Name collecting

[ukdescendant]

I was thrilled yesterday when I found the surname of my supposedly adopted great aunt
on the 1911 census and she turned out to have the same surname as my 2*g grandfathers
married sister, I now think she is the sisters daughters illegitimate child but only a copy of the
birth certificate will confirm. If I hadn't gone out name collecting sideways with the siblings of my direct ascendants I would never have realised she was probably actually related by blood.

I think certain family members have questioned the position of this lady in our family but I'm hoping
I can justify her place.

rgds
UKD

  

[Sloe Gin]

I've found lost mothers, missing maiden Aunts and all sorts that way... mind you sometimes I just get carried away

You summed it up!  I feel almost guilty sometimes, adding in a lot of names just because I've found them .... but you never know what it may lead to, some crucial clue or connection later on.

One problem I find is, if there are too many names it can be rather daunting for family members when I try to share it with them, since they haven't been on the same journey finding these people!

UKD - that's just the sort of thing I mean.

[Guy Etchells]

Name collectors was the term used by local historians and archivists for family historians for many years.

It stems from the belief that family historians were not disciplined historians who studied the evidence and built a theory based on the evidence. Instead they were thought to build trees on the flimsiest of clues.
It was also thought that the family historian was more concerned with pushing the tree ever further back rather than fleshing out the bones of their ancestors.

Though there are some family historians who do fall into that category it is pleasing to note that many, perhaps even the majority, prefer to discover as much about their ancestors and their ancestors’ lives and times as possible.
Cheers
Guy

[Tricia_2]

I actually think it would be great to add as many names as possible to a tree, if they have been verified, just to see all those connections! I suppose that would be classed by some as name-collecting, but I think that it would be interesting.
I don't do this ~ well, not on GR, anyway ~ because people might be offended if they found 'their' families on 'my' tree.

I don't add living relatives or, usually, deceased relatives with living children, without their permission, but, yes, others have just copied everything off my tree. I'd call that name-collecting.

I actually think that many see this as 'research' rather than name-collecting. For those of us who actually study and check and double-check, it doesn't seem like research, but for those without experience in the techniques, it's a different matter, I think.

I research entire families, though, if they are blood relatives, not just direct lines. I wouldn't call that name collecting.

[jendor]

Name collectors was the term used by local historians and archivists for family historians for many years.

It stems from the belief that family historians were not disciplined historians who studied the evidence and built a theory based on the evidence. Instead they were thought to build trees on the flimsiest of clues.
It was also thought that the family historian was more concerned with pushing the tree ever further back rather than fleshing out the bones of their ancestors.

Though there are some family historians who do fall into that category it is pleasing to note that many, perhaps even the majority, prefer to discover as much about their ancestors and their ancestors’ lives and times as possible.
Cheers
Guy

Interesting, I can see where some got a bit dubious, at the records office in Dorchester I've found many trees written out years ago, most are pretty accurate considering it all had to be done on foot and they didn't have access to things as we do now but there are a few that are downright fiction done to please the people they were made for or just wishful thinking! perhaps the people who have the kind of front to do that were rather stronger in character and more memorable!?

How far back Guy? Even going back 10 - 15 years there were a lot less people researching their families compared to now, I've come across a few old stalwarts who will help the local historians no end but aren't 'quite so' with others but thankfully they are in the minority.

Jen

[zilkens]

This all seems to have got very complicated, a case of how people define the term "name collecting". My definition is the collecting of names and dates etc; without doing any research, simply taking all the details without any research whatsoever.
As I said previously, my complete tree taken twice from Genes without my permission (only to look).
I totally admit that my tree has lots of second and third cousins and their families, in total I have just under 600 names but every single one has been fully researched including those given to me. This has taken me almost 6 years, so surely it is no wonder that I get annoyed at people simply stealing my work, with I might add no little expense to myself.
Ken.

[Nick29]

Whenever I hit a brick wall in my tree, I always do a little "sideways researching".   Doing this in the past has often helped break down the wall.  It also reveals some quite notable things about the family.  One thing I found was the marriage of one of my grandmother's daughters - the only likely marriage for her was the same surname as her own maiden name, so I didn't want to accept it.  After a little more sideways research it turned out that she married her first cousin, who had the same surname.  I have over 3500 people in my tree, but I don't say that to brag - I just like to see what happened to the families of uncles and great-uncles, especially if they emigrated and started new lives in a far off land.

[zilkens]

I totally agree.
Ken.

[dollylee]

I am very curious as to what I would be called.......I guess a name collector.

I have found very solid lines researched by the New England Historic Genealogical Society of my family back to 1621.  Multiple references are given, and checked by myself as they are also available individually on the membership based website.  These ancestors are member of the Mayflower group and the research done has been extensive.  Should I just ignore this and plow through on my own as if I didn't already know their marriage, births and deaths?

Am I "stealing" their information.....the whole purpose of the site is to share the information so I feel free to do so.

I also have lines that have to be "proven" to genealocial standards to be accepted by  the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) site. In each case the lines are reviewed and given DAR designation as it allows you to become a legimitate member of the DAR which for many Americans is a badge of honor. 

In a case such as this, should I just ignore the complete family lines I find?  These are both very reputable sites and that is why I have used them in researching my family who came to North America as early as 1621.

I "flesh" them out as much as possible given the timeframe, but often the information is very complete as to where they lived, occupation, family affliations, the fact that they were deacons of the church, if they were involved in government positions.

My more recent ancestors who I have found myself through other sources I do thoroughly research and find out as much about the time the lived in, their living conditions....all the normal "fleshing" out.

Call me what you will......I will put my genealogy certainity up against anyone elses.  I in no way take any credit for what I have found on the NEHGS and DAR sites.  I freely admit it was all there, already done and verified and all I had to do was add them to my family tree, which is where in my opinion they belong.

dollylee