RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: busybod on Wednesday 18 July 12 21:44 BST (UK)
-
This may sound a silly question, but I have been researching my family tree for 5yrs now and have put on mainly direct ancestors. I am now going back and filling in by putting on their partners - ie people who married into the family. My question is, exactly how far back do you go with these people. Do you put their siblings etc on and are they considered family. Hope this makes sense.
All opinions/ideas greatly appreciated. Thanks.
-
Hello, Busybod
I think this is entirely up to you, really! My own tree is on Anc*stry, and when I started tree-building I put parents and siblings of my "married-ins" on the tree just whenever records popped up for them on that web site. But I now have approaching 800 people on my tree and have gotten fairly remote from my direct ancestors. I feel my tree has become uncomfortably large and it is difficult to keep track. So now I tend not to add the families of my "married-ins" -- unless they look particularly interesting in some way! ;D
Regards.
CELTIC ANNIE
-
Different people do things different ways. The "right way" is the one that works for you.
I have limited my tree to direct ancestors, their siblings and the names and birth dates of the siblings' spouses and children. With the limited time available to me I had to make a choice between adding masses of names with minimal information or having fewer names and adding as much detail about their lives as I could find.
-
I also work downwards from direct ancestors as this helps to identify more distant relatives who may be the holders of useful paperwork and photos about our common ancestors.
-
As the others say, there is no right system, only the one you develop for yourself.
In my case I concentrate on the direct ancestral lines, adding in all the siblings for each direct ancestor (the census is excellent for this) so for each generation I have a complete family unit. I only follow sibling lines forward if it is likely to help confirm a direct ancestor, eg. grandma living with the family of one of the siblings.
I well remember someone here describing the dangers of creating a 'family hedge' if you try to incorporate everyone
;D ;D
Mike.
-
Hello, Busybod
I think this is entirely up to you, really! My own tree is on Anc*stry, and when I started tree-building I put parents and siblings of my "married-ins" on the tree just whenever records popped up for them on that web
what are 'married-ins'
and I do not Trust the pop ups on Ancestry without fulllllllllllly checking....!!
last night I had to mail someone on that site who had added MY gt Uncles war record to her tree and the only real similarity was name and area of birth ... It definately was not the person she thought it was. She hasnt replied and I doubt she will. so Her rellie now died twice in two different places, in 2 different yrs. I bet that was offered to her, by one of those green leaves... bouncing about. aaaargh >:(
xin
-
On the basis that cousins & 2nd cousins often (used to) marry, I have a 2 sideways rule. However if it is interesting or relevant I may go further.
-
I put all siblings of direct ancestors and their children and so on.I don't bother putting parents of those who married siblings.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Well I put my married-ins on my tree..my g.g.g/father married a Woods...his brother a Scott, so I followed the Woods and the Scotts only to find a marriage 2 generations later showing that in fact they were 2nd cousins marrying, which I would have missed if I'd only done "direct" ancestors.
This way I know when (if) I finish and print it off I'm going to get 1st/2nd/3rd cousins marrying...
So, "Do you put their siblings etc on and are they considered family..." Well I'm following aunts/uncles back to ggg/aunts ggg/uncles and finding '2nd 3rd cousins once removed etc' so to me they are family.
I'd have finished my direct tree years ago with about 30 people on it.... plus I'm dead nosey!!! LOL
I've just been contacted by direct descendants of my ggg/uncle who left Ireland in 1840's for New Zealand just by having that record on my tree so they'd be some sort of cousins....so part of the overall family! And I can get them back another 2 generations for their Irish lines.
I've also traced distant cousins and they have sent photos I wouldn't have otherwise.
Just depends on what one wants to achieve, no right way, no wrong way.
-
I agree with Hallmark. I always add the parents and siblings, where known, of spouses who marry into the family, but whether I research them any further depends on the circumstances and a variety of reasons.
I was lucky enough to inherit several envelopes and albums of photos which contained pictures of direct ancestors but also family members of sister in-laws and brother in-laws and those of my step-gran, so I researched them too so I could add their photo's to my tree. By doing so I have been contacted by people who are their direct descendants and have shared copies of the pictures.
