RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Cornelius88 on Tuesday 20 May 25 11:46 BST (UK)
-
Not sure if this is the place to ask. When searching the LDS Family Search site, the results sometimes show a person together with what appears to be an individual code. Variants of this carry through marriage and presumably extend to any issue. These mostly appear on published family trees.
An example taken from a published tree taken more or less at random, shows: John Horrocks 1783-1841 2:2:QFR8-QVW His wife was Hannah Ball 1785-1860 2:2:QFR8-QV4
The first part is self explanatory, but can someone tell me where the codes 2:2:QFR8-QVW and 2:2:QFR8-QV4 originate and, in simple terms what each part represents? Does Family Search still pursue this coding system for new additions to the database or is it a survivor of the early days prior to computerisation. I've not noticed it being used on any of the other major genealogical sites so I assume it must be related purely to the LDS Church and Family Search.
Thanks for any help.
I have tried the LDS site but am unable to locate an explanation.
-
Does this help?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-are-id-numbers-used-for-in-family-tree#:~:text=An%20ID%20number%20(identification%20number,in%20Family%20Tree%20ID%20numbers.
-
And more to the point - have they any point?
-
And remember, any tree is only as good as the researcher who has compiled it. And don't be misled by thinking a tree which quotes 20 sources for a person is better than which quotes 2, 1 or zero. If all those 20 are for the wrong person, but just happen to have a similar name, they are meaningless.
I find Family search trees are the worst because they can be changed at will by anyone.
I am looking at a tree which has my great uncle on. He had the unusual forename of Hungerford. He is on a tree with his siblings, including my grandfather, who had the unusual name of Heber. On this tree my grandfather has been called Herber and 6 sources have been quoted. On every single one of them his name is correctly spelt as Heber, but the person who added him to this tree has been so sloppy they can't even copy a 5 letter word correctly.
For Hungerford it is even worse. The person who created the record has his name correct, but for some reason in 2012 his name has been changed to Charles. There is not an individual's name against this change it just says Familysearch. Reason for change: Change made by authorized support staff or as part of an update. So a tree which was correct has been randomly changed to be incorrect by FS. They now have a Charles Eltham born England in 1887 on the tree. And of course people will copy this without doing their own research - thinking because it's on FS it must be true. If they had put his family nickname as an alternative, I would have understood it, but no-one has and I can't be bothered, because no doubt someone would say I was wrong and delete it. Source 1911 census, when lodging with his future father in law - obviously they only knew him by this nick name and recorded it on the census
-
"Pedigree Resource File," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:Q6JM-DY3 : accessed 2025-05-20), entry for John Horrocks !!!; "Hervey/Smart Family Tree" file (2:2:2:MMXX-CFY), submitted 2020-05-05 by BarbaraOberst1 [identity withheld for privacy].
These codes are for submitted family trees and can be searched under "Genealogies".
-
The main difficulty is that one person can have several codes, which need to be merged together. Family Search automatically creates these person codes as their volunteers enter large numbers of people from one dataset. So John Smith may have one identity in the 1851 census dataset, another in 1861, another for his marriage and so on. It is then up to the researcher to identify that these are actually one individual, and it is open to people merging folk who have the same name but are not the same person. I had a lot of difficulty dividing one woman whose married name had been merged with the birth of someone else whose maiden name happened to be the same!
-
Many thanks for the replies, there's rather a lot to digest.
I'm sceptical regarding the evidential value of published pedigrees. That's not to say they have no value, but as LizzieL points out, they are only as good as the researcher who compiled it. In this case part of the pedigree confirms my own independent research, but when it reaches pre-1830 or so we are in the realms of speculation.
@aghadowey: thank you for the link which does explain the codes. I think they may have some use in aiding research but only in the realm of published trees. Even then they can be misleading.
Some background. There is a myth in my family that we are somehow related to Horrocks the cotton king. The story goes that a daughter came over all Downton Abbey and legged it with the coachman. Daddy was no Lord Grantham and banished her and the coachman from the family.
