All Branches on the Same Family Tree?

[LizzieL]

I don't know if others would agree, but if I was starting over again, I would still build my tree on stand alone FT software on my PC rather than build it from scratch on a site such as Ancestry.

[macwil]

I don't know if others would agree, but if I was starting over again, I would still build my tree on stand alone FT software on my PC rather than build it from scratch on a site such as Ancestry.

So would I.

[JohninSussex]

I did find remarkable correlation with the suggested hints, same name, DOB, address, names of children etc. I guess because I have a reasonably unusual surname it may be a bit easier but of course there could be cousins with the same name born close together which will be traps for the unwary and inexperienced people like me. 

A few more comment about your "back to the 1700s":

"because I have a reasonably unusual surname it may be a bit easier" - true but for your father's "side" of the family you're talking about probably something like 5-6 generations back from him, 32 or 64 ancestors of which only one has the same unusual surname.  So not much help overall.

When I started going back looking to build one quarter of my tree, I traced that particular branch back to the 1700s quite quickly, mostly because in the diocese of Durham, and to some extent for the Kent line too, the parishes often recorded details such as both parents' full names for baptisms, father's name of bride and groom for weddings and maybe age at death for burials.  And sometimes the place of abode as well.  Then you switch to another line living in another part of England, and you get "James son of William Harris and his wife was baptized this day" or "Margt Richardson buried on ye 27th day of ..." (baby? mother? gran? no age given) 

So if you have been lucky with one branch don't assume you will be for the next one.

And I would agree, keep your tree (in other words keep the information you have amassed) on your own computer and/or on paper at home, don't rely on a commercial online site.

[John Laidler]

I don't know if others would agree, but if I was starting over again, I would still build my tree on stand alone FT software on my PC rather than build it from scratch on a site such as Ancestry.

I think that makes a lot of sense, I'll have a look at what's available. 

[John Laidler]

A few more comment about your "back to the 1700s":

"because I have a reasonably unusual surname it may be a bit easier" - true but for your father's "side" of the family you're talking about probably something like 5-6 generations back from him, 32 or 64 ancestors of which only one has the same unusual surname.  So not much help overall.

When I started going back looking to build one quarter of my tree, I traced that particular branch back to the 1700s quite quickly, mostly because in the diocese of Durham, and to some extent for the Kent line too, the parishes often recorded details such as both parents' full names for baptisms, father's name of bride and groom for weddings and maybe age at death for burials.  And sometimes the place of abode as well.  Then you switch to another line living in another part of England, and you get "James son of William Harris and his wife was baptized this day" or "Margt Richardson buried on ye 27th day of ..." (baby? mother? gran? no age given) 

So if you have been lucky with one branch don't assume you will be for the next one.

And I would agree, keep your tree (in other words keep the information you have amassed) on your own computer and/or on paper at home, don't rely on a commercial online site.

Thank you. I'm not looking forward to doing my wife's side. Her father's surname is unusual, I think there's only a few hundred of them in the UK so that should be fairly straight forward but her mother is Welsh and from Williams and Thomas stock - they must be legion! 

[macwil]

. . .
Her father's surname is unusual, I think there's only a few hundred of them in the UK so that should be fairly straight forward . . .

Don't count on it! 
My mother's maiden name is relatively uncommon, including the common variations there are less than 2000 in all England & Wales census to 1911, however with spelling variations, transcription errors and poor handwriting it has been ... shall we say trying at times. Not helped by the fact that they hopped between two counties, one of which has no Parish records on-line. 

My paternal line has been a doddle in comparison, despite the extremely common name. At least until I traced it back to Scotland, there it came to a full stop in 1840 as far as records are concerned, can infer back to c.1810 but that's it.

Edited at 22:26