth a try.
-
Richard 1( Lionheart)was Homosexual.Married to Berengaria of Navarre but never lived together.
So unless he was a bit like Achilles ,and had a boy friend ,Patroclus ,whom he was perfectly willing to fight for the favours of a slave girl——
Viktoria.
-
Richard 1( Lionheart)was Homosexual
Hmm, he had at least one illegitimate child, so benefit of the doubt on that statement might be in order.
Nell
-
Richard 1( Lionheart)was Homosexual.Married to Berengaria of Navarre but never lived together.
So unless he was a bit like Achilles ,and had a boy friend ,Patroclus ,whom he was perfectly willing to fight for the favours of a slave girl——
Viktoria.
So he was like Achilles —-
Just checked ,he did have a sin oops son ! Philip of Comines .
Mother not Berengaria.
So he batted for both sides, like Achilles.
Viktoria.
-
Back in the days of royal marriages being arranged between suckling babes in cradles in different countries across Europe, I don't think it was that uncommon for the future king and wife to spend very little time together. Those marriages were purely dynastic, arranged for the benefit of joining the wealth and fighting capacity of countries and to put off would-be invaders. Love, attraction, and sexual orientation didn't come into it.
I also think that it's dangerous to apply modern European concepts of sexuality to a societies that functioned in very different ways from how we see the world. That holds equally true when comparing modern day societies. It can be quite an eye-opener watching men dancing very suggestively together in Indian or Nepalese society, for example - but in countries where men and women cannot socialise together until they are firmly betrothed, both men and women will learn and practice social skills with others of their own gender. That may, for some, include sex; it doesn't mean they are gay.
Richard 1 may have been gay. I've no idea. I doubt there's much hard proof. I do however refer you to my previously-mentioned ancestor, offspring of Richard 1 and Concubine 2 (no, I don't believe it either!)
back to topic now?!
-
I did not mention Richard 1 ,first,
That was you.
I corrected myself and after so many centuries - well.
The idea was first mooted because he slept intimately with The King of France
Described and commented on by Servants of The Bedchamber etc.
Many people are bi sexual , and many men find in later life they are not only heterosexual,even after gathering children - take Philip Scofield as a recent example .
Very brave of them to “ come out” .
So did I leave the topic?
I was giving a few extra facts, that pertained to your comment .
That does not constitute getting off topic.
It is called helping.
Viktoria.
-
Viktoria, I was actually referring to my own post when I said “back on topic” as I was aware that I was going off piste!
And your post above clearly says “Richard 1(Lionheart).
-
My first post on this topic was in response to Richard 1 being named .
.I replied to that post by saying as he was homosexual it was unlikely he would have descendants as he and Berengaria did not live together.
You posted again, referring me to your previous post where you mentioned —
“ the offspring of Richard 1 and concubine number 2”——-
which was what made me look it up.
My mention if Richard 1 was therefore not off topic .
I looked it up as I admit I ought to have done in the first place -
- and there was Philip of Comines .
Also was the info re he and the French King!
Where would I get the connection to Richard 1 if he had not been mentioned in the first place by someone who had him in their tree?
In a biography of his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine I read years ago it referred
to his sexuality , a very brave warrior, bloodthirsty even, the siege of Acre - !
Salahaddin had a perfectly reasonable solution but Richard refused and the result was a bloodbath.
We think of him as a hero, the absolute opposite of snivelling John , propaganda , but John was a little rat!
Congratulations on getting back so far .what do you think of the theory that
Henry 2 was illegitimate?
I think the person who mooted that did not know how to calculate the length of a pregnancy.
Viktoria.
-
I think something has got a little "lost in translation". I've never claimed to get my tree back to Richard. I simply mentioned a tree that I'd seen which claimed to have done so, but I think it's smoke and mirrors; I can't find any evidence to get me back further than around 1800 in that line, and I've certainly looked!
-
An update on my research on this tree. No easy way to put it but Tree owner has been following the wrong line to get back to 1100’s.
