Keep researching those side lines!

[snowyw]

I found that my gt grandfather's eldest brother married a woman who already had an illegitimate child.
The wife later died and gt grandfather's brother then married his step daughter.  They then had a child who they named after her mother/his first wife!!  Weird!!

[coombs]

Naming patterns can be good although not reliable. And yes if you believe a baptism of someone is that of your ancestor it is good to see if they had any siblings. And dont always be put off by distance. It could happen. You still need to prove if it is or isn't your rellie though. I may have found the baptism of the wife of Matthew Bradford 30 miles away from where she married. Her age at death points to that time this woman was baptised. I just need more compelling evidence.

It does seem many of my south Essex ancestors have parents or grandparents who originated in North Essex or south Suffolk and South Cambs.

[Sloe Gin]

If one has has a family member that married (for the sake of this example, a man), had a child, and subsequently divorced, the child of that union is blood family. The former wife (in this example) was family when married, and continues to attend large family gatherings. The grown child of that union would like to see the lineage of her mother in the tree so that her children have a single source of information. Should that be there or not?

This one gets even more complicated for me as the child of of the original union of the man & woman mentioned immediately above, also has a half sibling from the subsequent marriage of her mother. This sibling isn't related to my family by blood, but there is a push to have her included in the tree along with her children as they are invited to family gatherings. What do you think?

....these have become heated topics within the family. I feel like I've become the evil sheriff of the family tree. Thoughts?

But whose tree is it?  If it's your tree, then obviously your mother would be on it and her forebears will make up half of your tree. 

A family tree isn't going to be the same for all the members of that family;  for instance, first cousins will only share one half of the tree in common.  You can't have a 'one size fits all' tree without things getting very messy and confusing, so I would suggest having a separate tree for each branch (or each interested party). 

[Convictlass]

I found a distant connection between my mother and my father by researching sidelines!    You never know what you'll find.

Convictlass

[RedMystic]

I found a distant connection between my mother and my father by researching sidelines!    You never know what you'll find.

Convictlass

I found that too. My dad's family came to Canada from Scotland in 1743. My mum's family came in 1883. However,  I found the first marriage between their families about 1810.

[RedMystic]

But whose tree is it?  If it's your tree, then obviously your mother would be on it and her forebears will make up half of your tree. 

Well true, but my grandmother is still alive (just celebrated her 100th birthday) & is a wonderful matriarch. As a result, the family on that side is all delighted in the work I've undertaken and all feel an ownership of it.

I do like your idea of breaking off certain branches so that they can do their own work. Likely the problem lies in the fact that I'm the one that has time, inclination & interest, and others see it as an opportunity to get added value.

The blended and unblended families do provide an challenge that we haven't seen near us much before 1950.

[RedMystic]

I found that my gt grandfather's eldest brother married a woman who already had an illegitimate child.
The wife later died and gt grandfather's brother then married his step daughter.  They then had a child who they named after her mother/his first wife!!  Weird!!

That is a weird one.

So this just makes me too curious. Ignore this if you prefer not to share, but may I ask how old the illegitimate child was when her mother married you g grandfather? Did her mother have children with your g grandfather before she passed away? How old was the dear illegitimate child when she married you g grandfather's brother?

[Sloe Gin]

But whose tree is it?  If it's your tree, then obviously your mother would be on it and her forebears will make up half of your tree. 

Well true, but my grandmother is still alive (just celebrated her 100th birthday) & is a wonderful matriarch. As a result, the family on that side is all delighted in the work I've undertaken and all feel an ownership of it.

I do like your idea of breaking off certain branches so that they can do their own work. Likely the problem lies in the fact that I'm the one that has time, inclination & interest, and others see it as an opportunity to get added value.

The blended and unblended families do provide an challenge that we haven't seen near us much before 1950.

I can't see any difficulty here, tbh.  Like most people I have my tree with my father's side and my mother's side.  My cousins on my paternal side have little interest in my maternal ancestry, and vice versa, so I share with them the relevant half of the tree, the part we have in common.  That seems to be what you have done.

There's nothing to stop you from expanding your own tree, adding your mother's ancestry to the work already done, and of course your half-sister will be part of that.  In turn she could create her own tree, half of which will be the same as yours but with a different paternal line.   

What you could do is create a small tree-type diagram to show how the different branches link up; this could be done for the adoption cases too.   Use these like footnotes to the main trees, but I would avoid trying to include too many lines on one tree as it would become increasingly difficult to follow.

[coombs]

Often witnesses on marriage certs turn out to be relatives. I have found another direct ancestor who witnessed a wedding but had remarried after being widowed.