Unless someone knows different

[7igerby7he7ail]

I have a ’tight’ tree with direct bloodlines only
Tree number 2 is including my wife’s tree
Tree number 3 is the tree my son-in-law brought to the marriage.
Tree number 4 is ALL the marriage links [siblings, cousins, links to links etc.]
The first 2 add up to 435
Tree number 3 adds it up to 658
And the final one adds it up to over 3000.
I have seen some amazing claims on various trees with figures in 5 digits., and people with a ‘direct line’ to Adam and Eve!. [7 billion + cousins? LOL]

[Erato]

I can't believe how often this subject comes up and how it is always met with expressions of smug superiority.  People are different.  Some have interests that are different from yours and, for that matter, different from mine.  There are people who like forests and people who like trees.  So what?

[sami]

…... plus photographs that 4th cousins had that I hadn't of my direct ancestors - how crazy is that.

Changing the topic a bit.

That remark about the photographs reminded me that some of the best photos of my direct ancestors have come from cousins simply because when my direct ancestors were sending photos 'back home' they always sent the best ones. My parents didn't take that many photos - perhaps a roll or two a year - and the nicest went into the Christmas letters. Most of the ones I inherited tended to be a bit out of focus or odd for one reason or another.

[joboy]

I guess that I fit into the definition of being 'smug' ..... I cant help the fact that I well may and I do not excuse myself.
I do try very hard to 'maintain the objective' and in so doing I keep an enormous amount of detail pertaining to both 'trees and forests' in the sincere hope that in those forests I shall find the links to my particular tree.
Joe

[JDGen]

I've seen many of these threads while I've been on Rootschat.  Maybe it is time to 'fess up!

I have been researching my tree for over 25 years and have over 8500 people - that is not deliberate, it is just where my research has taken me.

I research my direct line and siblings plus descendants. I would consider them to be blood relatives no matter how distant - I do also research step lines because they are closely connected and tell part of the life of my ancestors. I have benefitted hugely from taking this approach - if I hadn't I would have missed out on:

1.  A photograph of my 4xggrandmother who died in 1861
2.  A grammar book belonging to my 4xggrandfather with his copperplate handwriting
3.  The date and time of birth of my 3xggrandfather - neatly written by 4xggran in the back of the above grammar book
4.  Strong friendship with distant cousins one of whom has spent Xmas day with us for the last 3 years.
5.  A family get together where there is a wonderful group photograph of the eldest (96 years) holding the youngest (6 weeks)

These are just my top 5 - if I'm a name collector I'm happy to be one!! - so don't judge people.  I've had my tree "annexed" and seen other incorrect information linking to my tree - but I know that I've researched the information as well as I could at the time.  And if it's wrong, tell me!

Jean

[AngelaR]

Thank you VERY much for your post, Jean 

Like you, if I hadn't gone sideways/steps/siblings families etc, I would have missed out on much of the great information I now have.

I doubt if my 5500+ tree will grow very quickly from here, but I'm expecting to be able to flesh it out a bit more.

On the other hand - if I find another direct ancestor further back, I shall try to trace all his/her descendents so the tree will take another jump in size. It's absolutely fascinating going back and then forward again to see what happened to everyone.

Angela

[giblet]

Over 55,000 people is just plain silly!

I only come across a tree today that had   ....  176,981 people 
Now that is extreme 

[JDGen]

Thank you VERY much for your post, Jean 

Like you, if I hadn't gone sideways/steps/siblings families etc, I would have missed out on much of the great information I now have.

I doubt if my 5500+ tree will grow very quickly from here, but I'm expecting to be able to flesh it out a bit more.

On the other hand - if I find another direct ancestor further back, I shall try to trace all his/her descendents so the tree will take another jump in size. It's absolutely fascinating going back and then forward again to see what happened to everyone.

Angela

Thank you Angela,

And amongst my more famous distant relatives:

Gertie Girtana
John Warburton Beckett MP

But interesting would be the model farm in the 1800's demonstrated by one of my ancestors....it's the flesh on the bones if you can get it.....

[Erato]

I take a similar approach to JDGen though my tree is not as large; not yet, at least.  In time, I may get there.  I do so mostly for the fun of the hunt and because some of the peripheral people are more interesting than the main line.  I don't excluded step-parents, foster parents or adopted children because they are part of the family scene.  It's an 'ecosystem' view.  In fact, I even do mini background searches on unrelated people who come into the story - for example, gg-uncle Frank's law partner or hired hands on the farm.  Who were they?  Where were they from?  They don't attach to the tree, but they go into the notes because they're part of the environment.