Keep researching those side lines!

[coombs]

When i started genealogy I took everything at face value and believed people were exact about their ages and knew exactly how old they were like today. But then I found the truth.

[Convictlass]

Great story Igor

I havent particularly gone down side lines alot as I have not had the time.
One thing I did find on my line was they all lived very near each other and I was born in the same area so I knew where the streets were.  It would appear to me in my families case that it was the boy or girl next door syndrome more than the fact they were related.
I dont think we have that kind of idea about marriage nowadays as they did in the 1800/1900's.  In those days there was no social security or handouts, you married a man who went to work and the wife stayed at home and did look after the children and probably both sets of parents as well if they were ill.
I am always surprised how quickly the men who are widowers get married again so quickly when they have children.  If they didnt have anyone to look after the children, they couldnt work and everyone would starve, so need was the necessity in those days.
Very interesting and I love everyday I am researching my ancestors or helping others to see how those people lived and survived in very hard circumstances. Its a great thing to read about and I am so pleased 4 years ago I decided to start doing my family tree.  One of the best things I have ever done.
regards
Sandymc

[coombs]

The amount of trees on Ancestry with false info is astronomical. That is why I dotn trust most of them as many submitters are just name collectors and have thousands upon thousands of people in their tree.

[Convictlass]

Hi Coombs, I agree, most of the stuff on ancestry is sooo wrong .  As a  newby, I believed everything they put up and I took my family tree back to Charlemagne (like, 10th century!)  It was a heap of rubbish and I had to delete about a third of my tree.  There was one parent who was a hundred years younger than her children, generations were mixed up, children added to the wrong family, alleged marriages never happened etc.  I am a lot more careful now, checking all the way with sites like Family Search and various BMD's, government records etc.  Some ancestry suggestions can give a starting point, even if they prove wrong, they cross out that possibilty... That's the fun of researching a family tree!
Here's an Irish one for ye! Got into Irish BMD's looking for a birth, yes it was a birth index - put in the name and all I got was four marriages!  maybe that's the hint - marriage comes before birth!
Happy hunting
Annette

[coombs]

If you have an ancestor who died inbetween 1841 and 1851 and in 1841 they said they were not born in the county then it is best to try and work sideways and depending on how common the name was research anyone else of the same name in the area. This may help finding the persons place of origin.

[LizzieW]

It is possible to go back to the 10th century and I have on one of my branches, but that is because they were very wealthy and some of them are listed in Burke's Peerage and in the Dictionary of National Biography.  Having an unusual name helps too.

Conversely, I can't find anything out about my g.grandfather (as most people on Roots will know) and he was only born mid 1800s.

Lizzie

[coombs]

I have a Lorken Wallaker who moved to Essex from Kedington, Suffolk with some of his siblings in about 1790.

[Parmesan]

I've always researched all direct ancestor siblings.  Often times I have found missing direct people who have been staying with relatives with either mistranscribed names or with a changed name 

[RedMystic]

What an interesting discussion! I too have found some connections in the sidelines of my family through the 1800 and early 1900s. One in particular gave my great aunt (age 86) heart palpitations when I proved to her what the actual family connections were among generations of older relations that she knew well in her early years. Fortunately, she decided to be fairly open minded about it and now agrees that it can be revealed to other family as an entertaining, colourful piece of family lore.

On a similar note, when it comes to more recent relationships, what does one do with all the divorces with children, divorces without children, new spouses with step children & half siblings?

For instance, if a family member marries someone with children, has none together and subsequently divorces, does one include the former step children in the tree?

Or

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?

Oh yes, I can't forget the adoptions. Several in the family were open adoptions where the parentage (at least of the biological mother) is known. There has been a desire expressed to include both the biological parents and the adopted parents in the tree.

Yikes!!! Believe it or not, these have become heated topics within the family. I feel like I've become the evil sheriff of the family tree. Thoughts?