RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Bee on Saturday 07 February 15 01:32 GMT (UK)
-
What would you do?
We all know to treat the family trees on Ancestry with caution but if you find a mistake on a tree that contains members of your family, should you contact the owner and ask them to make a correction?
There are several trees on there that contain member of my family and they have all connected my 3xgt grandmother to the wrong parents.
Bee
-
Its a difficult one to answer because if I had made a mistake then I would want someone to let me know and I'd be delighted to hear from them, but whenever I've politely made contact for anything similar I've been completely ignored, with only one exception.
Not too long back I contacted someone about my grandmother (they'd given her three siblings that were nothing to do with her & missed one off entirely) but they didn't bother replying or correcting their tree so now I just look to see if any of the sources are other trees and if they are then I don't bother anymore.
-
If you can't get a response from the owner, then do as I do - leave a comment for the person/s concerned, stating your reasons and source of supporting information. Not foolproof, but at least you've tried. :)
-
I think the best way is to make your own tree correct, and show proof, or where to find it, of what you believe is correct, if possible and its up to the other tree owners what they do with their own tree, but if you provide proof in your tree ! others will soon pick up on your tree, if its a public one. Only facts and proof tell true fact! not beliefs without proof. (Even if the belief is right)
:)
-
This question often crops up, and there are different opinions on whether to contact the tree owner.
I always look to see how big the tree is, if there are thousands of names, I know the owner is not interested in the true facts, they are just collecting names, do there is no point in contacting them. If it is a sensible sized tree, and the owner has recently been active on the site, I send a polite message giving the correct facts and my sources, sometimes I am ignored, other times I have had a grateful response, twice I have had a rude reply.
Jebber
-
I had an offer from Ancestry recently - 4 months' subscription to Premier Membership for £20 so thought it would be useful. I haven't put my tree on Ancestry and am still in two minds about that. Yesterday I sent off 4 messages to tree owners who had my OH's gt gt gt grandparents on their trees erroneously. Backed up all the info with marriage details, father's name, Postems on FreeBMD entries etc. One had the 13 children who were all born in/near Hackney then had tagged on "their" relative as the 14th child - being born in New York thus "claiming" all the previous generations! I have had one reply from another tree owner acknowledging that their tree is incorrect. Whether these people will try and untangle the incorrect lines is anyone's guess!
However, I have found out a couple of useful things which I have then researched and double-checked.
Still undecided about putting my tree on there. I am getting to the stage where I want to do something with all my info before I become just a birth/marriage/death date on my own tree! (well, I've achieved the first two). Seems such a waste if it all goes to landfill (but I know this subject has been discussed on RC many times before) but we all like to voice our frustration. >:(
-
I always look to see how big the tree is, if there are thousands of names, I know the owner is not interested in the true facts, they are just collecting names, do there is no point in contacting them.
As has been discussed before, not everyone with "thousands of names" on their tree is simply a name collector, some people do research properly and want to share their research with others. I also know of at least one public tree on there that is very large but if you actually look at it, it has been properly researched because the owner has attached all the relevant records and also has been purchasing numerous certificates and other documents to back up their research. I accept though they are the exception to the rule.
I have several trees with thousands of names, but they HAVE been properly researched with the necessary evidence to backup the research. I don't want to think how much we've spent in the last 16 years to obtain copies of documents and microfiche copies of parish records. That said, they are not, and never will, appear on ancestry.
Its not fair to generalise that everyone with large trees are name collectors because they are not.
-
If you can't get a response from the owner, then do as I do - leave a comment for the person/s concerned, stating your reasons and source of supporting information. Not foolproof, but at least you've tried. :)
That's exactly what I did and it worked :D :D
-
I have a 2nd cousin doing his tree, who put my mother down as her uncles daughter, truth was she did come from Derbyshire to live with her uncle in Yorkshire for a time, later becoming a maid, and married in my dad in Yorkshire . He some how knew from his family my mother was connected to my Gt uncle ( The cousin was from this uncles family line), but just thought my mum was this uncles daughter. I corrected him on the issue and he accepted it, but it was only after he had put my mother down as her uncles daughter on loads of different family tree websites and he said it was too much fath to correct them all as he had thousands in different people in various trees. I used to get bothered about it :( but these days, there are that many that are wrong anyway, that its become a laugh and getting my own facts right is what is important. Other people will do their own thing anyway, which way or right way or wrong way. ;D
-
[quote author=smudwhisk link=topic=712239.msg5558543#msg5558543 date=1423310114
I have several trees with thousands of names, but they HAVE been properly researched with the necessary evidence to backup the research.
[/quote]
I doubt you have researched thirty or forty thousand names like the trees I am referring to ;D
My own tree, which I do not have on line, contains several thousand names, and I have also spent a considerable sum on microfiche, certificates, wills, other documents, not to mention travel for research, running into four figures over 25 years.
-
I doubt you have researched thirty or forty thousand names like the trees I am referring to ;D
53 and a half thousand in total over numerous trees (one per family name, so that's the combined total);D ;D And yes it has been properly researched, there are two of us doing the research. ;)
I have to admit they did grew quite a lot once the census, London parish registers, and subsequently other counties, went online but a lot of it has been researched from Wills and parish registers from other counties where we've purchased microfiche copies of the fiche and paper copies of Wills, plus numerous visits to Records Offices.
-
[quote author=smudwhisk link=topic=712239.msg5558543#msg5558543 date=1423310114
I have several trees with thousands of names, but they HAVE been properly researched with the necessary evidence to backup the research.
I doubt you have researched thirty or forty thousand names like the trees I am referring to ;D
My own tree, which I do not have on line, contains several thousand names, and I have also spent a considerable sum on microfiche, certificates, wills, other documents, not to mention travel for research, running into four figures over 25 years.
[/quote]
Why not there are many people who have inherited a large pedigree from parents or grandparents who were interested in genealogy. They have then caught the bug and added further names to the existing lineage.
Why assume that these people who have pedigrees showing tens of thousands of names have only begun in the last few years or even have only been researching for 30 years.
To me anyone who has not been researching family history for at least 40 years is a newbie. ;)
Numbers mean nothing.
You may be lucky and have a family who perhaps farmed land and lived in the same parish since records began. With such a family it is relatively easy to quickly build a vast pedigree.
On the other hand you may come from a family of farm labourers who were all know by a common name and who never lived in any parish for more than a season at a time. In that case it may take a lifetime to prove a pedigree three generations back.
