Should I start again from scratch ???

[AngelaF67]

I’m totally and utterly fed up. I’ve had a feeling for a couple of days that something wasn’t quite right with my Nutter tree. So I’ve been trying to see my tree as a whole to see if both families match each other….and after months of research I find that they don’t match how I thought they did.

1. On one side I have John Nutter born 1590 died 1656
2. On the other side I have John Nutter born 1590 died 1636

I also have another John Nutter on side 1 who was born 1571 died Abt ,1631
And on side 2. John Nutter born 1571 died Abt 1654

On side 1 I have approximately 6 John Nutters and on side 2 I have approximately 8 John Nutter so you can see how confusing it’s been trying to work out whose who.

Side 1 links my family to Alice Nutter the Pendle Witch which my Grandma was brought up to believe were our family but by misreading 56 for 36 I have completely wasted my time since I started doing my tree. Alice Nutter if I’m right is no longer my 13th Great Grandmother…..

I’m gutted and don’t know how to go about sorting this out…Should I bin the lot and start a new Nutter Tree or should I delete over half of my family tree that I think is wrong 

[jbml]

*sings*

I had a little Nutter tree
Nothing would it bear
But a silver nutmeg
And a golden  pair of Nutters

(sorry ... couldn't resist)

Totally frustrating ... but I have to say I'd press the nuclear option. Clear everything out and start again from the ground up.

You've learned a lot of useful research skills while researching all the "wrong" ancestors, and can put it to good use making sure that this tim eyou only get the right ones. And I'm sure that, because you are so much more skilled now, it'll come back together again much quicker than the first one did!

[BumbleB]

Sorry, I don't agree that you should totally "bin" your current tree - BUT perhaps put it all to one side.

Start again working backwards from your known and verified information.  New information is always coming to light these days, so take advantage.

[rosie99]

I agree with all that BumbleB says,  I certainly would not bin the research you have done. 

[BillyF]

Many years ago when I was new to family history, I had the same problem with my Alexander Blacks, of which there seems to be hndreds!!

 I had a father "and" son married to the mother, plus I had a copule of generations mixed up.

I agree with Rosie and BumbleBee. Have a change from the Nutters, then go back to them, starting with your proven records.

[AngelaF67]

Thank you all very much, I think I’m just going to leave the Nutter Tree alone for a bit and concentrate on my dads side of the family for a while, then I’ll clear out all the wrong connections 
Before getting back into the Nutter Family with it’s million, John, Roberts and James’s 

Lesson learnt I think……

[jbml]

Well, at least you've got three different Nutter names to play with.

My Potton ancestors are Richard Richardson, son of Richard Richardson, son of Richard Richardson, son of ... I think you get the idea!

[AngelaF67]

Well, at least you've got three different Nutter names to play with.

My Potton ancestors are Richard Richardson, son of Richard Richardson, son of Richard Richardson, son of ... I think you get the idea!

Blimey! And I thought John son of John son of Richard son of John was bad. I feel your pain 

[J.R.Ellam]

I had the same problem but with William's. I did a spreadsheet so I could cross reference which one was which.
But to answer your question I wouldn't delete the lot I would go back to the point you know you are right and start from that.

John