Genealogy Chat

Here's a thing: I have a gggrandfather whose marriage cert. I obtained and on which he is described as a widower, 'of full age'. I have positively identified two of his daughters from previous marriage(s) or liaison(s) and for whom the least complicated assumption, at this stage, is that they were born to the deceased first wife. So far I have been able to find nothing whatsoever about the first wife. Her existence can only be inferred directly from the marriage certificate and indirectly by two children who were possibly hers. However, in order to show the 15 children of the second marriage in my tree and in their proper relationship to the father, their mother and the children of the first marriage I have had to enter 'details' of the first wife as 'unknown' in every category, otherwise the tree will show the first two children as belonging to the second marriage, which is not true. This to me justifies including a completely 'unknown' person for whom no actual details are presently available. What was my alternative other than excluding two proven daughters?....J.

Michael, did not think about it at the time but yes I did get some Hot Maches sent me a few days before my subs were due for renewal..... nothing since may be they were sent to everyone around 15 Oct

I have several UNKNOWN on my tree. They all have children, so I have to include them. What I would REALLY like to have put, is UNKNOWN first wife of James Holden,(1824-1898) Lancashire,she dead by 1859 and the mother of Joseph Holden (1855 - 1937)..... but the box isnt big enough! Olde Crone

Using another computer, I wanted to check this site but had forgotten my password, so I created a new identity. As a lousy typist, I just used my initials. I've now received two messages with lists of new hot matches!

BLUSH! RED FACE BLUSH!!! when i first joined and did not know my way around, i started adding to my tree and because i only used guesswork a lot of it was MARY? married to J JONES? children JOHN aged 2? i wasn't aware at that time that all the names were going into a database until a few weeks later when i did a search and it had (MARY? your tree)I have now got all the correct names and deleted the ? and leave it blank if i don't know, so maybe people need to go and check their trees and delete the don't knows and the ???. and then we will have around 1000 names in the database...MOE!

Olde Crone, excellent point. When I first built my tree in GR I just put in the basic minimum for each person so as to get the tree up and running. I am now slowly working through adding those 'Extra Details'. Because, as you so rightly point out, there is insufficient room in the normal boxes to add clarifying information I have found the 'Notes' box very handy. It expands to accept anything I wish to put in it, e.g. list of addresses, with their sources, garnered from census and certificate entries; occupations, ditto and all those explanatory notes, reminders, cautions about the info in each section. I think it would be a good idea if, for each box, there was a link to a box called 'More' where you could store useful additional info e.g. source, explanatory detail, caveats etc. that pertains only to that item. The 'Source' box at the bottom is limited in usefulness as it only allows for one source to be visibly displayed for what is usually a multitude of info from various sources....J.

My husband's family has three generations of William Fraser's from Scotland. I know very few extra details. Hot matches have matched me with two or three pages of William Fraser's born Scotland in the appropriate years. I have contacted several people who could be possible relations and as yet have had no reply. If only it were possible for Hot matches to give a few extra details -you would not want to contact every relative of John Smith born in England. I have found several people on the site with birth year 0 or 00.