I can never understand people who get worked up about other people's pedigrees.
As long as my research is carried out to my standards I am happy.
I sometimes wonder if those who complain about name collectors are the very ones who want to copy others research!
Cheers
Guy
-
Am I a bit weird? I've never counted the people on my tree!
-
Am I a bit weird? I've never counted the people on my tree!
You don't need to manually, most software packages have the facility. ;) I never used to bother but looked at it out of curiosity the other year ....
-
I never know what to do about errors on other peeps' trees and so end up doing nothing. ::)
I have a private tree on Ancestry, but have never been contacted by anyone, so I'm about to delete it. I am toying with the idea of setting up a public tree on tribal pages. Has anyone done this and have you had any trouble with it? I think as a precaution I will not add anybody's name who is still alive and kicking... :D
-
I contacted someone last week who had an extremely well researched tree with over 15,000 records and 1900 photos - I pointed out that the spouse of of one person was incorrect and additional info. The reply I received:
"Thanks for the information. I was given the marriage certificate for Ellen xxxxx and William xxxxx by a family member. Had not questioned that it was incorrect!!"...."Have now amended my tree accordingly and added the births of John William and Harry that I did not have."
There is also 21 trees with one individual who I know is wrong they they have a total of 15 records between them of this person. and the max number in the tree is 586 individuals.
So it depends not on the number in the tree for me but if the info will be welcomed.
-
So many trees on Ancestry are there when the authors have lapsed subscriptions, died or demented.
The last category worries me.
-
To me anyone who has not been researching family history for at least 40 years is a newbie. ;)
I sometimes wonder if those who complain about name collectors are the very ones who want to copy others research!
Cheers
Guy
Really? Well then, I am definitely a newbie but, being of a respectful nature, take exception to the assumption present in your last sentence.
Not feeling at all 'cheery'. but will leave it there.
Susan
-
I think (said she, cautiously) that anyone who researched at all before online records became available - must be considered as an improver rather than a newbie!
I know that my researches in the middle 1990s, trudging from archive to library to GRO etc, have made me more sceptical and thorough, thogh quite capable of barking up the wrong tree branch . .
-
I think (said she, cautiously) that anyone who researched at all before online records became available - must be considered as an improver rather than a newbie!
I know that my researches in the middle 1990s, trudging from archive to library to GRO etc, have made me more sceptical and thorough, thogh quite capable of barking up the wrong tree branch . .
There is also that old adage - "he who never made a mistake, never made anything" :) :) But then there are mistakes and MISTAKES!!
-
With most average folk with a need to find time do a job, time to have/run a families needs, housework, garden to tender, shopping, cooking, decorating, pay the bills, holidays, clean the car, maintain it or pay the garage, look after the kids problems, school, quality time with them and their hobbies. Then one thinks of the time involved to do proper research of just a few ancestors and usually the ancestors are scatted around the country with need to visit various repositories/graveyards etc, around the country, time/cost to travel, overnight accommodation and costs of ancestry in general. Then we are talking in many thousand ancestors being researched in depth. We all know the hit and miss the further back we go pre 1837, no parents given on marriages, to the single line parish entries pre 1812 and 1754 marriages- if lucky you may get a gravestone or a Will and sure as heck there will be 3 baptisms with the same name as the one you want and near years your looking for. ;D
Just read the posts on this website with people wanting help with brickwalls or asking or hope someone can visit a library/archive for a Parish entry as they are not online, or a graveyard because the live at the other end of the country or in New Zealand etc . Train fare can cost in the 100 pounds plus at peak travel single.
There maybe a few people fortunate to have the means and time with a life dedicated to one thing or a dedicated hobby but seems unlikely most folk will
-
I have a private tree on Ancestry, but have never been contacted by anyone
Self-fulfilling, really :)
I only ever see sight of private trees in non-focussed searches and an icon for a hidden photo is displayed. In such cases, I'm happy to respect their wish for privacy
-
I have a private tree on Ancestry with 2000 relatives on it. The direct ancestors have been extensively researched, and the rest, I have made sure really are related before they are included. I have lost count of the number of BMDs I have bought and the Parish records I have got from various counties.
I was therefore quite annoyed when I found my great uncle (my grandmother's brother) on a tree of someone in Australia. She also had my grandmother on her tree.
She has my great uncle as married with a son and living in Leicester. He never married and he always lived in Southampton.
I have his birth certificate and his death certificate. Her tree states that he died in 1952, I sent her a PM giving her all the details on his death certificate. He died in 1951 and his death was registered by his niece and the executor of his will was his sister. (Neither of these women are on her tree)
She did reply, saying that she was going to look into it!
That was six months ago!!! No changes on her tree.
I can understand her reluctance to remove him from her tree, because that would mean over half her tree is gone. i.e all my great uncles ancestors, who are nothing to do with her.
But why, oh why would you want a family tree to show to your family, which is no connection whatsoever to any of them?
-
I have a private tree on Ancestry, but have never been contacted by anyone
Self-fulfilling, really :)
I only ever see sight of private trees in non-focussed searches and an icon for a hidden photo is displayed. In such cases, I'm happy to respect their wish for privacy
My tree is now private, not because I want privacy, but because I'm sick of great big chunks of it being copied wholesale onto other trees - often being super-glued onto families that are completely unconnected but vaguely in the same area (or not, as the case may be!).
I tried to add a message to my profile to say I'm happy to be contacted but there doesn't seem to be the facility to do this.
-
Thanks for all your replies/suggestions.
My tree is not on Ancestry and I've no intention of putting it there. As there are 15 trees that contain the same mistake I will probably try and contact the one tree owner who I think might be a very distant cousin and explain their mistake and just ignore the other trees.
-
There maybe a few people fortunate to have the means and time with a life dedicated to one thing or a dedicated hobby but seems unlikely most folk will
As has been said before, it depends very much what you choose to spend your money on and what time you have to do it. Ill health has meant in recent years I've had far more time than previously and have made use of it researching as couldn't do much else. I've also made use of what microfiche copies of parish registers we've purchased over the last 16 years and what's available online.
While all my research starts in London, we've been fortunate that my maternal grandmother's family moved into London post 1800 and therefore we've found out where they moved in from and had access to the parish registers either on microfiche or visits to the local Archives which weren't that far away. In the case of my three other grandparents we've not been quite so lucky as all three had ancestors in London before 1800 and for a number of lines we haven't managed yet to find out where they originated as they died before the Census.