For the myth to be even remotely true there would need to be a female Horrocks marrying. My own researches show a relationship to a male Horrocks in the Birmingham area, but a published tree shows a Horrocks born in the Manchester area who died in Birmingham. Unfortunately he married in Birmingham, but it does show a link to cotton country. However, there would need to be more evidence that the Horrocks born in Manchester who died in Birmingham was the same person. Parish registers of the period are not really adequate for that, so the jury is still out.
Like all family myths there is probably something in it somewhere, but however romantic the story I doubt it is anything like as presented.
-
Sometimes wills can be helpful, but if the wealthy Horrocks cut off the daughter she would be unlikely to be mentioned. Unless he says, I'm not giving my daughter X a brass farthing, because she ran off with Y
-
......if the wealthy Horrocks cut off the daughter she would be unlikely to be mentioned.
This appears to be the case. Unfortunately ;D
One of the published pedigrees refers to a family myth within his branch of the family, that this John Horrocks was the illegitimate child of Horrocks the cotton king. In the chat accompanying the pedigree he then refers to this as having been disproved. How, or in what manner I'm unable to tell. Efforts to contact the pedigree owner have been unsuccessful.
There is an excellent biography of the cotton kings by Margaret Burscough:
Margaret Burscough, The Horrockses: Cotton Kings of Preston. (Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing, 2004).
Needless to say there is no mention of a runaway daughter.
-
As far as I can see John Horrocks was born abt 1768 and married Mary Lomax in 1790. His will mentions two sons Peter and John. John is referred to as the second son. Peter was baptised at Turton, Lancs in 1791. On line trees have John jnr's baptism in Preston in 1794 but I haven't found the record yet. If there were any subsequent daughters, they would be far too young to run off with a coachman and be cut out of a will before John snr died in 1804.
-
Many thanks for your research LizzieL, it's very kind of you to take the trouble. As you say any daughters would have been too young to go with the coachman. Wills were going to be one of my next steps..
My tree is solid back to George Horrocks ( B 1814) whose father was ( I think) John Horrocks. Prior to George, things get hazy since we're reliant on Parish Registers and other sources. I am guessing George's father would be born around 1790 or so. 1783 is a little early albeit plausible, although they tended to have children very early.
My difficulty is how to find a link between any Horrocks in Lancashire and those in the Birmingham area. Simple birth or marriage dates are not adequate to prove a person born in Lancs is the same one that married or died in Birmingham. If the daughter was cut off, the coachman presumably being sacked, (unless he was someone elses) they would need to find work of some sort. Migration out of the area would have been one option, although the 'pull' of Birmingham might not have been adequate at the turn of the 18/19th C.
One of those things it's difficult to get a grip on.
[EDIT]. Burscough's book on the Horrocks does include a series of pedigrees and I wonder whether it might be more fruitful to explore these to see if there are any plausible links.
-
Is that the George Horrocks who married Mary Ann Gibbons on 01 Jun 1835 at Handsworth? With three children in Birmingham in 1851, one being called Henry Walker Horrocks.
George 1814 is likely to be the son of John and Hannah. The date and place fit. There is an earlier Henry Walker Horrocks 26 Dec 1821, B'ham with same parents so that gives support to the supposition that John and Hannah were George's parents.
-
A possible John and Hannah with (assumed) children in 1841 (inc Henry occupation engraver), Both J and H are said to be born in 1791, but ages were rounded. No sign of John in 1851, but there is a possible death Q4 1841. Can't check age at death as GRO site down. Hannah is with married daughter Elizabeth (Boughton) and 8 year old Arthur Howard Hayward Horrocks listed as son, Hannah's age is 65, so he's likely to be Elizabeth's illeg son. There is a marriage for an Elizabeth Horrocks on 5 May 1845 in Birmingham to Benjamin Boughton
-
Marriage record for Elizabeth confirms her father is John occ shoemaker
-
When George married Mary Ann Gibbons, witnesses were John Horrocks and Elizabeth Horrocks. The signature of John is similar to the John Horrocks who married Hannah Ball in 1807. Image on Ancestry
-
When George married Mary Ann Gibbons, witnesses were John Horrocks and Elizabeth Horrocks. The signature of John is similar to the John Horrocks who married Hannah Ball in 1807. Image on Ancestry
Lizzie, I'm glad you changed 'identical' to 'similar' in your posting. Personally I would dispute that they are that similar, looking at the formation of the H, the Rs and the K in Horrocks. However, it's up to the OP to decide, not me.
