My tree back to 1100's - I don't believe it.

[jettejjane]

For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills.  It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me.  We all approach research differently and   at the end of the day  do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way.  If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters.    I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two

[pharmaT]

How the numbers mounted up in my tree:

I started with myself, i have my 2 exes and my 2 children giving me 5 people.

I have all 3 sets of parents for myself and exes bringing up to 11 people.

There are 6 siblings my generation bringing us up to 17 people.

Five of these siblings married so along with recording spouse's parents as explained in previous post.  So with 5 spouses and 5 sets of parents that brings us to 32 people.

Between them they had 10 children taking us to 42 people

I have identified all 3 sets of grandparents for my generation bringing us up to 48 people

There are/were (some are deceased now) 33 siblings in our parents generations *by our parents I mean my parents and my ex's parents. This brings us to 81 people.

Twenty nine of these siblings married with 2 of them marrying twice giving us 31 spouses for this generation, along with their parents that adds 93 people bringing us to 174 people

Between them they had 79 children bringing us to 243 people.

I haven't sourced all marriage records for this generation yet but so far I have identified 34 marriages for this generation bringing us (with parents too) to 345 people

As above my research is incomplete but I have 66 children recorded on my tree bringing us to 411 people.

The previous 2 sections as stated my research is incomplete.  I know for sure that there are more marriages and more children.  I have met them but i have not got them recorded on my tree yet as haven't got round to sourcing documentary evidence.  Research on my line is more advanced than my girls' paternal lines as I have been researching for longer.

Another section that is incomplete is recording marriages for the children in the above generation who are old enough.  So far I have 5 marriages recorded for this generation as I have only done it for my line so far.  This brings us to 426 people.

Between them they have 7 children so far bringing us to 433 people.

I have identified all sets of great grandparents (my great grandparents and those of my exes)  That brings us to 457 people.

Grandparent's generation has 57 siblings bringing us to 490 people


So nearly half way to first 1000 by covering myself, spouses, children, parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great aunts and uncles, aunts and uncles, first cousins, first cousins once removed and twice removed.  with the everyone born since the start of civil reg.  I have too much to do just now to divide my count up more at them moment but will do an analysis of what I have of my grandparent's (and their grandparent's siblings later).

[pharmaT]

For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills.  It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me.  We all approach research differently and   at the end of the day  do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way.  If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters.    I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two

But you're not just stating your personal preference for how you do your tree. The posts read as sneering eg "these people with 100s in their tree are just name collectors", implying just copying and pasting, don't care about research.

[jettejjane]

For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills.  It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me.  We all approach research differently and   at the end of the day  do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way.  If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters.    I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two

But you're not just stating your personal preference for how you do your tree. The posts read as sneering eg "these people with 100s in their tree are just name collectors", implying just copying and pasting, don't care about research.

 You think I am sneering , which I am not but that’s your opinion. I accept that , just like I have my opinion on name collectors.  An opinion is .... a view or judgement formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.  An interesting thread with differing views  which I am enjoying and not taking personally. 

[groom]

We all approach research differently and   at the end of the day  do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way. 

This is very true, so there is no need for anyone to explain what they do, why they have so many people etc. If they are happy with what they have, they don't have to justify  or defend it.

My tree is relatively small, but that's because it is just mine, obviously people who follow partners or ex partners and children on the same tree would have a much bigger one. My trees stop at the moment around the year 1660 and I am quite content with that, as I can be as sure as possible that it is correct to that point. I couldn't care a less whether people have 100 or 100,000 on their tree that's up to them.

[pharmaT]

For the record Pharma. This thread is not a personal attack on anyone's research skills.  It's just what I think and no one has to agree with me.  We all approach research differently and   at the end of the day  do it for ourselves and not to please others. There is no right or wrong way.  If you are happy with your tree that's all that matters.    I am not writing off the tree in question. Throughout this thread I have stated I am happy to be proved wrong if the tree owner happens to see this thread or I can find a connection. I will be happy to eat a slice of humble pie or two

But you're not just stating your personal preference for how you do your tree. The posts read as sneering eg "these people with 100s in their tree are just name collectors", implying just copying and pasting, don't care about research.

 You think I am sneering , which I am not but that’s your opinion. I accept that , just like I have my opinion on name collectors.  An opinion is .... a view or judgement formed about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.  An interesting thread with differing views  which I am enjoying and not taking personally.

You're right I do read it as sneering.  I would view "I prefer to do...........with my tree" as a personal opinion and preference and that's great.  But when a sentence starts "these people who......with their tree" is passing judgement on them because they have a different preference.

I guess it's useful to know what people think of me but it is incredibly unfair to suggest that I do not care about sources or accuracy.  I have never claimed that I don't make mistakes but none of them have been because I haven't tried to get it right and when I do find errors I try and I fix it immediately I find it.

Edit: I really must add that I did not set out to have 6000 people in my tree.  I set out to record my direct line as far back as records would allow and to record their family in terms of siblings, in-laws, nieces and nephews etc and for that all to be as accurate as possible.  It's is just how many people it is so far.

[chris_49]

Well I'm someone who agreed with jettejjane on sourcing (and didn't read anything as sneering) but who has a tree bigger than pharmaT - so I guess I must be a name collector. How shocking!

I once started a thread on name collecting, easily found, and the arguments went back and forth. We sort of agreed that it was an unfortunate phrase but couldn't agree on an alternative, so it seems to have stuck.

I think the opprobrium was mainly directed at those with 30000+ trees who copy whole branches into their tree of people who aren't even related to them. Following collateral lines is ordinary family history, surely. I do it for the same reasons pharma does, plus the additional one that it's put me in touch with some fairly distantly researchers and we've been mutually helpful. I've met some of them, it was great.

[chris_49]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=698504.0

though sometimes I wish I hadn't bothered

[jettejjane]

For goodness sake I am not talking about you Pharma. I don't know a thing about your research nor do I care about it. Why on earth do you think I was attacking you? You don't  have to explain the ins and outs of your research to anyone. .  Enough now please this is getting personal which was not my intention.