While yes we've spent quite a lot over the years, its probably no more than some people spend on a new car every few years or numerous foreign holidays, none of which we tend to do but that's our choice. I would definitely not say we are loaded, just we tend to target available money where its most useful and work from there. If the families stayed in the same area for 100 or 200 or more years, it tends to make life easier following lines forward on multiple family lines. That's really how our combined family trees have grown so large.
-
My tree is now private, not because I want privacy, but because I'm sick of great big chunks of it being copied wholesale onto other trees - often being super-glued onto families that are completely unconnected but vaguely in the same area (or not, as the case may be!).
Yes, this puts me off ever going public with my tree, whether on Ancestry or Tribal pages or anywhere else...
-
I think (said she, cautiously) that anyone who researched at all before online records became available - must be considered as an improver rather than a newbie!
snip
You may have a point there but do you have any alternative sources to back up your theory?
Perhaps I should have used the word neophyte or novice, but no, I definitely feel that a minimum of 40 years is required to develop research techniques with a further 20 dedicated to improving and honing them before one is qualified to call oneself a researcher.
Although with the rapidly changing skillsets required for internet research I wonder if the periods should be extended further.
Cheers
Guy
-
I tried to add a message to my profile to say I'm happy to be contacted but there doesn't seem to be the facility to do this.
If you go to your profile you should see
Can you help other members?
Tell us if you are able to help other members who may be doing similar research.
Click the Edit button & tick the box that says you're happy to help other members
-
I'm trying to do the math here.
One is born; grows to the point where an interest in family history takes hold; spends 60 years learning how to do it properly; then what? Passes over and meets the ancestors?
That would seem to indicate that all the 'professional' genealogists are pulling a fast one, and certainly belittles all who are researching their own families.
But, back to the question. Yes Bee, at least try to make contact if your family members have been matched to incorrect people. It may not do any good as some people are not prepared to listen even when proof is offered. Best of luck anyway.
-
Perhaps I should have used the word neophyte or novice, but no, I definitely feel that a minimum of 40 years is required to develop research techniques with a further 20 dedicated to improving and honing them before one is qualified to call oneself a researcher.
Although with the rapidly changing skillsets required for internet research I wonder if the periods should be extended further.
Cheers
Guy
Wow.
This one just stopped me in my tracks.
Since most people don't start family research until they are after 20 years old, wouldn't that mean then that nearly everyone under the age of 80 would have to be considered a novice? ???
Or is that the point you are making - that everyone must consider themselves to be a novice? And by doing so, you are less likely to make assumptions in your research?
I'm just guessing here. I'm a bit confused and trying to understand your point. Unless you were being tongue in cheek and it got lost in translation?
Hi, msr, you were just replying as I was typing my response!
-
I have a private tree on Ancestry with 2000 relatives on it. The direct ancestors have been extensively researched, and the rest, I have made sure really are related before they are included. I have lost count of the number of BMDs I have bought and the Parish records I have got from various counties.
I was therefore quite annoyed when I found my great uncle (my grandmother's brother) on a tree of someone in Australia. She also had my grandmother on her tree.
She has my great uncle as married with a son and living in Leicester. He never married and he always lived in Southampton.
I have his birth certificate and his death certificate. Her tree states that he died in 1952, I sent her a PM giving her all the details on his death certificate. He died in 1951 and his death was registered by his niece and the executor of his will was his sister. (Neither of these women are on her tree)
She did reply, saying that she was going to look into it!
That was six months ago!!! No changes on her tree.
I can understand her reluctance to remove him from her tree, because that would mean over half her tree is gone. i.e all my great uncles ancestors, who are nothing to do with her.
But why, oh why would you want a family tree to show to your family, which is no connection whatsoever to any of them?
Hi there,
re Torre's question (But why, oh why would you want a family tree to show to your family, which is no connection whatsoever to any of them)
I think it has a very simple answer, or two.
a) she doesn't know how to remove Torre's great uncle (and his ancestors) from her tree
b) her immediate living family (assuming she has shared with them) is not interested in family history anyway, and have been politely avoiding looking at her 'work' from a quality perspective, and think that quantity is a valid measuring mark.
There's many family history buffs who do not upload their trees to online websites. I suspect one of the main motives for the uploading of trees to the commercial websites is simply to seek out living relatives whom your own parents/aunts/uncles have not ever known about, and then say to your known siblings and cousins ..... I have found cousins who are five times removed from us, living next door to our cousins who are six times removed from us. They must all be related to us because their ancestors were Ag Labs just like ours.
Cheers, JM
-
I tried to add a message to my profile to say I'm happy to be contacted but there doesn't seem to be the facility to do this.
If you go to your profile you should see
Can you help other members?
Tell us if you are able to help other members who may be doing similar research.
Click the Edit button & tick the box that says you're happy to help other members
Yes, I know about that option but from memory it brings up a tick-list of things youre willing to do, such as take photo's - nothing that covers sharing information & no facility to add your own message.
-
I think (said she, cautiously) that anyone who researched at all before online records became available - must be considered as an improver rather than a newbie!
Perhaps I should have used the word neophyte or novice, but no, I definitely feel that a minimum of 40 years is required to develop research techniques with a further 20 dedicated to improving and honing them before one is qualified to call oneself a researcher.
I think 5 years pre-internet qualifies me as an improver! and another 15 on the internet makes me a super improver!
And I'm a researcher, because I do research, but not an expert, because I've more to learn.
I take your point about new techniques needed to deal with the internet - I'm lucky really, as I live in Dublin, where most of my sources are available. If I get fed up with the internet, I can go into the National Archive, Library or GRO (usually do this for BMDs, as a number of mine seem to be missing from familysearch).
-
I've looked at the trees that are wrong and I've identified 2 that may be distant cousins, one of which the owner doesn't appear to have logged in for a long time so I've just added comments, the other owner appears to have been active quite recently so I've made contact and explained my concerns. Whether or not I get any response is another matter.
The other trees I'm ignoring completely as some of them have my relative dying in Selby, Illinois, USA instead of Selby Yorkshire, another tree has her dying in 1857 (correct date) in Selby Yorkshire and then reappearing on the 1881 census in Settle. :o
-
One branch of my family have a load - yes it's taken off of a family member I 'met' on line - but it's from the family bible (family member descended from eldest child so inherited it) so while I haven't (yet) backed all that up I'm happy to accept it as fact (I have copies of it all too now)
-
The other trees I'm ignoring completely as some of them have my relative dying in Selby, Illinois, USA instead of Selby Yorkshire, another tree has her dying in 1857 (correct date) in Selby Yorkshire and then reappearing on the 1881 census in Settle. :o
That's a quirk of Ancestry when people just enter "Selby" as a place!