From present day to a Daniel born 1733 we match. Then back a generation and faced with a choice of 3 possible parents. I discounted one in wring location, left with 2 , I was pretty sure I was right with my choice. He went with the other. I was able yesterday to get the confirmation I needed that I was correct in my assumption. This tree therefore is wrong and owner is not descended from nobility.
-
Quelle surprise! (not)
-
Am I feeling smug ;D hell yeah :D
-
Ha ha .and here I am wondering if a woman has promoted her deceased father from railway guard to station master on her marriage or if he got demoted 5 years later when her sister married .
Never mind royalty I think there was/is a tendency to want to belong to a higher "class"
-
What now Jettejane - are you going to tell them? I doubt very much if they will want to believe you. If their tree is on Ancestry, you can believe you can leave a message under the wrong father, saying why that is wrong. At least then it is flagged up for others to see and decide.
-
Now I suffer from inverse snobbery !.
I love to find how very humble my ancestors were .
There is an area of Manchester written about by Engels as the worst slum in
Europe !
Yet there were good families there, marvellous women who gave their all.
But dash it all! My lot are just a few streets away , I am proud though of that,
they all made good ,no criminals ,quite a number of good Musicians and apprenticed Engineers etc .
But to say your ancestors lived in that particular area - well , my generation has teachers, Headteacher’s, again professional Musicians, Engineers ,Managers etc etc .So worlds away from our origins.
One address was 1,Bilberry St.
Behind that was Back Bilberry St which led into a “Court , “ of literally back to back houses ,ie only a front door,no back door as there was another house stuck on the back, a mirror image of the front house .No water or sanitation , filthy,beyond our imagining .Cholera etc.
Our lot were a little bit better than that ,Grandmothers and Great grandmothers
were formidable women , kept clean houses as far as was possible and got away ASAP, they had good husbands with jobs,blacksmiths both, and in those horse drawn days always very busy.So regular wages.
But I would love to find one lived in the worst slum in Europe !
Viktoria.
-
Now I suffer from inverse snobbery !.
I love to find how very humble my ancestors were .
There is an area of Manchester written about by Engels as the worst slum in
Europe !
Yet there were good families there, marvellous women who gave their all.
But dash it all! My lot are just a few streets away , I am proud though of that,
they all made good ,no criminals ,quite a number of good Musicians and apprenticed Engineers etc .
But to say your ancestors lived in that particular area - well , my generation has teachers, Headteacher’s, again professional Musicians, Engineers ,Managers etc etc .So worlds away from our origins.
One address was 1,Bilberry St.
Behind that was Back Bilberry St which led into a “Court , “ of literally back to back houses ,ie only a front door,no back door as there was another house stuck on the back, a mirror image of the front house .No water or sanitation , filthy,beyond our imagining .Cholera etc.
Our lot were a little bit better than that ,Grandmothers and Great grandmothers
were formidable women , kept clean houses as far as was possible and got away ASAP, they had good husbands with jobs,blacksmiths both, and in those horse drawn days always very busy.So regular wages.
But I would love to find one lived in the worst slum in Europe !
Viktoria.
One of my colleagues said the only thing stopping her from looking into her family tree was that it would be boring because none of them were rich. I told her that until she looked she couldn't actually know that and more importantly ancestors didn't have to be rich to be interesting.
-
I'm just grateful that in my findings I haven't (yet) come across a murderer :o But our ancestors were who they were, and we can't change history, can we?
-
I'm just grateful that in my findings I haven't (yet) come across a murderer :o But our ancestors were who they were, and we can't change history, can we?
I have a murder victim and someone who stole a sheep.
-
I have two bloodline ancestors accused of murder (1856) but acquitted on lack of sufficient evidence.
-
Oh well mine are boring .only Grandma getting chucked out of the cinema for shouting a warning to the heroine of the silent movie to beware the Villain, you know ,the one with the pencil thin moustache!
Oh and an uncle of one grandma ,imprisoned for manslaughter ,served 18 months!
