Ancestry tree rubbish

[ThrelfallYorky]

That's actually pretty true, I spend longer rejecting people than adding them. I tend to make out a sort of spreadsheet of possibles, with parentage / dates / events across the top, and names down the side, get all the possibles listed, then spend months tracking them through time and location, to eliminate them....
but it doesn't mean that I accept blindly if there's only one candidate left after all that -
THEN I start trying to prove / disprove he's the right one, all over again ( sighs)

[coombs]

The one remaining candidate may have emigrated or lived as a common law wife to her partner and took his name without ever marrying him. And you then find another candidate whose baptism was grossly mis-transcribed. Or you find that 4 brothers all had a son or daughter with the same forename, causing much confusion. 4 cousins all called Joseph Watson in the same village.

I have a Word "blog" which I am using to get rid of candidates for an ancestor.

[petrochemist]

My Father in law would probably fail most sense checks.
He was born in India, of a father born in New Zealand.
Whilst in the army he moved around quite a bit so his children were born in England, France & Iraq.

None of this is from on-line research but direct information from the family.

Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.
As a surgeon, with a relatively rare surname is relatively easy to confirm it's the same person. Though there were multiple marriages between his family & his first wife's family over the years (He later married her sister something that only became legal shortly before).

There are certain lots of highly dubious 'sources' but merely not complying with modern norms does not make data wrong.

[Edward Scott]

Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.

I think he did quite well to last

[a chesters]

Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.

I think he did quite well to last

Just think, three mothers in law

[ThrelfallYorky]

Ancestry's best trick today?
Won't let me look at 1939 register, suddenly.
Wants me to "sign in" / "upgrade"
-Is it sure it wants me to renew, I wonder, when that's due ( shortly)
Not going about it the right way, is it?

[Finley 1]

I just asked OH to tie me to the chair.............. 

why because I was researching my Alice and Ann Pickerings from Lubenham... on Ancestry and came across the most ridiculous tree ever...   ever......
the reason I clicked on it there was a photograph  of sorts and I always check them out.. thank goodness  I TRIPLE checked.

This tree has my lady living a parallel life with a lady of similar names.. and he is not ashamed to literally have added all her sibs and her sibs sibs sibs to the same tree..


I wont go on we all know the truth.. and this lot wont go in the Vault.. !!!! just blitted in to thin air.. after my demise.. no doubt. 

look it up and check the trees for her if you can be bothered or want a laugh..

Alice Pickering 1877 Lubenham.. parents are Halford and Mary Ann Elizabeth nee Patrick.

callllllmmming down..

xin

[petrochemist]

Another my GGG GF married 3 times with a total of 15 kids (no wonder his wives didn't last!) Large families & multiple sequential marriages were not uncommon in those times.

I think he did quite well to last

Just think, three mothers in law

He escaped that. I don't know about his first mother in law, but the mother of his 2nd & 3rd wives died a couple of years before he married either of them

[BushInn1746]

... I spend longer rejecting people than adding them. I tend to make out a sort of spreadsheet of possibles, with parentage / dates / events across the top, and names down the side, get all the possibles listed, then spend months tracking them through time and location, to eliminate them....
but it doesn't mean that I accept blindly if there's only one candidate left after all that -
THEN I start trying to prove / disprove he's the right one, all over again ( sighs)

Hello

Yes, when you get back two hundred years, it is impossible for us to make confirmed links backward from my current 200 year old Tree lineage (a Wedding with Bond/Allegation of 1815 with age stated, that matches his death age) and most of our time is spent looking at possibles, looking for paperwork in Archives and:- either rejecting them; leaving them and the acquired documentary paperwork filed and in abeyance; or coming to another dead end.

I even have two spare middle surnames (Cook and Pearson) and a spare middle name (Alfred, which can be both a forename and surname). All the other middle surnames match up to linked certified ancestry.

So I fall off my seat with disbelief (and laughter) when people claim a Tree with links to 30,000 individuals!

To me, those in my Family Tree are those my Dad and I actually know as our family back to 1905 and then those our relatives and I have verified paperwork, Census and official Copies for, newspaper Notices, Wills and Yorkshire property Registrations, before 1905.

Mark