RootsChat.Com

That info about the Warner family under "William Lane" certainly sounds like it's the right family. No mention of the name Postlethwaite though.

My grandfather may well have been delirious when he said his name was Postlethwaite, but he got the name from somewhere, so the mystery deepens. I see the Horace Warner referred to here had two sisters. It would be good to know if death certificates exist for either of them, hopefully with the cause of death. My grandfather Horace allegedly was blamed for the drowning death of his sister.

So... unfortunately the mystery is not yet solved.

This

Horace Warner's mother was Maria Batchelor, not Maria Postlethwaite...

have just revisited Horace's death cert issued in Victoria. His parents are clearly Richard and Maria Postlethwaite

seems to indicate that my grandfather's original surname was definitely Postlethwaite. How certain is this though? By that I mean, who would have provided the information for the death certificate, and how did they get their information?

The existence of a "Richard Warner and Maria Warner (nee Postlethwaite)" and a different couple "Richard and Maria Postlethwaite" would seem to be too much of a coincidence, and would suggest that they are the same people and that my grandfather, for whatever reason, thought of himself as more of a Postlethwaite than a Warner, and said so at the end of his life. On the other hand, he certainly did not stay in London to become a well known photographer during the 1900's.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

Ahhh! but the one that claimed such ancestry has a bow and arrow that must have belonged to Robin Hood..... that proves it!

Exactly. It carries his initials.

I don't know the capabilities of the software you are using to take a screenshot, but if it's similar to the Linux Screenshot accessory I do it like this:

(1) Have the window I want to take the shot of open and ready.

(2) Open the Screenshot program.

(3) I get to select "Grab the whole screen", "Grab the current window" or "Select area to grab". Normally the last option is what I want.

(4) I also get the option "Grab after a delay of ... seconds", so I can select say 10 seconds.

(5) Click on "take screenshot".

If I chose "select area to grab", nothing happens until I have used the cursor to select the area. It then waits however many seconds I have specified before taking the shot; this will give you time to prepare the area for the shot, for example by opening drop-down menus.

Hope this helps.

The traditional tree format for displaying ancestry looks nice and gives information at a glance, provided it does not have too many entries, which can simply make it a confusing mess. Most people here seem to the information stored on computer in some way. A paper-based tree diagram is probably a little out-dated in the computer age, though, and something you would only do for the challenge and the aesthetics of it, not to make it easier to access the information, which could be got much quicker by accessing the database or whatever it is you have on the 'puter.

From an information science point of view, a genealogy tree is simple in concept. Each person is represented by a data node, and only needs to carry three pieces of information: an identifier (eg the person's name, or possibly with extra description to avoind ambiguity), and a pointer to the two parent nodes, one male and one female. Strictly speaking  this is all the information required, though in practice you would normally also have a pointer to a list of child nodes ( otherwise the only way to locate children would be to examine all other nodes to find those with that parent).

This is a standard exercise in computer science courses, and pretty easy to do. Writing an application to examine the tree, eg by searching for a particular name, highlighting it and bring up mother's name, grandfather's name, names of children etc would not be too difficult and I imagine there are hundreds of such applications around.

Actual human genealogy can have all sorts of complications that make it not a true tree. A "tree" in information science is defined by the fact the fact that there is only one path between any two given nodes. If you think about it, this corresponds precisely to botanical trees as they are found in your garden or in the forest. Human ancestry is not like this. Cousins, second cousins etc. can marry and have children. Any time you have a husband and wife who can trace a common ancestor, you no longer have a tree, you have a graph with loops. Showing these relationships on a two-dimensional piece of paper may not be easy, and sometimes it's not even possible to do it without lines crossing. All up I'd say the effort of putting it all on one sheet of paper is hardly worth it unless you are restricting yourself to maybe four or five generations.