Genealogy Chat

See below

I've come to a bit of a brick wall with my searches at present as I need to visit reg. offices in far flung parts of the country in order to find the evidence to get back further with direct descendants, so as I have ancestry I have been finding branches and then - twigs... and with the help of the IGI I find I can go quite a long way back with the twigs! I am not checking info as i would if they were direct ancestors so now I wonder should I add these these to my tree or not? I'd have a real problem working out my relationship to some of them and interesting as they might be - am I diluting the genes so much that it all becomes worthless? Alice

Mad Alice Yes, I have people with the 'right' surname lurking in the 'right' area or from the 'right' background, which I can't as yet connect to me. They are in my folders, because you never know when you might find the link. As to whether we should do this or not - firstly its my tree so I can do what I like! and secondly, it rounds out things and gives you a clearer picture if you know for example that while one ancestor was an only child, their spouse was one of 12. nell

Jenny , I use Family Treemaker and I 'm not sure I can do that, I'm sure I will have forgotten how correct I thought the info was by next week! My real query though is should I be putting really distant rellies on at all? I can see how some people have a tree of thousands now. Do all the distant rellies detract from the main branches or add to the interest? Alice

alice, you sound like your at the same stage as me~i too, need to visit far far away record offices to get any further. im also grabbin twigs!!...and i seem to have bled I.G.I dry. im not stopping at a certain point,tho. ill keep going on each branch as far as i can,altho the further back you go the less info you can find anyway!

Thanks Nell- i am the saame with 'almost correct place rellies. For instance I have Faichens in Hampshire. Believe it or not there are quite a lot lurking there in nearly the right places - mine are bound to be related - but no certain links yet. My recent searches however are pretty sure bets - for instance a distant cousin goodness knows how many times removed with very unusual surname marries - i find children, their marriages and then hey presto I find the husbands family and its almost certain to be right ( but I'm not made of money, so wont get the birth certificate as I normally would) etc... Problem is they are miles away in terms of relationships now - but one ran a pub in Norfolk and had children there. At last someone I can research ! - well they are sort of related.... - and interesting...... Alice

You will eventually come to brickwalls with all your main lines. Then what will you do? Just stop doing your tree? I think you need to add all the little twigs, that's often where contacts come from who will have more info on your main lines. Why not keep two trees, one with all the definates and one with the definates and the probables? P.S. Jenny, whats that challege thingy with the LDS. I have PAF, can I do that?

Lizzy, I guess you are right , and after all, I am only really doing all this for me. Children have no interest and say it can 'all go in the bin' as far as they are concerned, so i guess we do what ever we want. Alice

Helen Good idea. Two trees would solve the problem. I think I would feel cheated if I didn't follow all the twigs! Alice

I have a few family groups on my tree which are not direct antecedents, but I kinda like them and end up following them through censuses to see what happened to them. Try to make a note of sources and use ? after a name or event if you're not sure you've got the right one.

Lois. That is sort of what i think I should do. I enjoy chasing them too much to stop finding them - but they are not really closely related by the time I've finished with them (even if I only use the censuses on ancestry)

Hi Alice I understand your dilemma, but you should not add these 'twigs'on to your tree. Internet genealogy is not the real thing. The only way to prove your ancestry is to find it in documentation. I know it is only too easy to add on a few rellies because you are 99% positive they are yours. But are they???

Louise, Yes well that is sort of the way I was thinking - but I wouldn't do it with my Smiths - I have some unusual surnames and can track them really easily and accurately on Ancestry. They do belong to me and I suppose we can never be 100% certain once we getr back to parish records, especially if there are Christian names which run in the family - last week I found 3 possible ancestors born within months of each other in Middlesex. All born pre 1837. It will be difficult to prove which one belonged to me even if I could find their baptisms. Ho Hum....

well ,alice i know what you mean~i am driving my family up the wall too! no one understands my joy,of finding ive been proved right on sumthing i thought was right!! its so frustratin that noone else cares less what gt gt gt grandads name was! i admit ive followed very distantly related ancestors , just to see wat happened to them. then found their kids and their kids kids!! i just want to get as much info as poss on whoever i can , but i agree it might be better to keep those twigs separately. just for sanity's sake!

Hi Alice I've just been adding 3rd cousins five times removed to my tree, but I am out to prove everyone is related (well at least in England anyway), I was wondering if I was getting a little carried away, but I enjoy it, because one of my twigs let to quite a large tree, AL

Thank you all for your good ideas. I feel better about it now. I will try your idea Kat as I am a bit woeeied I will forget which have yet to be really 'proved' GHoing to be busy tonight putting all the new names on GR - hope someone contacts me as a result! Alice

Hi, I put 'likely looking' IGI information in FTM and put (IGI) in brackets. This isn't just for my benefit but for those I send info on to. If info is passed to me I put the initilas of the person who passed it in brackets. When I have checked original sources I remove the brackets or correct the info in FTM. I never put IGI estimates in, though, only those with batch numbers from controlled extractions. Gwynne

I add possibles to my notes on my FTM2005 and some have come up as being correct. If I put it on paper Im sure I would lose the info or forget it so the FTM is handy for keeping possible connections.

I put all the 'twigs' in if I am sure there is a link. Then for each person in my tree I have a personal information excell spreadsheet listing aall the certificates i should have censuses checked, whether I have any other written evidence etc. When i look at the spreadsheet for a person I can see if I have 'proof' in writing or not. Ann glos

I put all connections in, but always try to include the source in the notes. This may, for example be a relative, GR contact, census, certificate, IGI etc.. However, I never include guesswork. Information on a particular family which is not linked goes on a spreadsheet for main lines or in notes for more distant possible relations. I can then do my own verification a necessary from 1837, freebmd, parish registers, etc. and update the source note.