Genealogy frustrations.

[Lisajb]

Those of my ancestors who suddenly decided to go by another name. I spent ages trying to find a Henry Woodman, when a genealogist friend took a look, and informed me that Henry was actually George.

Daisy, who, upon her marriage, added a couple of years to her age and also became Daisy May Victoria.

Don’t even get me started on my husbands Irish Meagher/Maher ancestors - I had to check both versions of the name as they or the registrar varied between each child. And his GGM, who switches between O’Hara and Gray/Grey for her maiden name.

[Treetotal]

The variation of spelling of Irish surnames....Monaghan,Monagan,Monaghan. Maher, Mayer, Meagher and Carroll, Caroll, O'Carroll....add to that, putting POB as "Ireland".
Using middle names as Christian names.
Missing WW1 army records.
Carol

[coombs]

When you say you are into your family tree and others say "Can you do mine?".  That is a frustration.  I have my own genealogy to do lol, and it has taken me 20 years so far and still work in progress.

I give them some tips and starting points.

[cafetiere]

Had a bit of a breakthrough today but I seem to have a large amount of people in my tree who have no children. (There are plenty who have lots of children as well). But having no children means there aren't m/any people looking for them and just fewer records all round to give any more clues about other people.

[coombs]

They say it gets harder the further back you go, which is true but it can also depend on many things. If they were not royal but worthy people who were landed gentry or just wealthy merchants, it can take you back further into the 1600s and the 1500s. Wills of London merchants in the 1500s and 1600s often mention land and relatives in other parts of the country.

[pharmaT]

People asking "why is it not finished yet?"

Baptism records where only the father is named, especially when his name is only reported as say Mr Smith with zero info to differentiate from all the other Mr Smiths.

[clairec666]

Had a bit of a breakthrough today but I seem to have a large amount of people in my tree who have no children. (There are plenty who have lots of children as well). But having no children means there aren't m/any people looking for them and just fewer records all round to give any more clues about other people.

But childless people can be useful too! If they left a will, their beneficiaries might be siblings, nieces and nephews. The informant on their death certificate might be a relative too, and so might other people buried in the same grave.

I'm currently going through all the unmarried and/or childless people in my tree and searching for them in the 1939 register. Quite often there are other family members in the same household. In one case, a single lady was living with two of her widowed sisters - I hadn't previously been able to trace them beyond 1911.

[coombs]

Childless couples who left wills often left it to many relatives which can take your search back further.

Also, another frustration is not being able to find anything about some ancestors prior to their marriage. I think outside considering nonconformists or not baptised etc, it could be they originated in an area a long way away, I am taking about ancestors born before 1800. People did move around much much more than we used to think. Some of my Essex ancestry has taken me back to London, Kent and I may have a 1600s ancestor originally from Rochdale. A Sussex ancestor who was well off married in London in the 1600s and his wife's family came from Lincolnshire and Lancashire.

[pharmaT]

Had a bit of a breakthrough today but I seem to have a large amount of people in my tree who have no children. (There are plenty who have lots of children as well). But having no children means there aren't m/any people looking for them and just fewer records all round to give any more clues about other people.

But childless people can be useful too! If they left a will, their beneficiaries might be siblings, nieces and nephews. The informant on their death certificate might be a relative too, and so might other people buried in the same grave.

I'm currently going through all the unmarried and/or childless people in my tree and searching for them in the 1939 register. Quite often there are other family members in the same household. In one case, a single lady was living with two of her widowed sisters - I hadn't previously been able to trace them beyond 1911.

One of the childless people in my tree is absolutely one of the most fascinating and a wealth of information on the wider family including my directs.  He was a prolific letter writer and these have survived to the present day. He also had a well travelled career which left a bit of a paper trail.  Thanks to him I know roughly when my 5x Great grandmother and 6x grt grandfather died as he refers to it in his letters, I know how the family felt about my 4x grt grandfather marrying my 4x Grt grandmother and about his career choices.  I have clarification of the birth years of some of their children thanks to his will as well.