Ancestry defaults to a US placename ::)
Even if you put the county name, placenames often get allocated to similar places in USA?
E.g. Somerset in New Jersey or Kentucky; Suffolk in New York, Virginia or Massachusetts!
-
Or Manchester, Jamaica! How many of mine have been added erroneously to someone's tree? Lost count!
To my mind that just shows the speed at which some people are dropping individuals into a family. Why not take a moment to check everything before moving on to the next person?
It isn't rocket science after all.
-
Wow.
This one just stopped me in my tracks.
Since most people don't start family research until they are after 20 years old, wouldn't that mean then that nearly everyone under the age of 80 would have to be considered a novice? ???
Or is that the point you are making - that everyone must consider themselves to be a novice? And by doing so, you are less likely to make assumptions in your research?
I'm just guessing here. I'm a bit confused and trying to understand your point. Unless you were being tongue in cheek and it got lost in translation?
Hi, msr, you were just replying as I was typing my response!
Yes of course it was tongue in cheek, I had put a smiley after the first time period mentioned to show that it was in jest, but it seems many missed it.
“To me anyone who has not been researching family history for at least 40 years is a newbie. “
I'm trying to do the math here.
One is born; grows to the point where an interest in family history takes hold; spends 60 years learning how to do it properly; then what? Passes over and meets the ancestors?
Sounds like a perfect scenario to me then ones ancestors can spend eternity poke fun and pointing out the false assumptions made.
That would seem to indicate that all the 'professional' genealogists are pulling a fast one, and certainly belittles all who are researching their own families.
I have over the years pointed out many myths “professional genealogists” propagate such as the lectures that claim Birth, Marriage and Burial certificates were only obtainable from 1837 ; myth.
Or the “fact” that Stillbirths were not registered until 1927 ; myth.
Or that Births and Deaths were not recorded until 1837 ; myth.
In a number of instances “professional genealogists” are the blind leading the blind.
I could go on but you get my point, many “professional genealogists” simply regurgitate what they have been taught rather than research the facts for themselves.
I fail to see why any suggestion that a person never masters genealogical research “belittles all who are researching their own families.”.
I have researched practically all my life and as every year passes I realise there is more I have to learn about the subject than I have learnt over the past 60+ years I have been doing it.
That is despite doing a number of courses on the subject and associated subjects., but then possibly that is due to the fact that I was educated in a way that told me one learns more about a subject the longer one is interested in the subject.
Cheers
Guy
-
I keep my tree on Rootsweb, fully aware that it parts of it will be and have been copied. I also have been contacted by relatives who have assisted in expanding our family information.
As to trees having mistakes, I try to add a note correcting explaining why.
Many years ago I contacted a person on Rootsweb, who had some of my ancestors on her tree, she had no idea or memory as to why they were included.
Mick
-
So many trees on Ancestry are there when the authors have lapsed subscriptions, died or demented.
The last category worries me.
Ahh yes, the demented genealogist!
My father took up genealogy in the late 1990s
With hindsight, his dementia set in not long afterwards - although it was not diagnosed till several years later.
I have had to go through his extensive research with a fine toothcomb -- deleted hundreds of people that he had added through incorrect assumptions - and am still finding mistakes even now, some 5 or more years after taking over all his research files
My paternal tree may now be smaller - but it is hopefully a lot more accurate!
-
Just in case anyone is interested in some of Guy's assertions:
http://anguline.co.uk/myths.html
-
To be honest, I think Guy is rather adept at promoting his web-sites to anyone with the slightest interest.
-
To be honest, I think Guy is rather adept at promoting his web-sites to anyone with the slightest interest.
That's a bit unfair!! At least Guy has a "proven history" whereas a lot of other "historians" do not :o :o
-
That is interesting.... Guy's first point about the general public being allowed to view the registers at a Registrar's Office.
When I first started family history 16 years ago and had reached the point when I needed to purchase certificates I had no idea how to go about it so telephoned my local registrars office for advice. I specifically recall asking the question, did I need to visit personally to look through the registers, but was categorically told that the public where not allowed to. However I do remember seeing some of the travelling researchers on the Heir Hunters TV show being allowed to view them but it always came across as if they had been given the privilege as a huge favour.
-
Yes ever since the 1836 Acts to the current Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and Marriage Act 1949 it has been a legal requirement for the Registrar to allow searches to be made in their registers.
As the 1953 Act states-
"32. Every registrar shall at any time when his office is required to be open for the transaction of public business allow searches to be made in any register of births or register of deaths in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry therein, on payment of the following fees respectively, that is to say-"
The 1949 Act states-
"63.-(I) Every incumbent, registering officer of the Society of Friends, secretary of a synagogue and registrar by whom a marriage register book is kept shall at all reasonable hours allow searches to be made in any marriage register book in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry in such a book, on payment of the following fee, that is to say-"
A number of years ago when some genealogists were being refused access to the registers I took the matter up with the Registrar General who assured me that all registrars were still obliged to allow access.
Cheers
Guy
PS The public were also allowed access to registers held by Superintendent Registrars until 1974 when access was withdrawn.
-
Thanks for the explanation Guy.
After I had been researching for a while I also had problems with some local registrars offices refusing to supply certificates for family history purposes. This would have been around 2000/1. It wasn't across the board so I can only presume some were making up their own rules. It was mainly those is cities and large towns, the rural ones remained obliging
-
Thanks for the explanation Guy.
After I had been researching for a while I also had problems with some local registrars offices refusing to supply certificates for family history purposes. This would have been around 2000/1. It wasn't across the board so I can only presume some were making up their own rules. It was mainly those is cities and large towns, the rural ones remained obliging
Yes, many Registrars are unaware that civil registration was principally set up because the poor registration occurring in the earlier ecclesiastical system of registration of baptisms, marriages and burials undermined property rights, by making it difficult to establish lines of descent.
That added to the complaints of Nonconformists, led to the establishment of a Select Committee on Parochial Registration in 1833.
