Genealogy Chat

I KNOW WE ALL CANT AFFORD TO BUY CERTIFICATES BUT AT TIMES THEY ARE VITAL BETWEEN A COUSIN AN MYSELF WE HAVE OVER 150
BUT

I KNOW ONE PERSON WHO HAS SO MANY ON HER TREE THOUSANDS
NO CERTS BOUGHT WHEN I SENT COPIES OF MINE (WE ARE RELATED) IT PROVED WHERE SHE WENT WRONG BY COPING OTHER TREES NOT RELATED TO OURS WHICH MENT SHE WOULD LOOSE ALL HER DATA FROM 1780 BACK TO PRE 1066 AND HER ROYAL LINKS,SHE REFUSES AND STILL ADDS ANYONE WITH THE SAME NAMES,SHE CALLS HERSELF A VERY EXPERIENCE RESEACHER

Experienced maybe, but thorough...no.
You carry on as you are, ...never mind those Royal links!


I haven't got certificates for all my immediate line, but I won't add people unless I have some proof. I have been to many Record offices and looked up baptism registers etc, but do buy certificates when needed.
My friend has 0ver 2000, bought over many years and costs shared with others who have sent her copies when she was running a One Name Study.

Gwyn

I agree with you Dizzi ,theres only so much info you can verify from census records etc so certs are vital.

I dread to think how much I have spent on them and guess when I am gone they wont be kept as my family arent interested in my hobby. I see the eyes glaze over when I enthuse about my latest find.

I agree Shirley

But who knows.... I remember my eyes glazing when Mum or Dad talked about family. How I wish now I had listened better.

In the far distant future when you are gone they may be thankful for all your research.

I could not agree more!
My husband and chidren have no interest whatsover in my hobby.

I am also with Dizzi on this, I too have researched as far as I possibly could with the knowledge that this was 100% correct.
For previous generations, there were too many possibles, some impossibles and no records as absolute proof. to research any further back.

After sharing the research with 2 others, I am pretty gobsmacked to find that they have managed to add a vast amount of additional Ancestry to MY research., ALL of it, the Impossible version!
At the last count, this unsourced info, together with my fully resourced and reseached data, now appears on 23 trees . Roughly 22 of them have no connection at all, because someone decided to add an" extra" child to an existing family,
Anyone with an ounce of sense would see that this child did not belong in the family.
Wherever documented info didn't fit with their "new" version, they simply chose NOT to collect that particular piece of info.

SHARING INFO

I am now extremely careful about sharing my family history. I have one fully documented tree, containing both mine and my husbands families.
I gave someone access, and although we share some ancestry via my paternal grandmother, this dude saw fit to transfer my ENTIRE family tree to his own ,INCLUDING related CERTIFICATES PHOTOS Ect., and ... HE MADE THEM PUBLIC!
He refused to remove any of this from his tree because he insisted it was HIS family too but, he was eventually forced to make his tree private

Now folks please dont laugh.... this is just one example...
My tree:
Relationship to me " Brother of husband's great Grandfather"
(EDIT: documents relating to this relative are are rather sensitive and are not for public consumption)

I asked this man to explain the connection between above relative ( and the documents collected) with himself
THIS IS HIS PROUD RESPONSE:

1st cousin 1x removed of wife of brother-in-law of sister-in-law of 3rd cousin of husband of sister-in-law of paternal grandfather of wife of brother-in-law of 1st cousin 3x removed of wife of 2nd cousin 3x removed of husband of 1st cousin 2x removed of husband of aunt of wife of 2nd cousin 2x removed

Relative or No Relative?

my head aches just reading that explanation, let alone trying to work it out.

I was never very good at the 'once removed' type stuff anyway!

No, neither is he!

Although it does explain why his his tree contains almost 30,000 names.

Only about 100 peple in his tree are actually direct descendants of of his direct ancestors!

After posting a request for help on the boards you still need to buy the certs to confirm what the helpers have found for you but many members do not buy them and take what is posted as gospel

Each of us can only take responsibility for our own tree - what others do is up to them.

We can offer advice about verification - but they don't have to heed it.

