Ancestry tree rubbish

[ThrelfallYorky]

Wow! That was a breathtaking solution!
I've "met" people being kidnapped from my line and transplanted onto other people's trees, and once I started - accidentally - to kidnap someone else's someone, but I realised almsot as soon as I started checking properly that two same name & birthplace, parents' same name, and very similar ages had become scrambled together! Took ages chasing up and down the generations and checking, checking, checking to get each in their own neat tied-up piles, but I felt a real glow of satisfaction when a couple of years later I was able to present a "kidnapper" with a neat, confirmed pile of factual information for his chap, and showing why mine wasn't his!

[BushInn1746]

Hello

I've looked at an 1881 Census again several times online to see if a better image was available to print off, than my printed copy from scratched microfilm about 20 years ago. On film as Hood.

Originally online as Hood.

Somebody must have got these Hoods of mine in the 1881 Census online, changed and listed under Wood.

When I last looked again several years ago, it was changed yet again and now listed as Wood (Hood).

I do have all the Hood GRO Birth Certificates of their children residing there in 1881, including a photocopy of a family original 1875 Full Birth Certificate, issued 1876.

Definitely HOOD.

Mark

[Edward Scott]

So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?

That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls

Edward

[ThrelfallYorky]

Better than a jcb, isn't it?

[BushInn1746]

So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?

That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls

Edward

Hello

I wondered if that might have happened.

There is a saying ... the pen is mightier than the Sword, or regarding the other comment, than the JCB 

Mark

[pharmaT]

So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?

That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls

Edward

I have a situation in my tree.  It is a change from Collie to Currie.  I found the Collie birth by matching everything else, plus the granddaughter living with the Collie grandparents at one of the censuses.  That was the first stage, I now have DNA evidence to prove that I was correct.  I did not randomly snatch a person and I did extensive search to make sure that the Collie child wasn't elsewhere.

[Edward Scott]

So they found someone with the right forename, dates, location, etc and then 'changed' the surname to make it fit?

That is a novel solution, great way to knock over brick walls

Edward

I have a situation in my tree.  It is a change from Collie to Currie.  I found the Collie birth by matching everything else, plus the granddaughter living with the Collie grandparents at one of the censuses.  That was the first stage, I now have DNA evidence to prove that I was correct.  I did not randomly snatch a person and I did extensive search to make sure that the Collie child wasn't elsewhere.

My comment was aimed at people who don't check, double check and collect evidence.

I have a 2 x ggfather who was born a Rabbits but spent his entire life as a Roberts.

I can only assume that his Wiltshire accent was misunderstood in Hampshire.

Evidence is based on several censuses (or are they censii?) where he declares his place of birth and PR's

Edward

[macwil]

Evidence is based on several censuses (or are they censii?) where he declares his place of birth and PR's

Edward

The generally accepted plural in english is censuses but if you wish to be pedantic it is census, the 'u' being a long sound rather than the short sound of the singular.
It is definitely not censi nor censii.

See this thread:- https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=41066.0

[Edward Scott]

Where is that tongue in cheek emoticon?

Edward