RootsChat.Com

I have just upgraded the tree linked to my father’s DNA test on Ancestry. When I called up his DNA matches, I was presented with the top 20 of All his matches, with an option above them to view “By parent”.

When I selected “By parent” I was presented with a screen with the following:

“Which side of the family are your ancestors on? We can now show you – even without testing your parents”

That is some claim! Gives the impression of being right on the forefront of this developing science!

So why then does Ancestry tell me a match is on my paternal side accompanied by a thru line to my maternal side? Or vice versa? Does not happen all the time but it happens often enough to undermine their credibility. Leaves me wondering - which bit is right?

I acknowledge without question that Ancestry is not responsible for what people put in their trees, but if they have the scientific capability to be able to tell me that a match is on my paternal side, it shouldn’t take too much programming effort to make sure any accompanying through line is also on my paternal side. And restore their credibility.

When looking at any on-line tree, including mine, the viewer should always remember GIGO!

Lubricated

Sorry, need a rant!

I regularly look at Ancestry Trees to help my research but I ALWAYS, without fail, check the information therein. Haven’t kept statistics but I would say a significant majority of these trees are poor quality (polite euphemism).

In the latest example, I have an ancestor who was (according to almost every one of 40+ trees!) allegedly born in Middlesex in the 1780s and then taken a few days later to Wiltshire in order to be baptised. She allegedly then survived until after 1851; in the 1841 Census she was enumerated in her married name but reverted to her maiden name for the 1851!

What worries me is that Thru Lines is based on these fairy tales.

I’m regularly being told I have a common ancestor with a DNA match where the match is on my paternal side but thru lines extends back to my maternal line. And vice-versa.
 
It’s worth noting that Thru Lines is an anagram for u lern this. This makes another anagram!
Rant over.

Lubricated.

Hi. I had the same issue and contacted FTDNA about it. Net result it was reported as a "bug". I was told it would be at least 14 days before they could respond. I never did hear, but the issue has now disappeared. Oddly, a distant genetic cousin had the same issue. The common feature seems to be that we have all had our fathers tested / uploaded their DNA data and then the issue has arisen.

It's not a problem now so I'm not chasing it

Lubricated

An update to earlier posts....

Discovered that the Society of Genealogists in London were more than happy to take any certificates I didn't want!

So the wife and I scanned all the certificates we had, that's both the ones which were relevant to our trees and the ones which were not, and then gave them to S.O.G.  Just over 400 of them.

If I understood them correctly, S.O.G. have an upcoming project regarding BMD certificates. So at some future time it might be worth contacting them before purchasing from the GRO.  In the meantime it looks as though they will happily take all those unwanted certificates - I'm sure they'll even take them from non-members!

Just in case the drives holding the scans die, we've attached copies of the scans to our trees (we use Family Tree Maker) and have then backed up our trees on line to Ancestry. So our trees and data and scans won't die with us.

Minor point: A typical scan of a BMD certificate as a .jpg file creates a file about 4 Megabytes in size. One scan on it's own is not a problem but a couple of hundred starts to create a huge file when all brought together, as in linking to a tree. To overcome this we compressed the scans to approx. 1/10th their original size.  We used Microsoft Office Picture Manager but I'm sure that most image software packages could do the same. Compression doesn't destroy the image or data, and it makes a collection much more manageable.

Lubricated

I have come across two weddings ceremonies which took place between the same couple in two Anglican Churches within 11 miles and 4 months of each other.  Can anyone offer any reason as to why this happened?

For some reason I get the feeling they were probably forced to undergo the second ceremony but I cannot find any reason why. Nor can I find any logical reason why they should want to do so.

William Reed and Sophia Seaman were first married in Withyham Parish Church, Sussex, on 18 February 1833 (Register No. 258). William Reed signed, but looks childish as if practised specially for the occasion, Sophia Seaman X. Witnesses Thos. Elphick (Signed) and Harriet Cridall X.

On 25th June 1833 they married again in Buxted Parish Church, Sussex (Register No. 217). This time the bride is recorded as Sophia Seymour, both bride and groom signed with an X. Witnesses were the same Thos. Elphick (Signed) and an Esther Daws X.

By Horse and Cart there's less than 11 Miles between the Churches.

I have been studying the Seaman/Seymour name in East Sussex and have ample proof they are completely interchangeable, together with a multitude of other variants, even within the same family group. Both marriages were by Banns. Both bride and groom came from very poor agricultural labouring families. I have not found any evidence to suggest they were separate couples with identical or very similar names; I’ve only ever found the one valid Sophia Seaman or Seymour, etc.

To add to the puzzle, Ellen Seymour, daughter of Sophia Seymour a single woman, was baptised in Buxted on 2 Jun 1833. I don’t know when she was born, it might have been before the first marriage in February that year. She appears in the 1841 Census under the name of Reed but that’s not an uncommon thing. She is definitely the daughter of the Sophia who married William Reed.

From research I’ve learnt that a marriage can be treated as “voidable” and thus cancelled if contested by one party in court, and one justifiable ground is the woman being pregnant by another man at the time of the marriage.  But I’m struggling with this being the case here; first I doubt there was enough money for a court case, second I doubt there was enough time, and third why go through all that process only to get married again?

So I’m back to wondering whether the local Rector at Buxted had some influence in requiring a second marriage ceremony.  Why was the first child baptised Seymour and not Reed ? I’ve no evidence that Ellen was the child of William Reed. Is there something in the church laws at that time that might have had some impact on this state of affairs?

I’m baffled – and intrigued. Any solutions anyone?