ANNE
DIZZI WAS DIZZY WITH HS EXPLINATION
COR,DONT SOME FOLK LIKE TO COMPLICATE THINGS

OH...... I just realized.
Do you all think that he worked out this crazy relationship all by himself???

Oh No, it's far simpler than that.
Ancestry Trees.

If you own a tree on Anc' there is a facility to work out an EXACT relationship between anyone in the tree to the Home Person .
He selected said great uncle in his own tree, and clicked "view relationship to home person"
As this dude is the home person in his own tree, the post above is indeed "his" EXACT relationship to my relative.
We should all recognise that as soon as the phrase "In law" appears in a relationship, it means that there is NO shared ancestry

Just to say that marriage certificates are less important today than they were just a couple of years ago.
the new Familysearch,FMP,Ancestry and others have put a lot of records online.
Remember a certificate is,in most cases,a transcription and could,possibly, be found elsewhere.

While on the subject of certificates, did you see there may be a new one soon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18736372

Recently I made contact with an Ancestry member who shared a common ancestor. She gave me permission to view her tree. What I found there astounded me. Our 'common' ancestor was born in 1807 - which was correct. But what I found hard to believe was that she had him fighting in WW1 and dying in Flanders France in 1912 at the grand old age of 105.

She had found someone of the same name and assumed it was the same person. He actually died in 1871.

I have also come across several member's who just collect names and add them to their tree's and claim them as their ancestors.

Like you Anne I am very wary now. I have been bitten before by member's who just want copies of my certificates and then never share any info they know.

Lou

Hi Looby Loo,
To be honest, I would NEVER withhold info from anyone with a shared ancestry. I truly believe in sharing, as I view this as their family too.
However, I confess that I get more than a little annoyed when another researcher crosses this boundary and lays claim to areas of family that they themselves have no connection to.
I spent years establishing my "true"paternal ancestry ( my grandfather was informally adopted and changed his identity) and so far have found only one other relation connected to this line..
The carefully purchased documents from this portion of my tree, which were made public by the unconnected Mr Creepy, were in fact collected from his tree by others and placed directly on to private ones.
I have no idea who these people are, or if they my are indeed my true relations... they have never responded to any messages!
As my own private tree contains over 2100 documents, photos, newspaper clippings ect, I keep an undocumented copy of it and only give access where appropriate.
None of my trees include info on living or recently deceased people.
Also, I recently helped someone on another forum with his ancestry... only to discover that he has never actually found a familial connection to them.
He wanted to research them because he thinks that one day he will find a link?
Yes.... it was a famous line!

I also agree that there are some rather silly folk who cannot do a simple bit of mathematics.
How many trees have you seen where a child is so much older than his/her parent or with a parent around 100yrs older than the child?

Lol I gave up years ago looking at "Ancestry Trees" most are just a farce.

Carol ;-)

I may have upset a couple of 2nd cousins because I made my tree private? I would happily share if theirs were private too.

When i did have it as a public tree one of them asked me why I had George and not a William as our gt gt grandfather? I told her because that is what it says on their sons marriage cert (our gt grandparents) and tracing them back from that matched up. This was a London cert so she could view it but she has not bothered to take my word for it or change it even though she has it attached to her tree. She has gone back a couple generations with the wrong family ....so be it

The same Cert my gt grandmother listed her father as Edward xxx and spent ages trying to find him, until I found she was illigitimate and just added the name to save face....so sometimes these marriage certs dont help

Hi Jax,
Yes I know what you mean.
On his marriage cert my grandfather listed his adoptive parents as his parents. I had no reason to think they were anything other than his parents. Only later, looking for him on census records with this family, did I realise that something wasn't right.
I eventually located his death record which confirmed his birth parents.
He had not only chanfed his last name, but had also changed his 1st name from John to James.
To add to the confusion, he had a full brother called James who was not adopted out of the biological family!

Buying certs is useful ONLY if the CORRECT ones are bought

I agree Reggie.
Luckily, my dad signed his father's death cert and gave all the info.
It contained both his current name, his former name and his birth parents.

This led me to correctly locate his birth record and the death record for his mother who died 10days later