I have also been given copies of photos of my direct ancestors that have survived in the albums of distant cousins.
But what you do with your tree is entirely up to you and what you feel comfortable doing. I have found some very interesting and fascinating people and stories by wondering off the straight path, and also stumbled across facts about my direct ancestors that I would have missed if I hadn't done so. For example I have found ancestors who were witnesses at in-laws marriages. Were mentioned in the will of an in-law or distant cousin. 1st or 2nd cousins marrying. Two brothers marrying two sisters and so on.
-
I agree there is no right or wrong way.
I started with intentions of direct line only but sometimes it was only by looking sideways I found info on the direct line so I do research the direct line siblings and spouses and children if I pick something along the way that I think might be useful.
in terms of the Scottish ones it's usually relatively quick to do with Scotland's People. Ireland a wee bit harder but my resrearch there wouldn;t have been as far down the track had I not 'branched off' in other directions.
I think you go with what's right for you
Ann :D
-
I put everyone related by blood or marriage up or down and occasionally "possibles" - though I keep another tree for most "possibles". I only actively research direct ancestors (intentionally).
-
I have found my Dad's 3rd cousin and we researched our common ancestors together and shared information when we have found it. Since then I have found I am distantly related to the same person on two other branches of my tree with my ancestors marring different ancestors of his but with the same surname. So do what appeals to you, follow your nose and see where it leads you.
I stopped one branch and removed the lady's surname as it was Jones and she came from Wales I was inundated with is this my Charlotte Jones requests from A****Y green leaf hunters. I know her surname, that all that's important.
Another one of my relatives married into a very well research family tree which has its own web site. So once again I got lots of emails asking if I was related to so and so or if I had any information on the family. I explained to each of them I was only related through marriage and signposted them to the website for all the information they needed.
It has its advantages and drawbacks, but its fun.
Regards Panda
-
OK so for an extremely slow brain then:
A 'married in' = someone who married into the family.... ???
Does that mean you singularly follow the 'male line' ????
is that right?
I started with my Grandfather and went as far as I could with his direct line including his wife in a seperate file..... 7 generations.. with lots of hiccups and a couple of none certificated 'got to be's' .. Did the same with both lines . ;)
Now am doing siblings of direct lines...
so I have a tree full of 'married ins' and outs and next of kins and siblings - Yes it can make it more complicated especially as now my brain is slower - The only people I havent followed the line of is if there was more than one marriage and that didnt produce my blood line....
xin
:)
xin
-
Of course, your grandfathers wife is also your grandmother so she is direct blood line. So if you follow just the male line you will miss out totally on your maternal lines, which is half of your tree. At some stage every spouse "married in" to another tree.
I just go with the flow... and have found lots of connections that I would have missed otherwise.
-
I discovered a sixth cousin. Our common ancestor was born in 1693, but this cousin is the one I have worked with most. He is always helpful and has ways of looking at a problem that I haven't always seen. clayton bradley
-
When possible I do follow ancestor's siblings and their descendants forward. It can sometimes be the only way to confirm who an ancestor actually is.
However, I get a bit frustrated with ancestry trees where they following the "married-ins" backwards looking at their ancestors and siblings. OK if it's your direct ancestor who "married-in" then there is a genuine reason for doing this, but as sibling's wives are not direct ancestors I don't see why there is any need to research them. ::)
-
Well I am definitely one of those that will annoy you then smudwhisk ;D
I have done a tree for a 'friend' of one of my ancestors, although I have put him on a tree of his own.
His name kept cropping up during my research into my ancestor so I decided to find out more about him and I am glad I did as it lead me to understanding the situation better because he was either related to, or had business dealings with other names that had appeared during the research of my ancestor.
Both my ancestor and his friend had connections to the theatre and it was clear that it was very much a 'little world of its own' with families intermarrying or working with or for each other.
I have also researched a man who was named as co-respondant in a divorce case. This lead me to a wonderful story of adventure that involved my ancestor which I would probably never have found if I hadn't researched the other man! :D
-
When possible I do follow ancestor's siblings and their descendants forward. It can sometimes be the only way to confirm who an ancestor actually is.