That in turn, established the modern system of civil registration, and set up the General Register Office to administer it.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/mar/28/parochial-registration
I am amazed at the number of genealogists, professionals included, that do not realise that family history is one of the corner stones of the establishment of both the Ecclesiastical system for registering baptisms, marriages and burials and the civil system for registering births, marriages and deaths.
Unfortunately this ignorance of their rights makes it easier for the few rogue registrars to refuse to supply certificates that is their legal duty to supply.
I challenged Karen Dunnell, the Registrar General back in 2007 on that very subject, with a result she sent an instruction to all Registrars and Superintendent Registrars reminding them that it was their legal duty to supply certificates to genealogists.
Cheers
Guy
-
I object to your use of 'rogue registrars' - the system was not set up for the express purpose of allowing many people to dabble in their family history.
Laws can be put in place with many unforeseen consequences.
And this conversation reminds me of the saying:
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.'
-
I object to your use of 'rogue registrars' - the system was not set up for the express purpose of allowing many people to dabble in their family history.
Laws can be put in place with many unforeseen consequences.
And this conversation reminds me of the saying:
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.'
You might object, as you have every right to do so, but Karen Dunnell, the Registrar General used those very words in her letter to me when she assured me "the incidence of registrars not complying with the law was limited to a few rogue registrars".
Cheers
Guy
-
So, this is my first dip into a "general conversation" on here rather than a specific request for help. (It's about all I can manage today, being off work ill...)
With regards to the question, errors on public trees, I can see different sides to the story. My research is on a public tree on Ancestry, and I'm happy for people to see it and comment on it. I believe that I'm quite a methodical person, and would rather leave gaps in information than make tenuous links. Everything I've done over the last couple of years I think is correct, but there may be things that are wrong. If someone were to point out an error on my tree I'd certainly look at it again. I doubt I'd comment on someone else's tree though, even if I was sure there were mistakes. Their tree, their problem, is my view.
I do look at public trees, but only ever to give me leads to follow and either confirm or disregard based on the evidence I can find. Some have certainly been useful; one recently helped me identify a mistake on my tree which I've now put right.
-
I do look at public trees, but only ever to give me leads to follow and either confirm or disregard based on the evidence I can find.
That is the reason I was looking at public trees in the hope that I might find some information that I didn't already have, assuming that I could verify the accuracy of such information.
-
I sometimes look at other peoples trees as occasionally I have found hints about my family that I have been able to follow up. Yes it can be frustrating to see obvious errors, but at the same time it has got me going back and double checking that my facts are correct, we can all be convinced that we are right and miss a vital clue. It is when it is a very close relative that you know, that is a bit frustrating when you are ignored.
-
I will also look at other trees, but that's because Ancestry will keep throwing out hints, sometimes quite ridiculous ones.
If my Mary lived all her life in the UK I cannot understand why Mary, born and died in the US has any connection at all. so those I tell Ancestry to ignore. If, however, there is a tree seeming to match the relevant details I take a look, hoping to find a new researcher to contact.
Sometimes the trees are public so I can take a look to see if this is really the same person, but often they are private, which is fine, I understand some of the reasoning behind that option.
It is so very easy to send a message to the owner of both types of tree, and patiently await a response. Sometimes they come, sometimes not.
If one absolutely knows that there is a blatant error on another person's tree why not advise them of it? I would welcome the knowledge. Similarly, if some information is found about a particular person which has eluded discovery for some time I would be overjoyed and pass on my thanks.
-
Thanks for the explanation Guy.
After I had been researching for a while I also had problems with some local registrars offices refusing to supply certificates for family history purposes. This would have been around 2000/1. It wasn't across the board so I can only presume some were making up their own rules. It was mainly those is cities and large towns, the rural ones remained obliging
Yes, many Registrars are unaware that civil registration was principally set up because the poor registration occurring in the earlier ecclesiastical system of registration of baptisms, marriages and burials undermined property rights, by making it difficult to establish lines of descent.
That added to the complaints of Nonconformists, led to the establishment of a Select Committee on Parochial Registration in 1833.
That in turn, established the modern system of civil registration, and set up the General Register Office to administer it.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/mar/28/parochial-registration
I am amazed at the number of genealogists, professionals included, that do not realise that family history is one of the corner stones of the establishment of both the Ecclesiastical system for registering baptisms, marriages and burials and the civil system for registering births, marriages and deaths.
Unfortunately this ignorance of their rights makes it easier for the few rogue registrars to refuse to supply certificates that is their legal duty to supply.
I challenged Karen Dunnell, the Registrar General back in 2007 on that very subject, with a result she sent an instruction to all Registrars and Superintendent Registrars reminding them that it was their legal duty to supply certificates to genealogists.
Cheers
Guy
The introduction of Civil Registration wasn't really anything to do with "property rights" or, as another poster has pointed out, family researchers finding "lines of descent". The vast majority of people back then owned no property anyway.
Civil Registration was brought in (1837) in relation to the new Poor Laws (1834) and also the building of the large new, deeply unpopular, Union Workhouses
The new Poor Laws were largely introduced due to the ongoing mass migration of labourers moving from the countryside into the growing industrial towns and cities. The old poor laws had become wholly inadequate. Civil Registration then made it easier to decide which workhouse a particular person might be placed in or where they should get poor relief. It also made it easier for the authorities to prosecute in cases of infanticide. The crime was named The Concealment of Birth, in other words the failure to register a birth .
-
Sorry Sallyyorks but that is incorrect.
If you look at the debates on Hansard on the bills that produced the 1836 registration Acts you will see that one of the major concerns was tracing lineage to prove hereditary rights another was that the ecclesiastical registers excluded Dissenters from being registered.
This lead to a problem of not being able to prove their rightsof hereditary
This can be shown in an earlier debate about parochial Registration, on of many which lead up to civil registration. -
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01eq8/
“Mr. Wilks rose to move for the appointment of a "Select Committee to consider the general state of parochial registries, and the registration of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, and burials, in England and Wales…
…Often, too, it happened that two or three children of the same family were contemporaneously baptized; and he had before him a document in which three children were so baptized, and the name of the youngest was first entered in the baptismal registry, while the eldest daughter was entered last, though the youngest was an infant, and she was ten years old. In consequence of such errors, 1217 if the baptismal registry were an evidence of age, the youngest child might claim a fortune of which the eldest might be hopelessly deprived. The House must be sensible that the system of registering baptisms must be imperfect; and that there ought to be a national registry of births.”
