Help with interpreting a tree please

[rnewfie]

I came across this document, but I can't make out the sequence of events.
I don't know if there is some standard or accepted way of writing trees, but I can't make it out.
I can see that m1, m2, m3 etc. are marriages in order, but what is the significance of the As, (A)s, ((A))s etc? What are the '+'s?

Robert Langham of Coppeshull (a 1500) m. Anne
1.    Thomas Langham of Coppeshull (a 1546)
2.    Robert Langham of Cold Ashby
A.    Richard Langham of Cold Ashby (bur 06.11.1582) m. Agnes
i.    Edward Langham of Guilsborough (bur 05.05.1607) m. Anne West (dau of Alexander (or John) West of Cotton End)
a.    Sir John Langham, Sheriff of London, 1st Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 20.04.1584, d 13.05.1671)
m. (1620) Mary Bunce (d 08.04.1652, dau of James Bunce of London, sister of Sir James, 1st Bart)
(1)    Sir James Langham, Sheriff of Northamptonshire, 2nd Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 1620, d 22.08.1699)
m1. (12.1647) Mary Alston (bur 11.09.1660, dau of Sir Edward Alston of London)
(A)    Mary Langham (b 10.03.1652, d 23.03.1690) m. (07.07.1670) Henry Booth, 1st Earl of Warrington (b 1651/2, d 02.01.1693-4)
(B)    other issue - John (b 26.04.1650, bur 03.01.1651), John (b 12.02.1651, d 29.07.1657), Edward (b 20.08.1655, bur 04.07.1666), Susanna (b 16.03.1653)
m2. (18.11.1662) Elizabeth Hastings (dsp 28.03.1664, dau of Ferdinando Hastings, Earl of Huntingdon)
m3. (13.04.1667) Penelope Holles (dsp bur 07.08.1684, dau of John Holles, Earl of Clare)
m4. Dorothy Pomeroy (bpt 24.02.1631-2, dsp before 1713, dau of John Pomeroy, sister of Arthur, Dean of Cork)
(2)    Sir William Langham of Walgrave, Sheriff of Northamptonshire, 3rd Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 1631, d 29.09.1700, 4th son)
m1. (1657) Elizabeth Haslewood (dsp, dau of Sir Anthony Haslewood)
m2. (1659) Alice Chudleigh (d 1663, dau of Sir George Chudleigh, Bart)
(A)+    issue (d young) - Mary (b 09.09.1660), Elizabeth (b 11.11.1663, bur 04/5.1664)
m3. (10.07.1666) Martha Hay (dau of Herbert Hay of Glynde)
(C)    Sir John Langham, 4th Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 01.07.1672, d 15.05.1747)
m1. (01.07.1691) Elizabeth Samwell (bpt 24.03.1673, bur 26.07.1715, dau of Sir Thomas Samwell, Bart of Upton and Gaylon)
(i)    Sir James Langham, 5th Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 1695, dsp 12.08.1749)
(ii)    Sir John Langham, 6th Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 1698, dsp 09.1766)
(iii)    William Langham
m. Mary Drought (dau of Anthony Drought)
(a)    Sir James Langham, 7th Bart of Cottesbrooke, Sheriff of Northamptonshire (b 31.01.1736, d 07.02.1795)
