Well - let this thread be a lesson on the genealogist's mantra :
verify, verify verify!Jean - I see you are new to Rootschat, so belatedly let me Welcome you
On Rootschat you will find many people - and indeed I think many such have found you on this topic - with broad knowledge, specialised knowledge, tons of experience and most of all a generous spirit in helping others (sometimes, I might add, spending a pound or two to do so).
If Monica has straigntened your path, absolutely well done! Monica that was some sleuthing - and well spotted! But - forget not, JAP's information and advice was equally as correct and important and
should be acknowledged as such.Quote from j.tomi : does this help you with making you understand a bit better!
Jean, If you had posted the full information right from the start, or when you were first asked for it - it would have been much easier for us to understand right away!
Throughout this thread you will note we have been asking you specific questions which you have not answered by return. We are not asking to be nosey! We are asking because this is how it works - something has not gelled for us, and the answer to the question may help us help you! So please remember to specifically answer questions made to you and - be open to answers you do not like the sound of just because it upsets a pre-concieved idea!.
And it has to be said, the tone of your posts, like the quote above and whether you meant to or not, seemed to be inferring we were all dimwits for not "getting it" ! I'm sure you did not meant that, but what people percieve is important and if you want Rootschat to be a good experience , you might want to consider how you're coming across ( People won't help if they think you are rude).
Now: just
say you had been on the right path all along - and you haven't yet concluded if you were or not as it still has to be verified one way or the other - but
say you
were :
everything you were being told about LOW/PETERS/NICOL/.FERRIER in regards to there probably not being two couples of the same name etc etc , was good information and good common sense - borne of much knowledge. And no, this fact is
not negated just because there does appear to be two James LOW & Betsy NICOLS
The biggest lesson here, is NOT to jump back through the generations (so easy to be tempted with the availibility of SP and Census) without first being absolutely sure you have the correct data for the present generation you are working on.
There is so much we could say about what you should have done! I guess one basic rule: is to try and verify a single piece of information from more than one source. For eg, sometimes, this means tracing a sibling to see if their data about parents etc is the same....The way you tell it, you found a marriage and leapt to an entry on 1861 Census where you made an assumption and leapt straight back even further, possibly now we think, to the entirely wrong line. My immediate response to the marriage of Robert would have included: WHo were marriage Witness (investigate them? What about the 1881 & 1871 Census, even the 1891 before the 1861!!
One last wee tip, Jean:
Please punctuate your messages, and as per Genealogy conventions, put all the surnames in CAPITAL letters - it makes things much easier to read and the CAPITALS ensures we do not make mistakes with place names or middle names.
Onward and Upward! [/color]
I suggest you now:
Post us FULL details of the marriage cert of Robert - including the names of the witness!
Details from his Death cert!
What do you KNOW about YOUR Robert? What were names of
all his children?
Have you seen him with a middle name anywhere?
Where was he in Census 1881 before he married? 1891? 1901 - post as much as you can - too much is way better than too little!
All best wishes and good luck
AMBLY
edit: I wrote this before Monica's last post - and posted it just about the same time!
Author
Topic: two People similar names (Read 6366 times)