As we get into the direct debates on civil registration the discussion concentrates on hereditary issues. -
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01eq5/
“REGISTER OF BIRTHS.
HC Deb 02 July 1834 vol 24 cc1073-80
The Attorney General said, that a Registration of Births of Dissenters was necessary even to Churchmen and to all persons who had or who might be left property. Without a proper and legal registry of births, marriages, and deaths it would be in many cases, and in cases where members of the establishment, and of every sect might be concerned, very difficult to decide in a Court of Law to whom property belonged. In the course of his practice he had seen in Courts of Law forgeries and many other expedients resorted to to obtain property, all of which would have been prevented if there had existed a full registry of births, marriages, and deaths.
…Mr. Brougham said, that the Bill was intended not only for the relief of Dissenters, but of the whole community. When he introduced it, he stated that it was not meant to interfere with the registries kept in churches, or the fees consequent upon those registries payable to the clergy. This was apparent in the first clause. There was no intention whatever to disturb the existing law relating to the registration of baptisms and burials: on the contrary, the Act of the 52nd of Geo. 3rd, under which such registries were kept, would remain in operation. At present there was no record of births and deaths, and the great object of this Bill was, to supply that defect, which was severely felt in cases of title and other cases involving property. He thought that such a record would be a great benefit to the community at large, and therefore he hoped the Committee would agree to the clause.”
to be continued
-
continuation
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01eq6/
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c.
HC Deb 15 April 1836 vol 32 cc1087-92
The Attorney General felt that the measure would be not merely a benefit to the Dissenters, but would be found to be equally a benefit to the members of the Church of England. With respect to registration at present, as selected to the members of the Church of England, it was exceedingly imperfect. There was no registration of deaths—they merely had a registration of burials. It was impossible, on this account, to find evidence of descent with any certainty beyond two generations, and the consequence was, that this uncertainty led to great litigation and expense.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01eq7/
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS.
HL Deb 11 July 1836 vol 35 cc79-89
Viscount Melbourne …This was a measure which their Lordships would at once perceive, as a matter of general policy, as a matter of general convenience, as a matter of general interest, was in the highest degree desirable, independent of any question relating either to Dissenters or to the Established Church. No one of their Lordships conversant with the business of life, or engaged in its transactions, could have failed to experience at some time or other the difficulty of ascertaining some facts of importance to his property and his family. Those who were conversant with the administration of justice and the nature of the cases which were brought forward for legal adjudication were well acquainted with the imperfections of the system of registration adopted in this country, and the great inconveniences which had arisen from the impossibility of ascertaining facts of great and vital importance. At present nobody could tell what period might have elapsed between the birth of a child and the date of its baptism; nobody could tell how many children were not baptised at all.
I could go on and on giving quotes from the debates leading up to the passing of the two Acts that founded civil registration The Act for registering Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England [17th August 1836.] and the Act for Marriages in England [17th August 1836.].
Nowhere in the debates is there a mention of overcrowding of the workhouses or discussion of the poor law.
The debates are purely concerned with the inadequacy of the existing legislation that recorded baptisms and burials rather than births and deaths.
Cheers
Guy
-
Guy Etchells
So you are saying Civil Registration was only brought in for the benefit of a tiny proportion (the owners of property) of the population ? That this was the only reason?
-
No if you look at how I started that post I wrote
"If you look at the debates on Hansard on the bills that produced the 1836 registration Acts you will see that one of the major concerns was tracing lineage to prove hereditary rights another was that the ecclesiastical registers excluded Dissenters from being registered."
There were other considerations but those two were the main considerations.
Don't take my word for it look up the debates in Hansard the parliamentary archive.
Cheers
Guy
-
No if you look at how I started that post I wrote
"If you look at the debates on Hansard on the bills that produced the 1836 registration Acts you will see that one of the major concerns was tracing lineage to prove hereditary rights another was that the ecclesiastical registers excluded Dissenters from being registered."
There were other considerations but those two were the main considerations.
Don't take my word for it look up the debates in Hansard the parliamentary archive.
Cheers
Guy
It is not that I doubt your sources or what was said and recorded during these debates.
It is that this is Lord Melbourne and the 1830's. Reactionary, repressive and opposed to reforms, Whig or Tory.
Statistics, like the first modern census 1841 or civil registration, were becoming popular for government. I cannot help wonder at the motivation behind gathering them. It was a time of great social upheaval, serious unrest but of still keeping the rabble in its place. CR was convenient for enforcing the hated new poor laws ?, enforcement still ongoing in 1837
-
It is not that I doubt your sources or what was said and recorded during these debates.
It is that this is Lord Melbourne and the 1830's. Reactionary, repressive and opposed to reforms, Whig or Tory.
Statistics, like the first modern census 1841 or civil registration, were becoming popular for government. I cannot help wonder at the motivation behind gathering them. It was a time of great social upheaval, serious unrest but of still keeping the rabble in its place. CR was convenient for enforcing the hated new poor laws ?, enforcement still ongoing in 1837
Sorry I don't understand you point.
The first modern census was surely in 1801 with the poor law unions being put in place in 1834 these unions were used as a basis for civil registration districts rather than civil registration districts being used as poor law unions.
Or are you suggesting that parliament was following suggestions of Thomas R. Malthus and his Essay on Population in an attempt to restrict population growth?
Cheers
Guy
-
Please may I interject here. A fascinating history lesson going on but straying quite extensively from the title of the thread.
Not that it is for me to stop you, but when I receive notification of an update I hope to see something more related to the original post.
Sally, I fear that you and Mr Etchells may be continuing this discussion for quite some time.
No disrespect meant to anyone.
-
*****
I put the trees on ancestry down to other folks right to do whatever they wish to do with them.
In all of the trees connected with my family, all have mistakes from a certain point of view.
I also take into account that working folk do not function the way perfectionist genealogists expect and may not know of resources yet or simply have tagged something as a means to an end, because of time constraints. Some folk dont know that sites like ancestry DO NOT have all the records and make assumptions.
I also believe that while the majority of folk doing trees on ancestry believe they are correct, gaps in registers or lack of knowledge may inhibit their ability to produce first class works. Then there are those folk I believe who simply want some sort of historical insight without all the finese detail, as a social revelation for their direct family or children etc..... some folk probably get bored with genealogy research and with mortgages , rent and utility bills to pay dont have the dedication they themselves would like have.
