Creepy goings on.

[3sillydogs]

Phenolphthalein, no-one can take the memories that you have of your dad away from you.  Those will always be unique to you and you alone and for you to treasure always.

Not being an only child, I will always have to share memories with my siblings, so in a way you are lucky, you have him to yourself.  Don't worry about other folk, they didn't share what you had with your dad.

(if you knew my dogs you would know they are silly )

[Guy Etchells]

Despite spending 20 h of 24 asleep I went to town to do family history.

I gave up totally and packed up in tears when I found someone had put grandparents' wedding on ancestry along with 3 generations back -- each side. Its all there granddad's service, nana's dead sister etc. A stupid picture of a 1920's woman to represent nan.
I couldn't even determine which side they came from they had so much of both. they can not be related to both sides.
Dad was an only child. This is identity theft.

How on earth is it identity theft they have simply constructed a family tree, which according to you contains errors.
That does not make it identity theft.
Anyone can compile trees of anyone they like if that’s what they want to do.

Dad's father died when dad was 13 in 1939. The tennis club paid for her house and dad had legacy for support and the only rellie's he knew were his uncle bill (actually his dad's cousin) and his mum's cousin Fairy (a second cousin I think) and Aunt Adelaide who had no children of her own.
Nan took in washing and boarders to make ends meet.

I know that they have not put this online. Whoever has hijacked both sides. Yet they didn't send a card when dad died or help in any way shape or form when he was little. and his mum struggling.

Compiling a tree is very similar to writing a biography. The person does not need to be related to the subject or even know them. Anyone can compile a lineage of anyone they decide interests them..
You seem to think only descendants can compile family lineages, sorry but you are wrong.

I hope they are proud of themselves and their family.

It is identity theft pure and simple. Half my family history online and gone -- stolen. No-one else is related to both sides. In a way it's fraud.
 If I can not own my own father's ancestors then they certainly can't.

I hope they are so, so proud of themselves. And athefttree goes bust.

Perhaps once you calm down you will see sense and realise they have not stolen anything, committed fraud or identity theft but simply complied a tree from the information they have.
Nothing more, nothing less, nothing sinister.
You are over reacting about something that has been done certainly since the 15th century and in some cases previous to that.

Cheers
Guy

[relatedtoturnips]

There's a person on another site that has most of the names from my fathers side of my family in their tree. The tree is private so I can't see it but the names go from present back to the 1700's. I have contacted the person but they are not very forth coming with information. Their family name has no connection as far as I can see with mine and the only information that I can find about this person is their marriage in the 1990's. I have found a birth that may fit but in that they appear to take the mothers maiden name so I am assuming that she was unmarried. I have been trying for weeks to find the hidden link but nothing. It's getting a bit spooky.

I would never use an online tree for reasons of privacy. If your tree is compromised, it could be quite damaging for your privacy.

Ive been the victim of ID theft, so I know what im talking about. I can perfectly understand why people use online trees. They are a good way to find new family members.

[hurworth]

I agree that adding in swathes of ancestors to wives/husbands isn't necessarily helpful. 

However, it can help sometimes as I've found that families are linked several times by marriage, and it really shows how close knit communities could be.  You can theorise that Uncle so and so's brother-in-law's sister was present at a party and her son met your cousin there and that's why they married..... (if you follow that one!  ) 

Direct ancestors aren't always the most interesting, either....

I used to add very little about spouses of relatives but time and time again I've kicked myself for not realising that a husband and wife were related. 

The first time was when I assumed that a Mrs X in Ireland was related by marriage.   I repeatedly ignored her in my quest to find cousins because she was related by marriage.  Part of her husband's family (not our family) were included (with errors it seems) in John O'Harts book of Irish genealogy and those errors didn't help.

Thanks to HistoricGraves I found her headstone in Ireland and learned that her middle name was the maiden name of Miss X's maternal grandmother.  She'd married a paternal
 first-cousin once removed and had gone from Miss X to Mrs X.  So she was a cousin.  Subsequently I've realised that Miss X's brother also married his first-cousin once removed (the sister of Miss X's husband).

Having worked out the error on Heber genealogies which had also been misleading me (but my own assumptions were just as misleading) it appeared that a man I'd been corresponding with was no longer a relative though.  A few weeks later (thanks to finding Nick Reddan's work) we discovered we were related, but it was three generations further back, and that maiden name on the headstone is one of his ancestral names as well. 

I still have a lingering hunch that there are other connections in this family.  A cousin has visited some of the churches and graveyards in Ireland and photographed them (the surviving parish registers have not been digitised) and has a tree going back centuries up her paternal line.

Miss X's maternal grandfather's first name was a surname.  That surname is also in Miss X's maternal grandmother's ancestry.  I can see a possible couple a few generations back on one of Nick Reddan's trees (without any descendants recorded).  IF our gtgtgtgt-grandfather was descended from this couple and not the line she has recorded then our gtgtgtgt-grandparents were third cousins to each other. 

I could give numerous other examples of how I was rather slow on the uptake and how in-laws were the missing piece of the puzzle.  If there hadn't been intermarriage I'd probably still be looking for a gtgtgt-grandmother called Eliza Rigg in Lancashire or Yorkshire.  The reason I couldn't find this elusive ancestor is because she was infact Martha Holmes.  I searched Rigg marriages.  Originally I looked for a Rigg bride, then I tried Rigg grooms and found a marriage where our gtgtgt-grandfather was the witness, along with his future wife, but I hadn't realised she was the future wife yet.  Finding that marriage then tracing back Eliza's ancestry was the connection I needed.  Eliza Rigg née Holmes was Martha's sister and Martha and Eliza's husbands were first cousins.