-
I originally said identical because I looked at the same image twice. They seem to have the same sort of slope to the signature, and they are almost 30 years apart. My own signature in my twenties differs quite a bit from now that I'm (unfortunately) in my seventies. Big difference is my first initial "E" used to be cursive and now is standard upper case E
-
Thank you very much for taking the trouble to look into this,
Is that the George Horrocks who married Mary Ann Gibbons on 01 Jun 1835 at Handsworth? With three children in Birmingham in 1851, one being called Henry Walker Horrocks.
Yes that's the one.
George 1814 is likely to be the son of John and Hannah. The date and place fit. There is an earlier Henry Walker Horrocks 26 Dec 1821, B'ham with same parents so that gives support to the supposition that John and Hannah were George's parents.
I agree he is likely the son of John and Hannah, possibly Hannah Ball. I have a likely candidate of John Horrocks born 1783, but there may be others born around the Birmingham area.
-
When George married Mary Ann Gibbons, witnesses were John Horrocks and Elizabeth Horrocks. The signature of John is similar to the John Horrocks who married Hannah Ball in 1807. Image on Ancestry
Lizzie, I'm glad you changed 'identical' to 'similar' in your posting. Personally I would dispute that they are that similar, looking at the formation of the H, the Rs and the K in Horrocks. However, it's up to the OP to decide, not me.
Very good of both of you to take the trouble to look into this. Whilst Hannah Ball generally appears on published pedigrees as the wife of John Horrocks, I agree the signatures are similar but I'm not totally convinced they're identical. Another 'Hannah" is a Hannah Nuttall, who appears in some pedigrees. She was married to a John Horrocks but in Eccles Lancs, March 1815. I would rule her out because of the date and location.
My money is on Hannah Ball, mainly because of the location and dates, but I would prefer to have further evidence.
There's a public tree here:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/tree/27750895?cfpid=370137664733&dtid=100 (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/tree/27750895?cfpid=370137664733&dtid=100)
which has John and Hannah Ball. They have a son, John H jnr (B 1809) who marries Elizabeth Winters. I think John+ Hannah may have had other children, but they would be a subject for later.
-
These baptisms appear if you search for children in the relevant period in Birmingham, parent John and Hannah
Hannah 1808
John 1809
Eliza 1811
George 1814
Mary Ann 1816
William 1818
Henry Walker 1820
Elizabeth 1822
I can't find a baptism in Birmingham for John Horrocks senior, but several in Lancashire. Worth investigating might be:
John born to a Walker Horrocks and wife Jane
John born to a James Horrocks and wife Betty nee Walker and
John born to a John Horrocks and wife Ann nee Walker
-
I can't find a baptism in Birmingham for John Horrocks senior, but several in Lancashire. Worth investigating might be:
John born to a Walker Horrocks and wife Jane
John born to a James Horrocks and wife Betty nee Walker and
John born to a John Horrocks and wife Ann nee Walker
I have found some of the children of John and Hannah but not yet investigated any of them in depth.
Two of the published trees have John born to Walker Horrocks and his wife Jane, nee Ogden. In the hope that this is backed by some peersonal family history/documentation this is the couple that I will investigate first.
As I have said upthread, the difficulty is proving that any John Horrocks who later appears in Birmingham, is the same John Horrocks that originated in Lancashire.
You've been a great help. Many thanks for your time and trouble.