I have always started my trees from scratch, checking each level before I proceed only because I know how to do that but many dont and that is not to be assigned blame upon them.
I wouldnt have a clue how many folk are in my tree but it certainly is nowhere near the thousands that some folk claim to have. At most , in the extreme I would assume probably under a thousand over the 9 generations studied .... but I would rather have solid profiles of each than flimsy birth to census to marriage to death and probate entries... I want the meat on the sandwich or the grit on these folk not often found through sources on the net......
to do genealogy means different things to different folk and generic trees using a standardised programme template does not allow for the associative relatives that are known to involved such as mentions on newspaper articles of friends or distant relations or workmates etc so the anc template like others is flippin useless to me.....
I dont have my tree on ancestry or any other site because a] its none of anyones affair and b] how can one publish a book if the content is cut and pasted willy nilly by others, and c] it cost a lot of money to research and it was for my family to share not any strange layabouts in computer closets so if the trees on anc or anywhere are incorrect well tough for u for wanting to use them in the first place. :)
-
It is not that I doubt your sources or what was said and recorded during these debates.
It is that this is Lord Melbourne and the 1830's. Reactionary, repressive and opposed to reforms, Whig or Tory.
Statistics, like the first modern census 1841 or civil registration, were becoming popular for government. I cannot help wonder at the motivation behind gathering them. It was a time of great social upheaval, serious unrest but of still keeping the rabble in its place. CR was convenient for enforcing the hated new poor laws ?, enforcement still ongoing in 1837
Sorry I don't understand you point.
The first modern census was surely in 1801 with the poor law unions being put in place in 1834 these unions were used as a basis for civil registration districts rather than civil registration districts being used as poor law unions.
Or are you suggesting that parliament was following suggestions of Thomas R. Malthus and his Essay on Population in an attempt to restrict population growth?
Cheers
Guy
Poster msr is right, we are off topic, so to answer briefly.
The 1834 poor law was not "in place" in 1837, in fact there was a great deal of trouble trying to get it in place.
No I wasn't suggesting a Malthus inspired plot to reduce the population, but rather a sharp taking notice of the conditions and changes of the industrial revolution and the gathering of data to cope with and understand those changes.
They did not have the slightest clue, or care actually , how the average labourer and his family lived, how could they know.
They wanted the rabble numbers neatly filed in place and as you said, protect their own "property" and that of their capitalist class "dissenter" chums?
-
i am going to comment here> on the last post words to the effect of "they didnt care and didnt know"..... well actually they did know more than they revealed..... because of the Tithes, and if you read about the history of tithes and the trouble they caused at the period of the Corn Crash and the end of the embargo of Napoleon ,,,,, and the trouble with the Bank of England then government did know and all concerned knew the system had to change and it was at that point the planning of the Queen Victoria regime of genealogical systems and census took place. And supposably the government has been trying to improve it ever since..
and yes the topic is trees on anc being wrong.
-
Please may I interject here. A fascinating history lesson going on but straying quite extensively from the title of the thread.
Not that it is for me to stop you, but when I receive notification of an update I hope to see something more related to the original post.
Sally, I fear that you and Mr Etchells may be continuing this discussion for quite some time.
No disrespect meant to anyone.
Topic slip does occur in conversations but I would suggest that does not mean the posts are straying quite extensively from the title of the thread.
The reason I say there is a relevance is because unless the researcher understands the reason for the record being recorded one does not understand the accuracy of the record.
Most researchers automatically assume that when a person posts a tree on Ancestry or other similar sites they are claiming to have researched the tree themselves, but that assumption is flawed.
Some people post trees as a fishing exercise, wanting others to add to it.
Some post a tree so that others comment on it and make corrections.
Others post because they are proud of their research achievements or their husband’s or wife’s achievements etc. the reasons are numerous.
It can therefore be seen that the person who posted the online tree may or may not be interested in replying to comments about the tree.
They may even have abandoned the tree their object completed by publishing it in public, in which case they would not even realise that others were trying to contact them.
We, as researchers should therefore try to learn the reason for the existence of any record we discover as that will show us the relevance of what we see.
Cheers
Guy
PS I am Guy or Guy Etchells, Mr. Etchells was my dad ;)
-
As the originator of this topic ;)
I left comments on one of the trees that contained the wrong parentage of my 3xgt grandmother and that tree seems to have disappeared.
I'm still awaiting a response from the other tree owner.
Of the trees that I'm ignoring two of them have the correct death entry in 1857 and then arising from the grave to appear on the 1881 census at the other side of the country.
I look at the online trees in the hope that I may find a snippet of information that I don't have or have not been able to find myself, though I do verify anything new that I find.
For Guy
The slightly off topic part of this thread is very illuminating
Bee
:)
-
For Guy
The slightly off topic part of this thread is very illuminating
Bee
:)
Thank you, I am glad to read that.
Cheers
Guy
-
Most researchers automatically assume that when a person posts a tree on Ancestry or other similar sites they are claiming to have researched the tree themselves, but that assumption is flawed.
Rather a sweeping assumption in itself.
It is quite obvious that parts of some trees are simply copied from others. Ancestry allows one to see the citations used, and by following the 'Ancestry Family Trees' option one can see where information has been copied from. Sometimes that information is correct, other time very wide of the mark, and yet it seems that some people are happy to take it as gospel without continued research and validation.
*****
I dont have my tree on ancestry or any other site because a] its none of anyones affair and b] how can one publish a book if the content is cut and pasted willy nilly by others, and c] it cost a lot of money to research and it was for my family to share not any strange layabouts in computer closets so if the trees on anc or anywhere are incorrect well tough for u for wanting to use them in the first place. :)
A smiley face but 'strange layabouts' ? Tongue in cheek? or a slightly veiled insult? I am undecided :-\
-
I believe that I have commented on this before
If I am sure someone is mistaken I will let them know and why
It doesn't bother me if they do not respond, I get my satisfaction from letting them know
I have been corrected and appreciated it all except once when an American Lady was very insistent that my gx2 grandfather was not mine but in fact hers; too longa story to go into but quite amusing!
When looking at other's trees I also check official sources to corroborate the data
Finally I do not understand people who do not share their information; in discussion and comparison you can gain huge additional information. Only in the last week a cousin mentioned researching our grandfather's brother, she was fascinated to realise that I had quite an amount of information and she no longer had to "start from scratch".
anyway that's my view
-
Topic slip does occur in conversations but I would suggest that does not mean the posts are straying quite extensively from the title of the thread.