m. (02.06.1767) Juliana Musgrave (d 21.03.1810, sister/heir of Thomas Musgrave of Old Cleve)
((1))    Sir William Langham, 8th Bart of Cottesbrooke, Sheriff of Northamptonshire (b 10.02.1771, d 08.03.1812, 2nd son)
m1. (20.08.1795) Henrietta Elizabeth Frederica Vane (d 11.11.1807, dau of Hon. Charles Vane)
((A))    Sir William Henry Langham, 9th Bart of Cottesbrooke (b 1796, d unm 12.05.1812)
((B))    Henrietta Langham m. (1817) Edward Ayshford Sanford of Nynehead
((C))    Charlotte Langham (d unm 1820)
m2. (19.05.1810) Augusta Priscilla Irby (dsp 17.09.1849, dau of Hon. William Henry Irby)
((2))    Sir James Langham, 10th Bart of Cottesbrooke, Sheriff of Northamptonshire (b 21.08.1776, d 14.04.1833) had issue
m. (26.05.1800) Elizabeth Burdett (d 30.11.1855, dau of Francis Burdett, sister of Sir Francis, Bart of Foremark)
((3))    Charlotte Langham
m. P.R. Minster (Captain RN)
((4))+    other issue - Richard Newman (b c1769, d 1777), Juliana (d unm 1787), Marianne (d unm 1809)
(b)    Sir William Langham, later Jones, Bart of Ramsbury Manor (dsp 03.05.1791)
m. (08.1767) Elizabeth Jones (dau of William Jones of Ramsbury Manor)
(iv)    Stephen Langham (bpt 24.09.1700, d 28.02.1755, rector of Cottesbrooke) apparently of this generation
m. Mary Samwell (b 1715, d 1747, dau of Sir Thomas Samwell of Upton, 2nd Bart)
(a)    Millicent Langham
m. William Drought
(b)+    3 daughters (d unm)
(v)+    other issue
m2. (02.04.1719) Mary Temple (b c1680, d 16.11.1763, dau of Sir Richard Temple, Bart of Stowe)
(vi)    Anne Langham apparently of this marriage
m. Richard Dayrell of Lillingston Dayrell (b 1720, d 14.04.1767, rector of Lillingston)
(vii)+    "several children"
(D)+    2 sons (d young)
(3)    Sir Stephen Langham of London (b 05.05.1629, d 01.09.1709)
m. (08.05.1654) Mary Hoste (d 03.03.1721-2, dau of Derick Hoste of London)
(A)    Mary Langham (b 15.01.1655-6, bur 27.12.1686)
m1. (14.12.1671) Thomas Style (d 30.08.1672, son of Sir Thomas, Bart of Wateringbury)
m2. Sir Thomas Middleton of Stansted Montfichet (d 11.06.1702)
(B)    John (b 14.02.1656, bur 07.1668), Stephen (b 11.08.1659, bur 02.05.1664), James (b 14.02.1660, d after 1670), Elizabeth (b 22.03.1662, bur 30.07.1663)
(4)    Elizabeth Langham
m. (13.03.1648-9) Sir Philip Botiler of Watton Woodhall
(5)    Anne Langham (d 1692)
m. (16.07.1650) Sir Martin Lumley of Barfield, Bart (d 08.1702)
(6)    Rebeccah Langham
m. (02.08.1666) Sir Thomas Lake of Canons
(7)    Sarah Langham
m. (21.02.1660-1) Sir Thomas Hussey, Bart of Doddington (d 12.1706)
(+    other issue - John (bur 07.10.1642), Edward (dsp), Thomas of London (bur 04.09.1666), Mary (d unm?)
b.    Samuel Langham of London (a 1634, grocer)
m. Marian Faunce (dau of Thomas Faunce of Rochester)
(1)+    issue (a 1634) - Thomas (b c1622), Joseph