The shot gun went off accidentally!!!
“ I didn’t know the gun was loaded ,”
Otherwise normal ,well what passes for normal in our families!
Vive la diference!
Viktoria.
-
I thought I had a murderer in George Skelcey of Coventry transported to Australia in the 1840s (so presumably commuted to manslaughter) but I can't connect him to my Skelceys of Cubbington (10 miles away) though he might be very distantly related.
But I recently found that a lady in Vermont had murdered her 2nd husband in 2004. She'd been having an affair (no youthful indiscretion, she was 71 at the time!) and attacked him with a blunt instrument. She was lucky to live in a state with no death penalty. She was released last year on medical grounds - she was the 2nd oldest prisoner in Vermont and the oldest female - and died this year.
-
What now Jettejane - are you going to tell them? I doubt very much if they will want to believe you. If their tree is on Ancestry, you can believe you can leave a message under the wrong father, saying why that is wrong. At least then it is flagged up for others to see and decide.
I am not sure about telling them but on other hand I would want to know and all I have found can be verified.
-
I have lots of black sheep and I am not at all ashamed. Like Viktoria I don’t yearn to be connected to nobility. My best Black Sheep is a murderer. Killed 2 wives, 2 strangers and injured many more including all of his 4 wives. 1882 Indiana. Was mudered himself by a lynch mob while awaiting trail for murder of his child wife they sprung him from Jail.
Not that I am condoning what he did but it was an exciting find, all true and verified plus I had article published in genealogy publication about it. He is the grandson of my Gt x 3 and his second wife.
-
Descendants of the signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320 are being traced by researchers at the University of Strathclyde and to-date 40, 0f the original 48, have been traced & confirmed using DNA including those of King Robert The Bruce, the remaining eight have been traced on the previous Battle of Bannockburn family history project. The Dunbar's in particular have an unbroken male descent from Crinan the Thane who was born in the late 10th century, one of the longest documented male line ancestries in these islands.
Patrick Dunbar, earl of March had no male descendants but his brother Alexander has three descendants holding current baronetcies.
The researchers hope to mount an exhibition next year as Covid put the hems on this years anniversary. The Declaration of Scotland's Independence was drawn up by Bernard the Abbot of Kilwinning at the Abbey of Newbattle & carried north to the Abbey of Arbroath to be signed & sealed! for forwarding to Pope John XXll.
https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/the-declaration-of-arbroath/
Skoosh.
-
Descendants of the signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320 are being traced by researchers at the University of Strathclyde and to-date 40, 0f the original 48, have been traced & confirmed using DNA including those of King Robert The Bruce, the remaining eight have been traced on the previous Battle of Bannockburn family history project. The Dunbar's in particular have an unbroken male descent from Crinan the Thane who was born in the late 10th century, one of the longest documented male line ancestries in these islands.
Patrick Dunbar, earl of March had no male descendants but his brother Alexander has three descendants holding current baronetcies.
The researchers hope to mount an exhibition next year as Covid put the hems on this years anniversary. The Declaration of Scotland's Independence was drawn up at the Abbey of Newbattle & carried north to the Abbey of Arbroath to be signed & sealed!
Skoosh.
Oh that is fascinating. Do you know where they are planning on holding the exhibition?
-
Jettejane - I have to admit that if it were me, I probably wouldn't tell them as when I've tried that in the past, I've rarely been acknowledged and never believed.
But if you did, then rather than telling them you were wrong, perhaps you could frame it that you have found this (whatever the recent proof is), was interested to see that they descended from the same line and would appreciate discussing it with someone?
-
Pharma, as far as I can work out the public exhibition is to be at Arbroath Abbey to coincide with St Andrew's Day next year. The Declaration of Independence is too fragile to travel but will be on show for a month at the National Museum in Edinburgh.
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
Jettejane - I have to admit that if it were me, I probably wouldn't tell them as when I've tried that in the past, I've rarely been acknowledged and never believed.
