Keep researching those side lines!

[halfasheep]

At what point do you become a name collector? I have over 600 individuals in my tree at the moment (with about 50 more sitting in the wings until I can connect them), but all people in my tree are blood relatives or their spouses - I don't bother with the spouses families, only blood relatives, no matter how distantly related.

Let's face it, if you didn't at some point looks at the side lines, you wouldn't be able to connect back another generation, so you may as well do a little more digging.

I don't necessarily obtain certificates for all these distant relatives, only if I'm absolutely stuck and I think an address or witness may lead to a further resource or connect the family with certainty

[sstarr2008]

Having followed my paternal line back to 1745 I struck the proverbial brick wall even though I wasted a lot of time on the most obvious local family.

I eventually decided to explore his wife's family but even then her father was a waste of time however her mother's side turned out to be very interesting and helpful because they left wills and were mentioned in land records. Even though they changed parishes several times I have been able to trace them roughly back to the 13th century.

Also by tracing her family to a different parish I was able to connect my paternal line to an ancestor in that parish.

On a more obscure tangent I found that my ancestor worked for the man who had bought the land which had previously belonged to the family who shared my surname of whom I had previously failed to connect. Not only that but my ancestor's employer was also related to the man who I think was the employer of my ancestor's father.

I am now back to the Civil War period and I am still looking at the possibilities of family connections through employers and land owners.

[coombs]

Yes I think I shall use this tactic for a baptism of someone who I believe to be an ancestor if I cannot as yet find any direct proof. I want to do that with a Matthew Bradford born in 1765 in Cambridgeshire who could be my ancestor who wed in Essex in 1798. Matthew died in 1849 aged 85 and said he was not born in county in 1841.

[LizzieW]

I don't think you are a name collector if you can find out something about the person involved.  For instance my g.aunt's husband's young brother was drowned aged 3, so I got his death cert to find out the details.  There was an inquest and I managed to find the details on the 19thC newspapers.  I don't think that is name collecting, even though a brother of my g.aunt's husband who died aged 3 can't be considered an ancestor of mine at all.

(Why can't I find any info about my g.grandad whose death also required an inquest - c'est la vie!).

Lizzie

[coombs]

I have a James Smith who died in 1849 in Oxfordshire and was not born in the county so if I did happen to find any possible siblings that would be a godsend.

[Plummiegirl]

halfasheep - 600 is not name collecting,  I would think that was quite normal.

I am always wary of the trees with twenty thousand + in!!!

[coombs]

On genes I have 550 people in my tree. And same for Rootsweb. Quality not quantity. I have that Matthew Bradford ancestor as born Cambs but have a question mark next to it to show only a possibility until I find confirmation. But yes I shall research side lines to see if that throws anything up.

[LizzieW]

I've got 2600 in my tree, well that is a joint tree with my OH.  However, my ancestors had many large families and for the ones born in the mid 1800s on, I do know all about most of them.  My mother got lots of info from her mother and I have been in touch with other branches of the family with whom I have shared info.  Also, one branch of my tree were amongst the rich and famous in the 1400-1700s, so are easy to research as their histories are in British Library, Dictionary of National Biographies and I also have quite a few wills.

I don't consider myself a name collector, just an enthusiast.

Lizzie

[Alexander.]

Earlier in my research I have to admit I was a bit of a name collector. I used to research every line down as far as I could possibly go. And then I joined RootsChat a couple years ago...and you guys taught me what real family tree research is.

Now I have pruned the tree so that I don't research (well I don't enter into my family tree program ) any relatives further than 1st cousins on any given line. This means that I research the siblings of each of my ancestors, and their children, but not any grandchildren. This way I can keep focused on the main lines while keeping in mind that there were many intermarriages - two of my great grandparents were cousins for instance.

Still, my tree contains about 2700 people, though I have researched every individual myself, never just copied anyone else's research, and have only included information that is well documented. So I think Lizzie says it best...

I don't consider myself a name collector, just an enthusiast.