[Ermintrude46]

I think it's a way to signify the various generations, alternating between letters and numbers.  So Edward Langham is the son of Richard and Agnes, Edward then married Anne and their son John bn 1584 married Mary Bunce.  John and Mary had James bn 1620 who married four times and William bn 1631 who married three times as well as quite a lot of other children, some of whom died young etc.  I would think that dsp stands for died sans progeny or similar, i.e. died without children.  It does look quite complicated but I think if you try to draw it out as a standard tree layout it will make a bit more sense.  James's line seems to have died out in the male line in spite of his four marriages and the rest of the tree is the descent from William, via his son John from his third marriage born in 1672.
Ermy

[eadaoin]

try indenting like this?

-------------------------------------------
Robert Langham of Coppeshull (a 1500) m. Anne
   1.    Thomas Langham of Coppeshull (a 1546)
   2.    Robert Langham of Cold Ashby
       A.    Richard Langham of Cold Ashby (bur 06.11.1582) m. Agnes
           i.    Edward Langham of Guilsborough (bur 05.05.1607) m. Anne
                West  (dau of Alexander (or John) West of Cotton End)
                a.    Sir John Langham, Sheriff of London, 1st Bart of Cottesbrooke
                      (b 20.04.1584, d 13.05.1671)
                       m. (1620) Mary Bunce (d 08.04.1652, dau of James Bunce of
                       London, sister of Sir James, 1st Bart)
                    (1)    Sir James Langham, Sheriff of Northamptonshire, 2nd Bart
                            of  Cottesbrooke (b 1620, d 22.08.1699)
                            m1. (12.1647) Mary Alston (bur 11.09.1660, dau of Sir
                            Edward Alston of London)

etc etc

[Ermintrude46]

Yes, that's nice and clear    The entries at the bottom of the list (3), (4), etc up to (eight) not the cool sign  are the siblings of Sir James (1) and Sir William (2) at the top of the list.  Think the DoB for Sir William may be wrong, Wiki shows it as about 1625, otherwise he would have been younger than Stephen (3) who would have suceeded to the baronetcy instead.
Ermy

[rnewfie]

Robert Langham of Coppeshull (a 1500) m. Anne
1.    Thomas Langham of Coppeshull (a 1546)
2.    Robert Langham of Cold Ashby
A.    Richard Langham of Cold Ashby (bur 06.11.1582) m. Agnes

I may be thick, but this still doesn't make sense. I like things to be logical, but this isn't to me.

What is the relationship between Thomas, Robert and Richard? It looks like Thomas(1) and Robert(2) are brothers, but if Richard(A) is also a brother, then why is he (A) rather than (3)?  Or are you suggesting that Richard is Robert Junior's son, rather than Robert Senior?

What does '(a 1500)' mean? Presumably 'about', but is that when he married Anne, or when he was born? I am assuming the former.

What does the '(a 1546)' for Thomas mean? Is that when he was born or died?

My interpretation then, based on the dates, is that Robert married Anne in about 1500.
Thomas (Robert's son) wouldn't have then been born in about 1546, so that must have been when he died.
Richard (Robert's Junior's son) died in 1582.

All in all, I think this is very badly presented.

[ITBookworm]

I would agree with your comment about badly presented!

I think though that the (a 1500) is actually a birth estimate. Where a date of marriage is shown it has been listed after the "m." indicating married.

That would give you:
Robert born about 1500 marrying Anne date unknown
1. son Thomas born about 1546
2. son Robert etc

The birth of Thomas 46 years after a marriage in 1500 doesn't make sense and if you take it as birth both examples are consistent.

I get lost any further down the page than that though 

[Redroger]

There is no standard presentation of trees, indeed I believe it is British practice to draw a tree with the earliest generations at the top, and work downwards. The standard US practice is to draw the tree from left to right, with the most recent generationat the left, and their ancestors expanding outwards generation by generation. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses in my opinion, What I try to do with computer programs is have one of each, so if I need to check a specific thing I can check it by both methods.
When researching a family line it is best practice to work backwards from the known to the unknown, i.e. most recent first, if at all possible.

[Ermintrude46]

It's less easy to follow then more recent trees because there are so many dates missing for each person, some have a birth (or approx birth), some have a death, some have a marriage and some have various combinations.  The indenting does help to make it clearer -  the generation signifiers seem to be:
1 (with siblings 2-8, all children of Robert and Anne at the very top)
then A (son of Robert jnr)
i
a
(1)
(A)
(i)
(a)
((1))
((A))

so quite a lot of info crammed in there!  The focus appears to be mostly on the holders of the Baronetcy so there were probably numerous other children/siblings not included in some of the generations.
Ermy

[weste]

I also like to use 2 computer programs. I like the horizontal layout of family historian and i like the layout of family tree maker.  Glad i'm not the only one using 2 programs. Family tree maker is useful as a lot of people i know use it and its better for them if i use the same.