When Martha's son died the informant said his mother was Eliza née Rigg.   The informant would have never met Martha.

[hsfam]

I have heaps of side branches in my trees. I love following all the family lines. And by doing this, I have found many "distant" relations are still in contact with my direct lines - sometimes living at the same address! One of my family lines all lived in the same small area for many, many generations and the various branches still knew each other, lived together, had businesses together, supported each other in bad times, etc. You bet they are all going into my family tree because they are family even if not in my direct line.

In one case I was able to break through a brick wall by identifying a second cousin relationship and following the generations back. The second cousins came out to Australia together on the same ship! Those side branches are incredibly useful.

In another case, by understanding all the relationships between all the different in-laws, side branches, very distant relationships by marriage, I was able to break through another brick wall. They were all connected to each other, in each other's wills, going through chancery court, suing each other's estates, and most of them weren't even blood relations (i.e. in-laws of in-laws)! But the whole picture proved relationships and provided what I needed to break my brick wall.

It is absurd to think that people live in isolation. They are the product of ALL the people in their lives - friends, relatives, business partners etc. Family research that covers only the names, dates, places without investigating the stories of their lives is just genealogy. I'm interested in more than than. I want to see a little way into their world. And that means understanding the other people in their lives.

A very important person in my husband's life was not even a blood relation but a very, very close family friend. I intend to do some family research on his life. He had no children of his own but was a wonderful man, an important influence on my husband in his childhood, and he deserves to be remembered by his "adopted" family.

I'm finding cousins all the time researching the same family trees. Just because they have information about my family tree is not stealing. They are just doing the same thing as me. Researching what is already in the public domain. I've even found academic articles about ancestors by people who were doing a thesis and are in no way related to my family tree. And I don't see that as stealing. In fact, it was incredibly helpful. Collaborating with other people can sometimes be the best part of family history research.

I do not "own" my ancestors. They were their own people who lived their own lives. I'm just trying to get to know them a little.

[hurworth]

I agree with much that you say hsfam.  But my heart sinks when I see a tree with thousands of people. 

A distant cousin has a large tree and we've exchanged information.

She is adding a LOT of side branches (including OUR side branches) and the sources are "Ancestry Family Trees".  She isn't verifying anything or getting original certificates.  I suspect this copying of trees is the reason another cousin has recently made her tree private.  I think adding in-laws is fine if you take more than two seconds to think about whether the connection looks right.  I doubt that some people give each person they add more than two seconds of research.

Her information about our mutual relatives is good but further out it's not.  I don't think that's helping anyone.

[phenolphthalein]

I'm not arguing against going sideways. I do that myself but my tree isn't public never will be. I'm not with anthefttree and never will be. Keep those who aren't yours private.
I've linked up lines too and learnt because of that.
But leave people their privacy and fun.
If they want to, they'll find you.
Or contact them privately.
These are also distinct lines and not what I call part of family lace.

Guy with respect I understand what you are saying and your voice is always sensible.
I mean no offence.

But with a biography one can determine someone's credentials and purpose in writing it. The person being written about is usually in the public eye or closely related -- not a distant private person.
One can readily determine if it is an autobiography and someone who publishes an autobiography and is not the person concerned would be sued for fraud. One can also discover readily if it is an unauthorised biography and people do get sued for writing those.

This in some ways purports to be both. Ie it is a pretend autobiography of my father -- he the only descendant and it is an unauthorised biography.

Just because these public trees are unregulated space does not mean that others should be permitted to do as and what they like and pollute the space.

That is accepting the lowest common denominator -- and well plumb rude.

If we can celebrate our successes we can also mourn our greatest losses.
I would not have my dad's or grandparent's ancestry online given my choice. Someone has stolen that choice.

Regards
phenolphthalein

[majm]

I am fairly sure that there is not any RChat policy that's stopping us from using the word Ancestry in our posts when referring to submitted trees at Ancestry dot  whatever.

JM

[Rosinish]

Phenolphthalein,

I have only read a few postings since my posting about adding the parents of persons marrying into my family.

I think I see a different thing going on here?

My father was not an only child but 1 of 4.
He had 2 brothers & 1 sister, none of whom married nor had any children (that I know of)?

My dad is on many trees but as a descendant of other's relatives just as I have their families in my tree, being descended from the same g, gg or ggg etc. g/parents.

I don't feel anyone is stealing my father's identity but rather, recognising him as part of a bigger family going back decades.

I am also glad that my mother's name appears too (even although she can't be related to them), however, she was my mother, the wife of my father who deserves her name to be beside his on anyone's tree as they are from whom I descend.

I have never understood anyone who doesn't add the wives/husband's of any relative as we all descend from 2 humans equally (my own opinion).

I also have a tree which I add to all the time which is bigger than my own tree!!!

I have a "UIST" Tree which is all people born on the island of South Uist, Inverness-shire with 1000's in it!!! and 1000's to add as & when I get the time.

I started this "Project" many years ago as I had collated so much info. whilst researching my own Paternal line & have literally heaps of info. i.e. whenever I find a connection, I add the relevant info.

I do this as a hobby & have helped so many people with Uist ancestors.

I do not have it online though! as it's for  my own personal use & to assist others.

Annie