Where are the boundaries of my tree?

[spongebob]

Just restarted my tree and beginning to find a lot of people, but unsure as to who to include. I am concentrating on my Dad's side at the moment, and for example I have his Grandad and Grandmother - from there I have got his G-Grandad, but do I branch up his Grandmothers family?

Also when you get up to a certain level do you then come back down? That is to say if I find a female direct relative and she marries someone with a previous family do I add them?

Bit confused!

[Old Bristolian]

Its all a question of preference I guess. I've researched all my lines & my wife's, but its time consuming (& costly) and you can take your eye off the ball on occasion and miss something obvious because you didn't concentrate enough.
On the other hand, if one line dries up, there's lots more to do elswhere until you eventually come back to find another PT transcribed & hey presto!
I have sometimes gone into "side" branches as you mention if there seems enough interest - one such in my line I didn't notice until studying the census records I saw the same family as neighbours, even after a change of address - it turned out to be the step-son of my ancestor & his family

Steve

[BettyofKent]

It's your tree spongebob, you can go where you like.
Some people just follow their direct ancestors. I've gone back to 1841, & I'm coming back down following the siblings of my direct ancestors.  If I find someone married to someone who has a family from a previous marriage, I include the children if they are living as a family on a census, but I don't follow them once they leave home.
The main thing is to do what you are happy with & enjoy the hunt

Betty

[PaulineJ]

I tend only to add..

Siblings of direct ancestors.
   I do pencil in their spouses and first generation kids, but I don't buy certs for them.

When any of mine  marries a widow/widower, I include first kids of the previous marraige
   (but take them no further).

As much as anything it means you have a ready-reference of who is a 'cousin'.
Can be terribly useful in census to confirm you are looking at the right mob.

Pauline

[ggrocott]

I follow any clues I get - you never know when you might find something new - I found a direct ancestor recently by following a hunch re. an ancestor's possible brother - bingo there was their joint Mum and ancestor's daughter/brother's niece all in the same household - boy was I a happy bunny!

[kerryb]

I generally tend to collect dates of birth, marriage and death and census returns for siblings but I don't get certificates for them all.  I once added up how much it would cost me to buy all the certificates I wanted at that time and it was over £300.

Basically spongebob go where you like and see what you turn up.  I've found some interesting people who are not on my direct line but I collect information about them if it enhances my experience of family history.

Kerry

[Bee]

I agree with what's already been said, but it's worth remembering that sometimes you have to go sideways to get further back.

happy hunting
Bee

[camlass]

I must agree with Bee on this you never know where you can find sneeky little cousins hiding. My tree has a lot of cousin/2nd cousin marriages.

I found my Grandfather by accident as a lodger when seeking my Grt Uncle's spouse.
All information is interesting. File it away you never know when it may come in uselfull.

Good hunting ( enjoy yourself)


Pat

[EmPers]

I take a practical point of view. Pick the part of your family you are interested in and work back to the earliest direct ancestor who you can still find on a census, with some of his/her family. From that point I work downwards, researching all the children and children's chilren that I can. Then going back I tend to stick with the direct line and siblings only, principally because it gets a lot harder to trace forwards.

This method also makes it easier to display on a tree, you have a descendancy tree from someone born about 1810, with lots of branches, so you can see where the rest of your clan dispersed to, but you also get levels going back so you can see your origins.

You may find there are several of these families fromthe mid nineteenth century that you want to research, in which case you just have several trees. I consider mine as different families even though they are combined by about 1910. I lbel them according t othe prinicpal family name, even if this isn't entirely accurate (for example I have a CLARK and a CLARKE family, although both families used both surnames interchangably)