Just Who Do You Put On Your Tree

[mofid42]

I agree with Hallmark. I always add the parents and siblings, where known, of spouses who marry into the family, but whether I research them any further depends on the circumstances and a variety of reasons.

I was lucky enough to inherit several envelopes and albums of photos which contained pictures of direct ancestors but also family members of sister in-laws and brother in-laws and those of my step-gran, so I researched them too so I could add their photo's to my tree. By doing so I have been contacted by people who are their direct descendants  and have shared copies of the pictures.

 I have also been given copies of photos of my direct ancestors that have survived in the albums of distant cousins.

But what you do with your tree is entirely up to you and what you feel comfortable doing. I have found some very interesting and fascinating people and stories by wondering off the straight path, and also stumbled across facts about my direct ancestors that I would have missed if I hadn't done so. For example I have found ancestors who were witnesses at in-laws marriages. Were mentioned in the will of an in-law or distant cousin. 1st or 2nd cousins marrying.  Two brothers marrying two sisters and so on.

[Ann Baker]

I agree there is no right or wrong way.

I started with intentions of direct line only but sometimes it was only by looking sideways I found info on the direct line so I do research the direct line siblings and spouses and children if I pick something along the way that I think might be useful.

in terms of the Scottish ones it's usually relatively quick to do with Scotland's People. Ireland a wee bit harder but my resrearch there wouldn;t have been as far down the track had I not 'branched off' in other directions.

I think you go with what's right for you

Ann

[Pejic]

I put everyone related by blood or marriage up or down and occasionally "possibles" - though I keep another tree for most "possibles".  I only actively research direct ancestors (intentionally).

[panda40]

I have found my Dad's 3rd cousin and we researched our common ancestors together and shared information when we have found it. Since then I have found I am distantly related to the same person on two other branches of my tree with my ancestors marring different ancestors of his but with the same surname. So do what appeals to you, follow your nose and see where it leads you.
I stopped one branch and removed the lady's surname as it was Jones and she came from Wales I was inundated with is this my Charlotte Jones requests from  A****Y green leaf hunters. I know her surname, that all that's important.
Another one of my relatives married into a very well research family tree which has its own web site. So once again I got lots of emails asking if I was related to so and so or if I had any information on the family. I explained to each of them I was only related through marriage and signposted them to the website for all the information they needed.
It has its advantages and drawbacks, but its fun.

Regards Panda

[Finley 1]

OK   so for an extremely slow brain then: 
A 'married in'  = someone who married into the family....
Does that mean you singularly follow the 'male line'  ?

is that right?
 
I started with my Grandfather and went as far as I could with his direct line including his wife in a seperate file..... 7 generations.. with lots of hiccups and a couple of none certificated   'got to be's'  .. Did the same with both lines .
Now am doing siblings of direct lines...

so I have a tree full of 'married ins' and outs and next of kins and siblings -  Yes it can make it more complicated especially as now my brain is slower  -  The only people I havent followed the line of is if there was more than one marriage and that didnt produce my blood line....

xin


 
xin

[larkspur]

Of course, your grandfathers wife is also your grandmother so she is direct blood line. So if you follow just the male line you will miss out totally on your maternal lines, which is half of your tree. At some stage every spouse "married in" to another tree.
I just go with the flow... and have found lots of connections that I would have missed otherwise.

[clayton bradley]

I discovered a sixth cousin. Our common ancestor was born in 1693, but this cousin is the one I have worked with most. He is always helpful and has ways of looking at a problem that I haven't always seen. clayton bradley

[smudwhisk]

When possible I do follow ancestor's siblings and their descendants forward.  It can sometimes be the only way to confirm who an ancestor actually is.

However, I get a bit frustrated with ancestry trees where they following the "married-ins" backwards looking at their ancestors and siblings.  OK if it's your direct ancestor who "married-in" then there is a genuine reason for doing this, but as sibling's wives are not direct ancestors I don't see why there is any need to research them. 

[mofid42]

Well I am definitely one of those that will annoy you then smudwhisk

I have done a tree for a 'friend' of one of my ancestors, although I have put him on a tree of his own.

His name kept cropping up during my research into my ancestor so I decided to find out more about him and I am glad I did as it lead me to understanding the situation better because he was either related to, or had business dealings with other names that had appeared during the research of my ancestor.

Both my ancestor and his friend had connections to the theatre and it was clear that it was very much a 'little world of its own' with families intermarrying or working with or for each other.

I have also researched a man who was named as co-respondant in a divorce case. This lead me to a wonderful story of adventure that involved my ancestor which I would probably never have found if I hadn't researched the other man!