But if you did, then rather than telling them you were wrong, perhaps you could frame it that you have found this (whatever the recent proof is), was interested to see that they descended from the same line and would appreciate discussing it with someone?
I agree. I have tried in the past to help others and did it very tactfully. Few answered and those that did didn’t believe me but they had no explanation for the wrong information recorded.
Very possibly this tree owner will not welcome my comments no matter how nice I am.
-
Descendants of the signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320 are being traced by researchers at the University of Strathclyde and to-date 40, 0f the original 48, have been traced & confirmed using DNA including those of King Robert The Bruce, the remaining eight have been traced on the previous Battle of Bannockburn family history project. The Dunbar's in particular have an unbroken male descent from Crinan the Thane who was born in the late 10th century, one of the longest documented male line ancestries in these islands.
Patrick Dunbar, earl of March had no male descendants but his brother Alexander has three descendants holding current baronetcies.
The researchers hope to mount an exhibition next year as Covid put the hems on this years anniversary. The Declaration of Scotland's Independence was drawn up by Bernard the Abbot of Kilwinning at the Abbey of Newbattle & carried north to the Abbey of Arbroath to be signed & sealed! for forwarding to Pope John XXll.
https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/the-declaration-of-arbroath/
Skoosh.
Facinating, many thanks for posting.
My Wife's 19xGGF was on the English side at the battle and was captured whilst one of his sons was killed.
Quite a few names on the list of captured or killed also appear on her tree.
Probably will find just as many on the Scots side.
-
Accidentally reposted #
Ps Viktoria I. An inverted snob too
Love my ancestor who got arrested for selling postcards of an indelicate nature ,!
-
Postcards of an indelicate nature!
;) :D ;D :o ;) :D ;D :o ;) :D ;D :o
Viktoria,We are very amused !
P.S.
Lots went wrong with our very ordinary simple wedding ,my in laws went on holiday a day or two later.
I still have the postcard they sent ,
A Bride and Groom walking down the Church path, the Bride is saying to the Groom ,” There ,you see , darling it all went off without a hitch “,
BUT, a little dog is hanging on the Bride’s train, tearing it - to reveal very brief frilly underwear!
Oooer, very risqué for them.
That was about the only thing thst did not go wrongly our wedding.
Viktoria.
-
One dundee newspaper called the postcards "a travesty of modern art".
But they were massproduced in midlands where hed been selling them with impunity in 1906
I now collect postcards from 1906 which show some flesh !
Or have risque comments
Your wedding postcard would be considered saucy by one generation ...indelicate in another.
It doesnt sound like a travesty of modern are tho :-) :-)
Sorry off topic there ....
Re family stories
I didnt quite believe my mothers cousin when she told of a great aunt whod run away and got married age 15 & had 10 children
I researched her and all was correct exceptaccording to 1911 census shed had 15 children ten surviving til 1911 ...they were poor the boys and girls worked in pits
..ordinary people .?? Definitely not boring !
-
Hard to imagine in days gone by a flash of a well turned ankle was considered risqué. I love the sound of Your postcards Brigidmac . I also agree it doesn’t matter what your ancestors have or haven’t done just finding them is enough for me.
Large families tended to be the norm but your Great Aunt took it to another level :o but I suppose there wasn’t much to do back then and the woman’s role in many cases was to have endless children, keep the home, work hard.......... Some modern women have it easy ;)
-
This is the story of my 2x great grandmother. Poor as a church mouse -- but not boring (maybe she would have preferred a boring aka quiet life!)
https://holylandons.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-fairly-strong-woman_28.html
This was her husband, referred to in the above post:
https://holylandons.blogspot.com/search?q=brute
Definitely not royalty!
-
Bamford cards were typical but there were other,can’t bring the name to mind.
Huge Battleaxe women, skinny little browbeaten husbands and over ripe
scantily dressed girls.
What a troublesome mixture.!
It has come to me ——McGill postcards .
Viktoria.
( sometimes we never got to the beach!)
