When The Tree Becomes a Shrouded Forest

[LoneyBones]

And safer than racing motor bikes....

[Braindead]

  It's all history and some of my ancestors were in amongst it.
I admit it, I'm obsessed.....  

I get that way - I'm tremendously interested in what my family  have done with their lives, even though now there is only one person left who knew my great grandparents.
I have about 350 people in my tree - I've been "at it" for about 5 years and am keener on the "family history" side than the "genealogy" side, but I'd never say mine's the right way of doing things - everyone to their own and good luck tothem.

[Matt R]

Hello guys,

Well, thankyou for replying on this thread there are a lot of informative answers here.

I admit too I am very much fascinated by everything my ancestors have done, good and bad, which does not always go down with family too well, but that's life! As long as I do not cause any emotional trauma I tend to go ahead with the hobby, and digging up secrts lay buried sometimes for over three centuries.

I think the reason why i have so many ancestors on my tree after four years is because most of them were very poor, and I have found over the cours of my research that the poorest of the poor tended to be recorded reasonably well. Also, those who did have money ( a select few) all left Wills so I have "gained" more rellis due to that. I'd say I have been quite lucky in terms of surviving documentation, and I am sure this is the case with other genealogists too.

But one thing that gets to me more than most things (and there are a few  ) is the seeming ability ability for some researchers to tie themselves either to royalty, barons, or historymakers, so to speak. I know of one researcher who claimed to be related to Earl's all over the place and also Churchill, and it somehow gets to me that if that information is wrong and is passed down...maybe I am just an "always have to prove it is right" freak lol???

Finally, I tend to follow siblings of my direct ancestors too, and their children and grandchildren if I can. My reasoning for doing this is because I think it makes finding contacts more easy of a task. For example, I have my tree on GR and if I list a siblings grandchild somebody may contact me who has not gone further back than that grandchild yet, and they may have documents, photos, etc. So on that score I think it helps.

I just look at tree with 50,000 people and more and think two things.

1. Oh blimey!
2. I need to get some credits...I've alot to prove

Thanks again for replying, this has turned into a rather interesting thread!!

Reayboy

[angelfish58]

At the moment I have about 2500 people in my and my husbands joint tree, many found by working sideways.

 The line I'm currently working on is throwing up an interesting and complex picture of how the family related to each other as they crop up as Will beneficiaries and executors, marriage witnesses and the use of unusual family names. It's taking me into new areas as some were businessmen and details of partnerships being dissolved appear in the London Gazette, there's a court case about a property dispute (waiting for an estimate of the cost of copies of documents from TNA).

Some of these people may be only distantly related to my husband but I don't think anyone could argue that they weren't a family.

[coombs]

I know someone on Rootsweb who has over 100'000 people in their tree. name collecting to the max. My one only has 710 people and all relatives of mine.

[Plummiegirl]

I think this problem occurs when people start looking into not just their "blood-line" but at in-laws as well.

In my tree all my "blood" ancestors have been listed but unless I have found something interesting/mysterious I have only added the husband/wife, but not that persons parents etc.  I have only done a little digging if they have been married previously, and this has in some instances proved to be very interesting, with bigamy etc.

So if I decided to look into all those in-law families and enter them on my tree I could probably double or treble my tree overnight, but then those people would be little more than names and I would not feel any connection with them, whereas all those in my tree who are "blood-line" I feel very protective towards them and often feel I know each and every one.

I do have one distant relative, who has taken all the people with the same surname in the village where she lives and it slowly trying to connect them all, well it stops her getting bored!!  And I have occassionally helped

[coombs]

Someone on GR who connects into my tree via a 4th cousin on one of his other family lines has copied and pasted all of my family tree to hers and I asked her why and she said she shared a common ancestor with a distant cousin of mine though another family line.

[Maggie1895]

I started being fascinated by family stories as a child, and now I've done the same as Plummiegirl - I try to find my own ancestors and their brothers and sisters, and only add their husband's and wives.  Some of the sibling lines have been expanded but it really depends if there's any known link, some cousins lines feel like close family, others do feel like 'just names'.  I've got between 4-500 people on the tree and rarely put anyone on unless I'm absolutely sure of their existance and how they fit - if I do I make sure the comment shows it's work in progress.
It's the people that fascinate me, and the lives they led, and finding out all I can about them.  I've got a book by a great great uncle who came out alive from the Charge of the Light Brigade, and another about the mission my grandparents worked in in Africa.  I wouldn't swap those books for another few hundred names.
Nothing on my tree is particularly exciting, but some of the stories are heartbreaking and make me realise how privileged we are.  I haven't managed to go any farther back than a lady born in 1649, because I have no gateway ancestors, just ordinary people.  That lady born in 1649 seems pretty remote to me - she is just a name, I really know nothing else about her.
I've got ministers, publicans, doctors, an inventor, miners, farmers, at least one goalbird and some pretty feisty women who survived so much to drag their children up to better things.   But they're my family and they all mean something to me, and as far as I'm concerned that's the only qualification for inclusion.
Each to their own, there's no right or wrong way, this is just what makes it so addictive for me.

[coombs]

I do show interest in my grandparents siblings but after that I concentrate more on direct rellies even though I do add basic info to ancestor siblings. My 4 grandparents were born 1913, 1920, 1920 and 1922. Their total full siblings were born 1912, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923 and 1926. My great grandad remarried in 1931 and had 5 further children who are my nans half siblings.