Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - valk

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Cheshire / Re: Hanna Shawcross - anyone here researching this lady born possibly Altrincham.
« on: Saturday 07 February 26 10:53 GMT (UK)  »
Hi
I don't think you and I  are seeing the same thing on the 1851 census.  Church Lane Selston. The extra children Peter etc  are all there with John (widower) plus the ones from 1841 except Frances.  By the way she would be 12/13 not 22 in 1851.  Likely to be a servant somewhere.
see reply 26

2
The Common Room / Re: help please: Ancestry has made my tree useless how do i delete it?
« on: Saturday 07 February 26 10:18 GMT (UK)  »
Hi
Surely this cannot be happening for everyone.  Roots chat would be inundated with literally millions of comments about it if it was.  Are you sure that you are not inadvertantly agreeing to add content from your DNA matches trees. I looked at a Youtube video on this and there are several ways it can be done including from Thrulines but also through the add button on the right of each matches name.
It may be best to start a fresh tree the old fashioned way (without reference to DNA or other peoples' trees), paying attention to all the clues.  For example looking carefully at the birth places given on the census and any odd nieces or cousins included in a household.
I hope it gets sorted soon

3
Cheshire / Re: Hanna Shawcross - anyone here researching this lady born possibly Altrincham.
« on: Wednesday 28 January 26 13:22 GMT (UK)  »
William Holt and Fanny are living in Lymm in 1871.  They have an 11 year old daughter Elizabeth which seems to match up with Fanny's illegitimate child born in Lymm in 1859. So I think this rules out living in Mansfield and having Joseph in 1870
She married William Hoult in warrington August 12th 1861. (fathers name James)
There was a fanny holt of the right age buried in Lymm in 1882.
Therefore this is not the fanny massey you are looking for - she could not have become fanny craggs.

4
Cheshire / Re: Hanna Shawcross - anyone here researching this lady born possibly Altrincham.
« on: Tuesday 27 January 26 14:40 GMT (UK)  »
Hello
Frances Massey born Kirkby in Ashfield in 1838 Does that seems likely?  Not in GRO but in Notiinghamshire  baptisms in FindMyPast.  The Craggs' eldest son, Joseph, seems to have been registered in Mansfield which is not far from Kirkby in Ashfield.

5
Cheshire / Re: Hanna Shawcross - anyone here researching this lady born possibly Altrincham.
« on: Tuesday 27 January 26 11:08 GMT (UK)  »
So why did you ask us about Hannah Shawcross? if you have already eliminated this particular Fanney Massey. Who did your Fanny Massey marry? Where has she come from in your research?

6
Cheshire / Re: Hanna Shawcross - anyone here researching this lady born possibly Altrincham.
« on: Tuesday 27 January 26 08:46 GMT (UK)  »
Maybe the Shawcross connection has come from the 1841 census where you have fanny massey in the household of Fanny Showcross in Mere Cheshire. A certicate (mmn Shawcross) and baptism exist for that Fanny Massey.
James Massey married Hannah Shallcross in 1832
Since you started off asking about Hannnah Shawcross she was baptised as Hannah Shallcross 1813.  Parents Joshua and Frances.  Mere. All consistent with 1841 census.

7
The Common Room / Re: Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors
« on: Friday 23 January 26 14:39 GMT (UK)  »
We know what to expect with a hint from an Ancestry Family Tree but it is the hints relating to Geneanet that really annoy me as  they are made to sound like an official source when they refer to the usual ragbag of poorly researched trees.  Equally annoying are the one name studies and 'xxx family' associations which sound more official than they are.   I have people in my tree for whom I disagree on their parentage with literally hundreds of other trees.  I just continue to give my reasons in the small space provided and ignore everyone else.  Today, I ignored 40 trees and went with my own research because of the name of a sister given in a will. 

8
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Peter Bevington. Burial. 1807. St. Peters Worcester.
« on: Saturday 03 January 26 21:24 GMT (UK)  »
Hello
I find Ancestry a bit confusing here .  Findmypast says he was buried at St Peter the Great, which was demolished in 1976 and is now a car park. This seems more likely than St Martin and St Peter which is a relatively new church (early twentieth century).
I imagine, you can check this on Genuki but there are pictures of St Peters on the web  page from Worcester and Dudley Historic churches



9
The Common Room / Ancestor Collector
« on: Thursday 01 January 26 13:44 GMT (UK)  »
Happy new Year everyone.
I am sure, we all have people who incorrectly include our ancestors in their trees, usually a mistake  by an inexperienced researcher when their ancestor has a similar name.
However, it has reached the stage that a large number of hints I get from  Ancestry originate from the same person, who is not remotely related to me.  I first became aware of him copying my father's family from my tree and those of paternal relatives but now he has moved on to my maternal relatives as well. His tree has been taken down now but included all of my great grandparents so I feel I am being cloned.
I do feel uncomfortable about this invasion of privacy and upset when I receive hints about my own father. I did ask Ancestry what could be done.  Nothing, of course.  Some people just have an aim to have the largest tree in the world and this guy found he was on a roll with my family.
Why do I get so many picture hints from him, you may ask?  He attaches a picture of a coat of arms to go with every surname.  This means that everyone he has pinched from my tree or a cousin's tree has had a picture attached which generates a hint. 
My solution was to make my tree private but that was too late and rather ruins my chances with co-operating with any dna matches that i might have.
Has anyone else had the same problem?

Pages: [1] 2 3