-
Well I have been trying hard to upload all my sources onto my Ancestry tree. Last night I thought I was making progress, got to 990 sources. Logged in this morning and only 986. Added more and back to 990 and 986 when I look at lunch. Added more bringing it back up to 990 and we're back to 986. So far there are 12 records that I sat and entered into the tree that have gone completely AWOL. So frustrating guess just need to accept that people see me as someone who doesn't care about doing research properly because continuing to upload all my sources seems pointless if they're just going to disappear, complete waste of time.
-
So frustrating guess just need to accept that people see me as someone who doesn't care about doing research properly because continuing to upload all my sources seems pointless if they're just going to disappear, complete waste of time.
For goodness sake, Pharma, why are you blaming yourself when it is obviously an Ancestry glitch. From the Facebook group where I'm an admin this sort of thing is happening a lot lately. People enter things that disappear, or they appear several times. No one who looks at their tree thinks they don't care, in fact the only person who is bothered is the person who's tree is mucked up. If it keeps happening contact Ancestry.
-
So frustrating guess just need to accept that people see me as someone who doesn't care about doing research properly because continuing to upload all my sources seems pointless if they're just going to disappear, complete waste of time.
For goodness sake, Pharma, why are you blaming yourself when it is obviously an Ancestry glitch. From the Facebook group where I'm an admin this sort of thing is happening a lot lately. People enter things that disappear, or they appear several times. No one who looks at their tree thinks they don't care, in fact the only person who is bothered is the person who's tree is mucked up. If it keeps happening contact Ancestry.
You put into words what I wanted to say Groom. I am in process of doing my tree, no sources and I don’t give a you know what what others think. It’s my tree to manage as I see fit.
-
So frustrating guess just need to accept that people see me as someone who doesn't care about doing research properly because continuing to upload all my sources seems pointless if they're just going to disappear, complete waste of time.
For goodness sake, Pharma, why are you blaming yourself when it is obviously an Ancestry glitch. From the Facebook group where I'm an admin this sort of thing is happening a lot lately. People enter things that disappear, or they appear several times. No one who looks at their tree thinks they don't care, in fact the only person who is bothered is the person who's tree is mucked up. If it keeps happening contact Ancestry.
From past experience there is no point contacting Ancestry they'll just say it was something I did wrong or I didn't understand.
Thinking I don't care was a reference to comments on this thread about people on Ancestry having no or few sources attached to their tree. I didn't have many sources attached to mine as most of my sources didn't come from Ancestry and I had been too lazy to upload them. I vowed to make amends and go through all my sources and attach them to my tree. It is so time consuming typing them up and frustrating that I spend so much time doing and am still 'one of hose people' who don't have enough sources for the number of people in my tree. Which is apparently a sign of not caring about doing proper research.
-
This is the story of my 2x great grandmother. Poor as a church mouse -- but not boring (maybe she would have preferred a boring aka quiet life!)
Thanks for posting, don't think until we read things, that we realise how life was back then for our ancestors, and if we didn't do genealogy, we would be unaware of their life. BTW with my paternal ggrandmother we worked out that she spent 22 years with a child to her chest (being polite here).
Cheers
KHP
-
Pharma, many pages back in this thread I referenced an Ancestry tree which I'd come across, which had more than 800,000 names and only 2 attached sources.
If you have nearly 1000 attached sources on your tree, I really don't think that anyone is going to put you in the same bracket as the tree I found. Do you? Has anyone said to you, "Pharma, you've only got 900+ sources, that's clearly an under-resourced and probably dodgy tree"? I doubt it!
-
Pharma, many pages back in this thread I referenced an Ancestry tree which I'd come across, which had more than 800,000 names and only 2 attached sources.
If you have nearly 1000 attached sources on your tree, I really don't think that anyone is going to put you in the same bracket as the tree I found. Do you? Has anyone said to you, "Pharma, you've only got 900+ sources, that's clearly an under-resourced and probably dodgy tree"? I doubt it!
atm I have fewer sources on my tree than I do people. I have many sources just stored elsewhere
-
Pharma, many pages back in this thread I referenced an Ancestry tree which I'd come across, which had more than 800,000 names and only 2 attached sources.
