Birth registration rules in 1901 UK

[coombs]

Sometimes we do have to make a judgement on the probability of something being correct, I think, otherwise we’d never be able to move on with our research.

In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings.  She’s the only person I can find who fits, but if in the future I find something that proves her not to be correct, then all the previous ancestors will be wrong too.  It’s something I revisit now and again.

I half agree with that, but sometimes I think I have the right info, but then find that burial of someone who I think is my ancestor as a child, a burial not picked up on before. I had a keen eye on my ancestor who wed in 1786 as being the same woman born 1762 in a nearby parish. But then found a burial today in 1767 of the 1762 one, listing parents, so I know it is a different person. The burial on the Ancestry search engine just gave first name but looking at the original, it said "Elis, daughter of John and Susannah Cripps".

[louisa maud]

We have to become detectives.

LM

[Whipby]

Sometimes we do have to make a judgement on the probability of something being correct, I think, otherwise we’d never be able to move on with our research.

In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings.  She’s the only person I can find who fits, but if in the future I find something that proves her not to be correct, then all the previous ancestors will be wrong too.  It’s something I revisit now and again.

I half agree with that, but sometimes I think I have the right info, but then find that burial of someone who I think is my ancestor as a child, a burial not picked up on before. I had a keen eye on my ancestor who wed in 1786 as being the same woman born 1762 in a nearby parish. But then found a burial today in 1767 of the 1762 one, listing parents, so I know it is a different person. The burial on the Ancestry search engine just gave first name but looking at the original, it said "Elis, daughter of John and Susannah Cripps".

That’s why I revisit my 1851 girl every now and again!  I dread finding anything that would show she’s not mine, but it has to be done I suppose 🤭. But until then, I’ve made the executive decision to assume she IS mine (because to date I’ve done everything I can think of to look for an alternative) and carry on looking into her ancestors 🤣🤣🤣

On the positive side, with your recent find, it means you can start researching other possibilities!

[Whipby]

We have to become detectives.

LM

We do, and that’s half the fun!

[louisa maud]

I enjoy the thrill of the chase.  LM

[coombs]

Research the dead, forget the living. 

[Andrew Tarr]

In one branch of my family, everything further back than 1851 relies on one 16 year old girl who was living with her grandmother instead of her parents and siblings.  She’s the only person I can find who fits, ...

That sums it all up.  When records become hard to trace, or 'fuzzy', one is easily led into accepting one that 'fits' best.  The real problem may be that no genuine record ever existed, or now remains, or has not yet been put on line or transcribed anywhere.

[coombs]

Also the confusion of, for example, two John Bloggs marrying a woman of the same name in the same area, and researchers getting the couples mixed up. 

[Jebber]

Also the confusion of, for example, two John Bloggs marrying a woman of the same name in the same area, and researchers getting the couples mixed up.

Also the problem when one man  marries two women of the same name.