Beware ThruLines

[phil57]

Although there are numerous incorrect trees that proliferate by copying on Ancestry and elsewhere. I had a similar scenario involving an elderly GG uncle who appeared to have lived in Somerset all his life. His wife had died when he was in his early 80s, and a number of trees showed him in Australia and being buried there, but I had found him in a census in Somerset a couple of years after his wife had died, living with one of his daughters and her husband in a nearby parish. So I couldn't believe that a widower of 80 plus years would have upped sticks and gone to Australia and discounted the trees out of hand. But I couldn't find his burial.

Some time later though, I found an entry in the back of the parish register containing the record of his wife's burial, stating that he had approached the vicar and stated the he intended moving to live with his daughter in the nearby parish, but wished when the time came to be buried with is wife, and hoped that as a lifelong parishioner up to that point he would be allowed to be buried alongside her without any fee due to having moved away. In itself, that note just reinforced my thoughts that the other trees must be wrong.

But at the end of that note, the vicar had added a one line addendum "Emigrated to Australia" and the date. He was I think 86 at the time. It proved me wrong anyway!

[ColinBignell]

...

Such as I helped a work colleague do his family tree and found out his maternal grandmother was born before her parents got married. Finding out how long a couple courted before marrying can be hard, that is if the man she married was the biological father.

My maternal grandmother never married the father of her four children. However, the 1921 census has her and her first three children  living as boarders with him, his wife and their four children. To me, that is far more interesting than the ancestors who led a conventional life.

[coombs]

...

Such as I helped a work colleague do his family tree and found out his maternal grandmother was born before her parents got married. Finding out how long a couple courted before marrying can be hard, that is if the man she married was the biological father.

My maternal grandmother never married the father of her four children. However, the 1921 census has her and her first three children  living as boarders with him, his wife and their four children. To me, that is far more interesting than the ancestors who led a conventional life.

Yes that is true, the more conventional they were, the less easy it is to trace them, for instance if they were conventional in the sense that they were never rich enough to leave a will but never poor enough to come under the poor law authorities and leave a settlement exam/cert paper trail which could be very handy for their descendants 200 years down the line who are addicted to FH.

[LizzieL]

I've got a DNA match of 21 cM where Thrulines has worked out he is my 5th cousin once removed. His tree has only ONE person on it, shown as "Private" -  presumably himself. I have checked out the connection and it all seems correct. That's pretty impressive!
On the other hand I have several DNA matches where Thrulines has found  Potential Ancestor Couples as the connection.
One pair is possible - not enough evidence to be sure one way or the other. The other pair is unlikely due to location, I have found a much closer pair who would fit. However I cannot find the trees that the suggested couple is based on. None of the trees listed as sources for the match's 4 x great grandfather have him as the brother of my  4 x great grandmother

[tatt1994]

If any of my trees is wrong and I'm politely given the evidence I change it. I dont do so if someone just says you've got the wrong information in your tree and provides nothing to back it up.

IME thrulines are pretty good for close matches and progressively less useful the further back you go. Back to 1790 and I dont trust my own trees, records can be scanty then.