Just Who Do You Put On Your Tree

[busybod]

This may sound a silly question, but I have been researching my family tree for 5yrs now and have put on mainly direct ancestors.  I am now going back and filling in by putting on their partners - ie people who married into the family.  My question is, exactly how far back do you go with these people.  Do you put their siblings etc on and are they considered family.  Hope this makes sense.

All opinions/ideas greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

[CelticAnnie]

Hello, Busybod

I think this is entirely up to you, really!  My own tree is on Anc*stry, and when I started tree-building I put parents and siblings of my "married-ins" on the tree just whenever records popped up for them on that web site.  But I now have approaching 800 people on my tree and have gotten fairly remote from my direct ancestors.  I feel my tree has become uncomfortably large and it is difficult to keep track. So now I tend not to add the families of my "married-ins" -- unless they look particularly interesting in some way! 

Regards.

CELTIC ANNIE

[philipsearching]

Different people do things different ways.  The "right way" is the one that works for you.

I have limited my tree to direct ancestors, their siblings and the names and birth dates of the siblings' spouses and children.  With the limited time available to me I had to make a choice between adding masses of names with minimal information or having fewer names and adding as much detail about their lives as I could find.

[Craclyn]

I also work downwards from direct ancestors as this helps to identify more distant relatives who may be the holders of useful paperwork and photos about our common ancestors.

[mike175]

As the others say, there is no right system, only the one you develop for yourself.

In my case I concentrate on the direct ancestral lines, adding in all the siblings for each direct ancestor (the census is excellent for this) so for each generation I have a complete family unit. I only follow sibling lines forward if it is likely to help confirm a direct ancestor, eg. grandma living with the family of one of the siblings.

I well remember someone here describing the dangers of creating a 'family hedge' if you try to incorporate everyone 
 

Mike.

[Finley 1]

Hello, Busybod

I think this is entirely up to you, really!  My own tree is on Anc*stry, and when I started tree-building I put parents and siblings of my "married-ins" on the tree just whenever records popped up for them on that web

what are 'married-ins'   

and I do not Trust the pop ups on Ancestry without fulllllllllllly checking....!!

last night I had to mail someone  on that site who had added MY gt Uncles war record to her tree and the only real similarity was name and area of birth ... It definately was not the person she thought it was.  She hasnt replied and I doubt she will.  so Her rellie now died twice in two different places, in 2 different yrs.  I bet that was offered to her, by one of those green leaves... bouncing about.   aaaargh 

xin

[Edward Scott]

On the basis that cousins & 2^nd cousins often (used to) marry, I have a 2 sideways rule. However if it is interesting or relevant I may go further.

[wrjones]

I put all siblings of direct ancestors and their children and so on.I don't bother putting parents of those who married siblings.

Regards
William Russell Jones.

[hallmark]

Well I put my married-ins on my tree..my g.g.g/father married a Woods...his brother a Scott, so I followed the Woods and the Scotts only to find a marriage 2 generations later showing that in fact they were 2nd cousins marrying, which I would have missed if I'd only done "direct" ancestors.

This way I know when (if) I finish and print it off I'm going to get 1st/2nd/3rd cousins marrying...

So, "Do you put their siblings etc on and are they considered family..." Well I'm following aunts/uncles back to ggg/aunts ggg/uncles and finding '2nd 3rd cousins once removed etc' so to me they are family.

I'd have finished my direct tree years ago with about 30 people on it.... plus I'm dead nosey!!!  LOL

I've just been contacted by direct descendants of my ggg/uncle who left Ireland in 1840's for New Zealand just by having that record on my tree so they'd be some sort of cousins....so part of the overall family!  And I can get them back another 2 generations for their Irish lines.

I've also traced distant cousins and they have sent photos I wouldn't have otherwise.

Just depends on what one wants to achieve, no right way, no wrong way.