RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Stanwix England on Saturday 14 May 22 14:15 BST (UK)
-
I'm currently getting back to writing up one side of my family history. It's been a few months since I started this project, so I've just gone back to read over it again after some time.
I've put a family tree at the start of the document.
Each relative has their own page or pages, where I explain things that were happening in their lives and what I've been able to find out about them.
The problem I have, is that unless you refer to the family tree at the start, it gets a bit confusing, particularly as there are reused names. Even I am confused about who is who, reading it back, and I wrote the flipping thing.
I am thinking about putting a modified version of the tree at the start of each person's page, but I don't want it to be too big, as I've formatted the pages in columns. A tree diagram doesn't really work there.
I was thinking about a list a bit like you get on some Ancestry trees, something like this.
Bob Smith, father of John Smith
John Smith, father of Mary Smith
Mary Smith, mother of Elizabeth Jones
Maybe if I added their b and d dates that would add some more context?
I'm just curious about how other people have tackled this issue, and if anybody has any suggestions.
-
I have a website where I narrate the stories of some of my ancestors. Like you I thought about how to put people in context, and indeed I got feedback that whilst the stories were interesting the reader didn't always know how we were related. I don't think there's any simple answer to it. My website has family trees at the top, just like you've done, and I often describe the relationship at the beginning of a narrative. Just do whatever seems to work.
Martin
https://www.hoopertapestry.com/home
-
I'm currently getting back to writing up one side of my family history. It's been a few months since I started this project, so I've just gone back to read over it again after some time.
I've put a family tree at the start of the document.
Each relative has their own page or pages, where I explain things that were happening in their lives and what I've been able to find out about them.
The problem I have, is that unless you refer to the family tree at the start, it gets a bit confusing, particularly as there are reused names. Even I am confused about who is who, reading it back, and I wrote the flipping thing.
I am thinking about putting a modified version of the tree at the start of each person's page, but I don't want it to be too big, as I've formatted the pages in columns. A tree diagram doesn't really work there.
I was thinking about a list a bit like you get on some Ancestry trees, something like this.
Bob Smith, father of John Smith
John Smith, father of Mary Smith
Mary Smith, mother of Elizabeth Jones
Maybe if I added their b and d dates that would add some more context?
I'm just curious about how other people have tackled this issue, and if anybody has any suggestions.
Hello ,
I use the Sosa -Stradovitz system ( also called Ahnentafel) but there are many more genealogical numbering systems.
-
Thank you for the suggestions everyone, they are very much appreciated.
-
I did a family tree many yrs ago on excel & colour coded each line (prior to purchasing FTM 2006) which in turn helped the recipients to follow/understand each generation.
Would colour coding help?
Annie
-
When I started years ago it was all on paper.
I had been given a fan shaped pedigree chart and started filling it in but as you many names repeated so I numbered each entry.
I wanted to do my husbands family too so I started it from my son.
He was No. 1, husband 2, me 3, husbands father 4, etc.
Each person has a page in a lever arch file where details were written.
I am now slowly transferring it to digital and checking and finding errors along the way.
It was pretty basic but even now I often refer back to that chart to see exactly where a person fits in. It must be the way my brain is wired but I find it easier to look at this large sheet of paper than a screen, I can understand it at a glance.
Hence my avatar ‘old fashioned girl’ 😁😀🤣
-
Before you mentioned this near the end of your post Stanwix, my first thought was to give the person’s birth date in the narrative, eg John Smith b 1860 …. Who could be father of John Smith b1882 for example. You could simply call them John Smith 1860 / John Smith 1882.
The relationships can be very confusing.
This next example happens quite a lot on posts on rootschat, and I usually have to reread numerous times, or pencil out a tree to get my head around it, or ask a dozen questions to clarify, or perhaps just give up …. and that is something along the lines of:
“my great grandfather’s uncle married his second cousin, and then he married her sister and they lived in St Pancras with her mother ….” ::). If I were you I would avoid this way of writing which I think makes often confusing relationships, even harder to follow.
Another thing that always makes me double check is when people write the woman’s married name and then write her maiden name as an afterthought or omit it entirely - along the lines of : “John Smith and his wife Ann Smith (previously Jones).” I like “John Smith and his wife Ann Jones”.
Just a personal gripe with that one. :)
-
When I started years ago it was all on paper.
I had been given a fan shaped pedigree chart and started filling it in but as you many names repeated so I numbered each entry.
I wanted to do my husbands family too so I started it from my son.
He was No. 1, husband 2, me 3, husbands father 4, etc.
Each person has a page in a lever arch file where details were written.
I am now slowly transferring it to digital and checking and finding errors along the way.
It was pretty basic but even now I often refer back to that chart to see exactly where a person fits in. It must be the way my brain is wired but I find it easier to look at this large sheet of paper than a screen, I can understand it at a glance.
Hence my avatar ‘old fashioned girl’ 😁😀🤣
So you use the Sosa numbering
-
When writing up my findings I have tried to make clear at the start of each Section which part of the family are going to be discussed. That may mean a sub-tree, and/or where I'm discussing a family, I put a a brief line at the top listing grandparents and children with birth dates. Where there are common names, I then add the birth date in the text to distinguish.
On refreshing my knowledge of Ahnentafel on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_numbering_systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_numbering_systems)) I came across Binary Ahnentafel, which appears easier to interpret (to me) than Ahnentafel numbers, if not as compact. Under Binary Ahnentafel ancestors are simply listed as male of female, so XMFF would be X's father's mother's mother (perhaps XFMM for X's Father's Mother's Mother would be even more intuitive :) ). I think only direct ancestors are categorised though, and I guess most people would like to have X as themselves!
So I agree with Martin, I don't think there's any simple answer to it.
-
For what it's worth (perhaps not a lot) here is my two-penn'orth.
The tree (a diagram) is worth 1000 words.
If you are confused by your present arrangement, any readers will be more so.
As in Chiddicks' recent thread on here, you must consider whether you expect a wide or a very narrow readership. Are you creating a document for posterity, or just for yourself and one or two others ?
If you can include click-links in your text, you could link each page to the main tree, making hopping back and forth easy.
-
Thank you everyone for the continued replies.
I'm intending to send the document to two relatives who are interested, and hopefully leave it for my son for the future. That simplifies it a bit, as we are all from one single female line.
I've been back over it and decided to add a note at the start of each individuals profile, listing who was their father, their spouse and their child in our direct lineage. So far, it's made it a bit easier to understand, for me at least.
-
As a lover of things on paper I have been preparing a kind of reference book (in a large exercise book) into which I have entered my ancestors individually with useful notes, including all important dates and places, names of parents and children (with dates and places), list of sources of information (certificates, censuses and general notes). I find that this will take a double page spread of A4 paper per ancestor. The first page in the book is an index of names entered with birth year and all the pages are numbered, so it is quick and easy to find the person you are looking for.
Of course I have everything on my computer as well, but I have found this a very helpful way of looking facts up quickly without firing up the computer and searching around. I have one book for my father's side of the family and a second one for my mother's side. I can see that for those with massive family trees this system would be unworkable, but for mine it's a great help and compiling it has been a helpful reminder of so many family details. I think it could be useful for my children and grandchildren, too, in years to come, though perhaps a family tree on a scroll of wallpaper would complete the story. OK, I get that this was the way people used to do things before computers became so common, but I have found it most helpful.
The next time you find yourself asking, "Now who was that fellow?", think of how easily you could just look him up in your book and find him in the index and see all the information about him on a page. Simple! 8)