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

[jettejjane]

What did pee me off was that he had the death of our shared gtx 2 Grandfather George Redman b. 1800 wrong. He just picked a Redman in Sussex who died in 1876 with obviously no checks.  I did find this death when I started but ruled him out and it wasn’t that difficult. My George appeared on 1841 and 1851 census with family in Arundel then disappeared. Then I discovered through researching my gt x 1 Grandfather his son William on 1861 still in Arundel same address, but mother had remarried. Was easy to find death in 1852 in Arundel. I got death certificate. This was at start if my research when I was a total novice.

[coombs]

It's amazing how "happy" (what are they all on?) so many people are so very willing to accept all sorts of very loosely connected connections. I'm with you on this - I never believe it, either! I've sweated blood, money and ink to get my lot mostly back to 1500s (except of course for the really stubborn Irish ones, who refuse totally to be found prior to mid/ late 1800s) - and I'm amazed how many simply lap it up!

But some careful and initially sceptical people have thought to check for themselves and then spent many hours/days/weeks or more of blood sweat and tears looking through centuries old wills, land records and the like to check for themselves, and some have found the line is correct after all, and they do descend from nobility and royalty.

[jettejjane]

But some careful and initially sceptical people have thought to check for themselves and then spent many hours/days/weeks or more of blood sweat and tears looking through centuries old wills, land records and the like to check for themselves, and some have found the line is correct after all, and they do descend from nobility and royalty.

Yes I agree I am checking as i always do.  I feel if tree owner can’t get the easy research right there is a fair chance it’s a made up tree.

[majm]

    

I've seen trees which confidently assert my paternal lineage back to Charlemagne and even back to Adam and Eve. I personally can't get past the early 1800s with my paternal surname line - there were just too many people with the correct name and too few details on parish records etc to sort them out. And that ancestor had the nerve to die before the 1841 census.

My favourite tree of all time was one which confidently provided the parents of a 12 century ancestor of mine as King Richard 1, and his lovely lady known as Concubine 2. Funny name that-- you don't get many girls called Concubine these days ----

... what do you think happened to "Concubine 1"? Answers please .....

Wait .... wait ....  thats an excellent question .... I have seen a tree where all the males are even numbered,  and unknowns are all occupying the odd number positions from grandparents back on a 6 generation tree.

 Yes, so a female was named at the conventional spot for father,  but at NO other spot.  Babies born without a mother ....    ... 

I acted with restraint. 

JM.

[chrissiecruiser]

Evening all from South Australia.

Just tonight I was on An...try,
perusing hints in a tree that I don't work on much.   
Seemed to be 2 people with lots of hints.
When I brought them on screen to examine same they did NOT have my family connections, names or dates in common.
What these people did have were thousands of names in their trees.
Now I don't know but does 38,000 people seem a bit excessive?
How would you "flesh out" relatives? That's what I try to do....keep it real!!!!

[jettejjane]

Evening all from South Australia.

Just tonight I was on An...try,
perusing hints in a tree that I don't work on much.   
Seemed to be 2 people with lots of hints.
When I brought them on screen to examine same they did NOT have my family connections, names or dates in common.
What these people did have were thousands of names in their trees.
Now I don't know but does 38,000 people seem a bit excessive?
How would you "flesh out" relatives? That's what I try to do....keep it real!!!!

So agree with all you say,  I call these tree owners with thousands of names "name collectors".  Plus it can be very confusing for novice researchers who see a tree and believe, thankfully I got wise to the fact that I should check and double check through this site. . When I started out I was lucky to have 2 black tin boxes full of family papers going back to a marriage of Gt x 1 George in 1827.  I got back 2 more generations  to Daniel in  1733 son of an  Edward Redman, before that it remains  guesswork. So i keep looking  I have come to conclusion it cant be proved 100%.   I have  4 candidates for Daniel's parents  all  called Edward  in right  location and timescale.  I even employed a professional genealogist a few years ago who agreed with my finds and couldn't get back either.

In the early days of my research through a tree I did follow a wrong line.   George and his brother   both had a daughter born on same date, same name and within a couple of miles of each other.  It was only through the  child  living with  his grandparents my Gt x 1 that I was able to see my error.  I put in the hard work and it paid off.   

I have contacted many tree owners trying to ascertain proof of their finds,  , very few reply and those that do are not  receptive to me telling them they things wrong. 

[ThrelfallYorky]

Exactly. One starts with what one has, and carefully one searches, researches, checks and re-checks - when you find you've made an error you "pull back" the fabric of your tree until you find where/how you went wrong, and then you continue cautiously to identify the right line - yes, there may well be a very very few who do go back to Noah, but you can often tell the "Name Collectors" - as you say, oodles of names, lashings of images of coats of arms (some wrong!) almost random images of medieval nobles and Royals ....
You're right, Jettejjane, and they really don't like the idea they may be in error (much less that they ought to enter their tree for the "Booker" Prize for fiction).

[jettejjane]

Been great thread  and nice to know I am not alone in thinking as I do and it has spurred me on to check out other Redman trees to pass a few lonely lockdown hours , although I have not finished with this one yet!

I am not sure I would be allowed to put the name of the tree here, although anyone can find it for free.  It  contains Redman and then  6 other "posh sounding" names. I just  knew it was a non-starter the minute I saw all those names. Then to discover a Redman  son born by the name of Elizabeth Davies .   She was in fact a Redman wife. The wrong death for George and a date and year of a death that cannot be proved - i have been locking since I started.   I love the detective work of searching census, parish records, and  obtaining bmd certs.  The  feeling I get  when through my own hard work (and sometimes a little help from the Forum boards) I breakthrough a brickwall is so rewarding. 

[ThrelfallYorky]

Agreed. Great help on here. Also: keeping us all sane at the moment!
TY