However, I get a bit frustrated with ancestry trees where they following the "married-ins" backwards looking at their ancestors and siblings. OK if it's your direct ancestor who "married-in" then there is a genuine reason for doing this, but as sibling's wives are not direct ancestors I don't see why there is any need to research them. ::)
Well I research them and the reason why is because the "married-in's" siblings married and then kids from these marriage reconnect by marriages maybe 2 generations later as 2nd cousins marrying each other....I've even 3rd cousins marrying each other which I wouldn't see if I didn't research them this way and I found a 2nd cousin once removed, this way and we have filled in so many blanks in the tree between us.
By just doing Direct I wouldn't even know him.
-
Yep anyone who has a drop of my blood is my Rellie and that is who I count in my Tree... I will never finish it ..... well not in my lifetime.. BUT wow its so interesting..
Imagine having grown up and gone to school with a 3rd cousin 1 removed and never knowing until now why you liked this person....
This I find so interesting, suddenly you realise the genetic link and it makes it all worthwhile. I have never as yet found a link that I have been thoroughly ashamed or embarrased to be related to. And believe me there are lots of dodgy characters in this tree of mine.
It does seem to explain, why we are drawn to people ... I know I am close to eccentric, in most peoples eyes. But that is me and I am happy with it.
So as many 'married ins' and outs as poss .... just a drop of blood... thats for me.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
xin
-
You sound lovely xinia, not eccentric at all ;D
But I agree, a drop of blood and they are included. Don't think my tree will ever be finished either! :D
I always look at it that our ancestors didn't exist in isolation, they had connections and influences outside of their immediate family that shaped their lives, and sometimes those connections and influences were in-laws, friends, neighbours or employers.....so it all helps to get a fuller picture.
I contacted a lady who appeared to have my Gt Grandmothers brother on her tree. It turned out my Gt Uncle had married in to the lady's family. Although the lady wasn't directly descended from the person my Gt uncle had married, he, his wife and son had all been invited to a wedding of one of the lady's ancestors. She kindly sent me a copy of the wedding photo and it was lovely to see the family resemblance between my Gt Grandmother and her brother, and an added bonus that I also got see what his wife and son looked like too! :D
-
I always look at it that our ancestors didn't exist in isolation, they had connections and influences outside of their immediate family that shaped their lives, and sometimes those connections and influences were in-laws, friends, neighbours or employers.....so it all helps to get a fuller picture.
Well said :)
-
I started off by being fairly narrow but it didn't last long , so interesting from a social history angle when you explore the wider family , that's my excuse for being chaotic and getting side tracked anyway :)
-
Yep anyone who has a drop of my blood is my Rellie and that is who I count in my Tree... I will never finish it ..... well not in my lifetime.. BUT wow its so interesting..
So as many 'married ins' and outs as poss .... just a drop of blood... thats for me.
I'm not disagreeing and I do tend to follow all lines forward, it's the trees on there with ancestors of mine who are NOT blood relatives of the tree owner (or their partner or children) that annoys me. ::) I have some very large trees because I've followed my ancestor's siblings forward whether male or female. I wouldn't have been able to confirm one line if I'd not done that because of witnesses to marriages or visiting on census night.
I have come across trees where people have been researching unrelated lines but they're on separate trees and it's obvious when you look at the home person that they are not the researchers ancestors. Don't have a problem with that, as I said it's those including lines that aren't blood relatives just because they can. Yes by all means research social history side of things but do you really have to include them on your directline tree ???
-
Thank you everybody for your helpful and informative responses. As you say, I guess for the most part it is down to the individual just who they include and who they dont. My tree currently has 402 people on it and I think I can safely say that I feel I know each person as an individual - know their year of birth (if not always the exact d.o.b) and their life stories. I would not want my tree to become just a list of names about who I have no knowledge whatsoever.
-
thank you mofid xx
Yep busybod, that sounds how it should be ... I would hate it if I didnt feel i knew them..
JUST enjoy the discovery.
;)xin
-
Thanks Xinia, I am.
Regards,
Busybod