If you have nearly 1000 attached sources on your tree, I really don't think that anyone is going to put you in the same bracket as the tree I found. Do you? Has anyone said to you, "Pharma, you've only got 900+ sources, that's clearly an under-resourced and probably dodgy tree"? I doubt it!
atm I have fewer sources on my tree than I do people. I have many sources just stored elsewhere
So what, that is no one's business but yours! There is no right or wrong way, if you choose to store sources elsewhere, that is up to you. Even if people have sources attached to their online tree it doesn't mean their tree is right, it just means they have chosen to accept that source. Stop worrying what other people think and just do what you want and what is best for you.
-
Pharma, many pages back in this thread I referenced an Ancestry tree which I'd come across, which had more than 800,000 names and only 2 attached sources.
If you have nearly 1000 attached sources on your tree, I really don't think that anyone is going to put you in the same bracket as the tree I found. Do you? Has anyone said to you, "Pharma, you've only got 900+ sources, that's clearly an under-resourced and probably dodgy tree"? I doubt it!
atm I have fewer sources on my tree than I do people. I have many sources just stored elsewhere
So what, that is no one's business but yours! There is no right or wrong way, if you choose to store sources elsewhere, that is up to you. Even if people have sources attached to their online tree it doesn't mean their tree is right, it just means they have chosen to accept that source. Stop worrying what other people think and just do what you want and what is best for you.
Well I have no sources so I must be a rubbish researcher. Who cares.
-
Just because there are no sources on my Ancestry tree doesn't mean I don't have them....
-
I've added quite a few sources to my Ancestry tree lately, but I have a lot more stored on my computer, which I may or may not add at some stage. However, I don't add people to my tree until I'm sure of my facts. If anyone related to me contacts me, I'm very happy to share information. But the sources I choose to add are my business not anyone elses. This is my hobby which I do because I enjoy it, I'm not going to stress about what someone else thinks.
Go easy on yourself Pharma, and don't stop enjoying your research.
Oh and if a mistake were to be pointed out to me, I'd certainly check it out.
-
If I uploaded all the sources on my Anc tree I would be there forever. I often add notes under their birth, marriage or death year, and even add notes about their probate as well.
For brickwall ancestors I do add an approximate year of birth, an estimated year of birth for research purposes, so I get a benchmark.
-
Well my grandma had babies regularly.
Twelve in total from 1885 to 1910, so twelve in twenty five years!
Then the silly madam adopted four more .
She had her last in January 1910, when her first had given birth to twins in the Autumn of 1909 .Also her 16 year old daughter died in 1910.
Sadly all three babies died,measles.April 1910 .
There were four funerals ,the 16 year old, one twin ,grandmas’s little girl then the other twin.
I wonder sometimes if the babies knew who was their mother .
It mattered not which source of nourishment there was!
Share and share alike.
And sickly babies were given to grandma ,it helped them thrive then back to their real mothers ,and if a mother was very ill after a confinement,grandma
would care for them in every way until their mother had recovered .
What a marvellous woman. Her only fault was getting too involved at dramatic times in the silent movies.! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Her proud grand daughter Viktoria.
-
LOL that reminds me of the story of my granny.She went to the cinema with a friend. The film was a melodrama, one scene showed a woman whose relations put her in the workhouse,, showed her scrubbing floors... friend shouted out "Aye , thats what mine'll do with me!" Granny never went with her again LOL
-
Just because there are no sources on my Ancestry tree doesn't mean I don't have them....
Yeah me too. For fear of repeating myself, we do this for ourselves not for others. I saw the tree that started this thread , regardless if their finds were sourced or not I did my own check, but if people enjoy taking from trees and adding to theirs without checks it will always annoy me but tbh it’s nothing to do with me.
