Children Of Female And Male Ancestors.

[wrjones]

I have been in touch this morning with someone who runs a Website concening a One Name Study.However to my astonishment,she replied to my query,that once a Female member of their Family marries,she no longer researches them.I replied that whist we all may have different approaches to our Research,I happen to regard equally the marriages and children of female ancestors,to those of male ancestors.

Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.

[lizdb]

The key is that the person is involved in a One Name study. Once a woman marries, she and the offspring have a different name.
Whilst you may regard them equally, they do not contribute further to that particular line of research.

I follow exactly the same policy with my Edmonds family tree, when a woman marries I do not research her further. To do so would produce something too big to handle under the umbrella of the EDMONDS family story.
Not that I consider her of any less importance! But practically, I have chosen to pursue one line, and to follow all branches as far as possible, so I have a complete picture of all Edmonds, at present from James in early 1700's, to the present day. that's a tree that starts at the top with one person, and gets wider as it goes down.
Others chose to start with themselves at the bottom, and get wider as it goes up, taking in a lot of different surnames, but no following up on siblings or taking each branch back down to the present day again.

As you say it is a matter of choice - lots of different approaches - none of which is right or wrong!

[Simon G.]

It's quite understandable for someone doing a one-name study not to follow children of females.  It's a big enough task carrying out a study as is...to have to also research a cornucopia of other surnames would prove too major a task.

[KathMc]

I understand the theory behind this, and maybe that's what I have never taken up this kind of study. I don't think I'd be able to let the others go. Especially as a married female. My brothers would love to get me off their tree. 

Kath

[little meg]

My brother made a comment to me when I told him I was doing research on the Simpson name, which was a female line.
He stated something aong the lines of it being so distant from the main line that it wasn't important to him.
My reply was (with an annoyed look on my face ) 'so what you are saying then is that women don't count'?

He shut up!

Margaret

[Simon G.]

Personally I don't see how any line is less important that another...at the end of the day, they've all contributed to making us and can all be just as interesting.  My one-name studies is different, of course, but for my line (i.e. that where I've connected everything in and can specify a relationship) I can't say that there's any branch that I count as less important than another and all get researched with any luck so that every twig had leaves on it (doesn't always work out ideally, of course, but all lines get fully explored the best I can do).
I do have favourite branches, of course...it's why I started a one-name study in the first place.

[Jean McGurn]

I remember being told, when on holiday in Ravenglass, Cumberland many many years ago,, that the aristocratic family that lived there (can't for the life of me remember the name, might have been Pembroke) that the line could continue through the females but that their husbands HAD to take the womans name.

Apparently there were more females than males born through the generations and had it been upto the males the family name would have died out at least twice over.

Jean

[downside]

I suppose a One Name Study means just that.

However, if one takes the example of the current British royal family then exceptions can be made to that rule.

Elizabeth Windsor married Philip Mountbatten but their children have the Windsor surname.  So in certain circumstances the female maiden name passes on to the descendant.  I'm sure there are other exceptions.

downside