Keep researching those side lines!

[mrs.tenacious]

What an exciting time for you, Igor! 

Just goes to prove when it comes to FH research - no boundaries. 

Mrs. T.

[Mogsmum]

I always noted the 'side lines' but did little about them until, by chance, I found that in the 1850s, a brother of one of my grt.grt.grandfathers from a tiny village (which isn't much bigger even now), emigrated to the USA.   He stayed a couple of years, came back, married a local girl then took his new wife back to America where they remained and raised their family.   By the 1900 American census he'd 'amassed' some $10,000 in property and money.   Not bad for an illiterate AgLab.

[halfasheep]

Without those sidelines I'd never have got where I am. Hughes (a nice common name!) was the bane of my life. Due to family arguments, no-one knows anything about that line.

I obtained the marriage cert for a gt gt aunt (who didn't have children either, just more details to fill out the tree), and an unknown Hughes was a witness.

Found them on the 1911 census, found their death (witnessed by a son) in 1972. Son still lived at the same address after 30+ years, and from there I've gone back to 1780 and tracked the family to Somerset and Hereford! I'd not got back before 1881 previously.

Sidelines are an invaluable source of info in my opinion

[Plummiegirl]

Now in my book Igor those later children would not be a sideline, they "blood".

I have a similar incident of my  g/g/grandfather remarrying after the death of his wife and his new wife was younger than some of his older children (not that uncommon) and I have looked into all of their lives.  And am in regular contact with a cousin from this 2nd family.

What I do not do is look into the families of those who marry in, unless I get an inkling of "scandal" and I must say that one side of my fathers family (his mothers) is full of them and his fathers side just seem to be whiter than white I cannot get even a hint of scandal there, much to my disappointment.

[LizzieW]

On the other hand, in my husband's tree, one of his gran's sisters, Florence, looked after her 8 siblings (apart from my OH's gran who was married) after their parents died and didn't marry until the youngest was 21.  One by one the other siblings married.  I feel very sorry for Florence who wasn't really free to marry until she was 38.

Lizzie

[weste]

I like looking up all the links. I have found that my surname branch links up with other branches of the surname by marriages when there was no clear connection. So having a copy of someone else's tree helps sometimes.  Probably very far back they will link---please!!! Also it's helped me to help others with their trees.

[g eli]

Having followed my family tree, in the direct line,  back to pre census days I was having great difficulty confirming anything, especially one line the Taylors, I started researching known Children of John & Mary Taylor.
I also started a separate tree for Mary Taylor whom I found in th 41 & 51 census living with relatives,was she the right one? Im still not 100% sure but it seems very likely,she had a married daughter who died in 1847 and when I got her death certificate I found that she had died at the home of another taylor whom I had connected.
I try and follow siblings you find children who were missing from home,a great many marriages of relatives and clues,particularly for 2nd marriages or common law relationships.
Liz

[LizzieW]

Having typed my previous posting about my husband's gt.aunt looking after all her siblings after her parents deaths, I decided to do a bit of searching around for the eldest daughter.  I found her marrying in 1893 in Leeds (the family had lived there after the 1881 census until at least 1893 when they had a child there, but were back in their native Lancashire by the time the next child was born in 1895).

Having married in 1893 Martha went on to have 4 sons in 1895, 1897, 1901 and 1904.  There may be more if I do a search, but that's the info from the 1901 and 1911 census.  Now what is interesting   is that the 3rd son born in 1901 was given the names of her sister's husband - now why was that?  Am I adding 2 and 2 together and making 5, or did she just like his names?

Lizzie

[sarenid]

How wonderful to find others who research sidelines I always feel a little embarrassed about the extent to which I do this.  Am I therefore one of the dreaded name collectors - I would say not because I try to give each person the same research as my direct line.  I do have a rule, which I try to stick to, which is I do not research anybody futher back who marries into the tree except obviously in my direct line but other than that I research everybody and anybody. 

One result of this is that I have found that on one line all people with the surname Baverstock who can trace themselves back to Blandford area of Dorset almost certainly descend from a particular couple who lived Cranborne/Pimperne Dorset between 1700 & 1774. 

Another fascinating outcome is that I have been able to trace the movement, occupations BMDs of a complete line of a family through the 19th century.  My only trouble is that I as yet haven't found family tree/web type program that will enable me to truly analyse the data - any ideas would be most welcome.

Regards Sarenid