I am sure there are many researchers starting out who will, like I did, see i tree and take it to be their ancestors. They will learn like I did to check and read check and repeat this every now and again.
-
Well my grandma got chucked out regularly ,got so enthralled and would shout warnings to the soppy dim heroine about the wicked intentions of the villain!
Silent movies!But what excitement for such a “ confined “ excuse the pun!” woman!
Viktoria .
( I seem to be on the wrong topic, but two people commented on the lives of their ancestors ,so I joined in,now I can’t find what prompted my answer!)
V .
-
I don't have a tree on Ancestry, in no small part because of all the moaning that I see going on about it. I would be interested if someone queried any of my conclusions, but I really don't care what other people put in their trees. It's not my business to police other people's research.
I haven't got properly referenced sources either, because when I started doing the tree I just attached notes like "1891 census", "Parish register" or (name of informant). As more original images became available online, I started saving them, but it's not all tidily sourced with reference numbers. I should sort it all out one day, I suppose, but it's good enough for me, and should be clear enough for most interested parties to join up the dots.
-
From the Internet.
Most people will be able to trace some lines of their family tree back to the 1600s. Some people might be able to trace a few lines of their tree back a little further than that, especially if they have a very notable person in their family tree that has had a lot of independent research done about them.
I think my earliest birth is 1699. Forgotten who they were will have to look it up.
-
I think my earliest birth is 1699. Forgotten who they were will have to look it up.
I just checked and my earliest birth is "circa 1720" - there are a few like this and all are of people mentioned on baptisms but about whom nothing further could be found. Trouble is, all these "c"s on my GR tree get eliminated on transfer of gedcom to Ancestry, so people take them as gospel.
I think my earliest proven baptism is about 1750. That's in England - on my father's side in Wales the earliest are later, not just because the surnames are very common there but because of inconsistent naming patterns in earlier times (e.g. John Davies could be a son of David Jones).
-
My earliest proven baptism was 1575, in Nottinghamshire, one Richard Suger. I have the name of Richard’s father, from the baptism, but no other details, so I’m not counting the father. This line were yeoman farmers. I spent hours and hours in the Notts archives, going through the microfiches. They were good enough to be enthusiastic will makers, and also to have a fairly unusual name, which is why I’ve been lucky enough to get back so far with them.
-
Two baptisms for one of my many times Great Grandfathers, one 1616 the other 1617.
Both have William as the Father.
Such is the beauty of Lan OPC I can very easily trace my Paternal line back many centuries in the small village where they were simple farmers or labourers.
Its the Welsh connection that is the problem, to many options for Evans, Jones, & Williams to be sure.
-
Ive just found a very helpful baptism from 1797 for Betty TOVEY which as well as naming father and parish also names the mother as daughter of Nathaneal + Elizabeth MASON .plus surname of parish
So I.can go back another generatio
Only problem is her son William Fullagar b 1801 has someone of same nane and age in the parish ...so if ive got the wrong one that useful baptism will have to be passed on to someone else
-
On occasions I have found mother's maiden name given in Suffolk, Northumberland and Co Durham records, even after the standardised format from 1813 onwards.
Durham and Northumberland did have Dade registers from around 1798 to 1812. Shame not all counties followed suit. Also it is nice when you find a land document where the wife is said to be daughter and heir of someone, or even granddaughter or grandson of someone.
-
Ah, the wonderful Dade registers :-* :-* Baptism entries show parents, grandparents, occupations and abode.
Amended:
And the burial records indicated name and status/occupation, date of death, date of burial, location of burial, age and "Distemper" (cause of death).
-
Durham and Northumberland did have Dade registers from around 1798 to 1812. Shame not all counties followed suit. Also it is nice when you find a land document where the wife is said to be daughter and heir of someone, or even granddaughter or grandson of someone.
Pedantry alert :D
Northumberland and Durham had Barrington registers, named for the then Bishop of Durham, Shute Barrington, to whom I offer my hearty thanks :D