The reason I say there is a relevance is because unless the researcher understands the reason for the record being recorded one does not understand the accuracy of the record.
Most researchers automatically assume that when a person posts a tree on Ancestry or other similar sites they are claiming to have researched the tree themselves, but that assumption is flawed.
Some people post trees as a fishing exercise, wanting others to add to it.
Some post a tree so that others comment on it and make corrections.
Others post because they are proud of their research achievements or their husband’s or wife’s achievements etc. the reasons are numerous.
It can therefore be seen that the person who posted the online tree may or may not be interested in replying to comments about the tree.
They may even have abandoned the tree their object completed by publishing it in public, in which case they would not even realise that others were trying to contact them.
We, as researchers should therefore try to learn the reason for the existence of any record we discover as that will show us the relevance of what we see.
Cheers
Guy
PS I am Guy or Guy Etchells, Mr. Etchells was my dad ;)
I am concerned. I am based in New South Wales, Australia, and my earliest migrant family to NSW arrived back in the 1790s, and my most recent migrant family arrived towards the latter part of the 19th Century. Back in 1810 the then administrative paperwork system was improved, new general orders issued, and all this by a Scotsman, the Governor of NSW, Lachlan Macquarie. He provided express reasons for his general orders regarding recording of baptisms, burials, marriages, musters, land grants, civil court actions, property transfers, and the like. (He came to re-establish law and order after the Garrison forces had led a revolt against the then Governor, one William Bligh, yes, you got it, Bligh, he of the Mutiny of the Bounty fame)
So persons researching records held by NSW State Records Office are able to clearly learn the purpose, function, objective, of the official records, basically from first settlement, with the arrival of the First Fleet 1788. From a family history perspective surely this gives the relevance that Guy writes about.
When any person submits any family tree chart to any organisation, be it a commercial website like Ancestry, or lodges their hand written paper based documents at a Genealogical Society or publishes their family history with public libraries obtaining the books ..... surely there's a responsibility by the reader to validate rather than to just accept the information at face value. So, whether a tree chart is offered by the most experienced professional genealogist, or the least experienced newbie, the person reading the offering must understand that it is their responsibility to confirm/ eliminate/ leave in pending tray and that there's only a possibility there's a shared ancestor.
I know that the significant issue is that flaws that give in depth details noted in tree charts can be very annoying. And I am quite sure that this is compounded when the charts are uploaded to the web, so reach a much wider audience.
If you find errors in strangers tree charts, and if you can contact those strangers, then be gentle, ask for confirmation of their research and offer to share your copies of documents you have researched yourself. If they are not persuaded by your research, don't get hot under the collar. But do re-check your own against theirs, and simply accept your own findings.
If you cannot contact the submitter, accept that no-one else can either. If the error is chronological (so buried before born, or married after death, or in a census years after burial etc) .... don't panic .... those flaws are so obvious that even non family history readers would see through the twaddle.
On the other hand, when you upload your own tree chart to a commercial website, don't link a citation unless you have inspected that specific record. So, don't link the index entry for a birth/death/marriage reference no UNLESS you already have the actual record (either paper copy or digitised image, but not the transcription), and you can clearly see it is YOUR person of interest.
Well, there's my thoughts for the evening.
I trust I am not being too controversial, and that I am providing 'food for thought' .
Cheers, JM
-
I contacted, I think, between 3 and 6 people, who had the wrong parents for an ancestor in their Ancestry tree. Only one changed it. Other replied with befuddled responses. I even quoted the sources through which I know they have the wrong connection.
-
msr> if u consider yourself to be in a computer closet and are offended then I apologise...best you a] stop copying and pasting other folks trees or b] move your computer out of the closet........
I will give an example of badly researched work. Wadham Locke MP for Wiltshire had a lineage that is very well recorded.... He had children and so did the next few generations..... SOME goose put a tree up on anc stating one of his daughters had married in Co Durham to a blacksmith....... well as u probably know from all the posts I do I like to get the entire parish register for something before I do a tree in a particular place......... If the Goose had done their work properly they would find Wadham and his family NEVER even went anywhere near Co Durham nor would they drop their social standing...
then the other nite from another web site housing trees, I am informed that one of my Gilbert clan came from a totally different village WHEN again if one had done their research or read the OPC PDFs they would have found the Gilberts of the particular village had been there for hundreds of years......
and then there is the case of my grandfather on my mothers side who tree did appear on anc...well there were whole children, and lines missing left right and centre...... the person was obviously a distant relation who had a certain point of view or perception of the tree........ but decidely one can either a] tell the person another perception or b] leave it to the four winds......
So when i publish my book are you the reader going to a] believe the trees on the net at face value; or b] the published and cited work ?
So by chance anyone has their computer in a closet well a] it doesnt get used , or b] there is no room left anywhere else in the house..... the comment is to taken in good faith nor directed at anyone inparticular......... :) food for thought while this little goose gets on with next bit of his research in his little computer closet...
-
msr> if u consider yourself to be in a computer closet and are offended then I apologise...best you a] stop copying and pasting other folks trees or b] move your computer out of the closet........
fastfusion
a) YOU referred to strange layabouts in computer closets, not I. To whom you were addressing the comment is unknown, if indeed to anyone.
b) I do not copy and paste from 'other folks' trees.
c) No, can't be bothered any more :-X
-
Family history, its a bit like dancing really.
Some will study the technique and practice for hours on end, wining medals and plaudits along the way.
Some will try to get to that level but aren't quite dedicated enough, or maybe they just don't have the time.
Some will get to a good standard but really they're just doing for the sheer enjoyment, and so long as they manage the right moves in a reasonably structured & elegant way, well that's good enough for them.
Others mangle together the birdy dance, the stomp & the charleston yet think its a beautiful waltz, and all the comments in the world wont change their minds.
There's room for all of us....but maybe not all in the same room at the same time, which seems to be the problem with on-line trees 8)
-
msr > you shouldnt take every thing so literally......... if i said the sky was blue someone somewhere would say it was turquoise.......... good that ya computer aint in the closet cos it might get a bit cramped in there....
-
I ended up taking my (very well-researched) family tree off ancestry.com because random people kept assuming that my John Doyle or Mary Burns or other such commonly-named person was theirs and copying my information and photographs and records and everything into their tree, attaching them to *completely* the wrong person. Sloppy genealogy makes me very angry.