Free Online Genealogy Course with FutureLearn (Week 3)

[StevieSteve]

On the week 2 thread there was some discussion about what format was being referred to when the term Family History Sheet was used.

This is what I think of as a Family History Sheet

http://c.mfcreative.com/pdf/trees/charts/famgrec.pdf

(Link obtained through Cyndi's List)

http://www.cyndislist.com/free-stuff/printable-charts-and-forms/

[Greensleeves]

I agree Jan -  you get 'added value'  from these courses by interacting with other students, either by helping them with their research, them helping you, or discussing various issues.    Without that, you might just as well sit and read a book.    Already on this course I have been given some fascinating and helpful links to resources from other students whose areas of interest are similar to mine, and these  have helped immensely with the research of my family in the 16th and 17th centuries.

[Millmoor]

A very sensible approach, Groom. Dare I say that this is a good week for us to pitch into the comments and do what Rootschatters do best and point people in the right direction. I have already made a couple of replies to folk who were a bit unclear about Scottish records.

William

[LizzieL]

On the week 2 thread there was some discussion about what format was being referred to when the term Family History Sheet was used.

This is what I think of as a Family History Sheet

http://c.mfcreative.com/pdf/trees/charts/famgrec.pdf

(Link obtained through Cyndi's List)

http://www.cyndislist.com/free-stuff/printable-charts-and-forms/

Yes I agree, I think some FT software will produce that sort of sheet from tree data, and it does include all the family. It would have been good if it had been clearer and a real example given, the first time it was mentioned.

[Gillg]

I'm finding some of Talitha's references rather sweeping and too general to be helpful.  For example, she remarked that if someone signed their marriage entry with a cross it meant that they were illiterate.  I think we all know that there are other possibilities -  a) wives whose husbands were illiterate would not want to appear "better" than their husbands or b) people in awe of the minister who were told to make their mark with a cross did so, regardless of whether they could write or not. My ancestor signed his marriage entry fully in 1798, but he was an Ag Lab and I'm not sure whether he was literate or whether this was the only thing he could write!

There didn't seem to be enough warning that records are not necessarily correct.  It was down to some of the forum members to point out, for example, that ages in the 1841 census were rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5.

Still soldiering on and hoping for more detail.  It must be difficult to design a course for people from all over the world and give information relevant to everyone.

(Hurrah!  Just topped the 2000 messages mark! )

[jennywren001]

Agree Milly - I couldn't resist making a comment on one person's post who said that an ancestor "changed his name" between the 1901 and 1911 censuses. That "change" was the addition of an 'e' on the end of the surname! 

Ruskie - that is priceless.

It's like somebody couldn't find their grandmother Isobel as she had changed her name to Isabel! Shouldn't laugh when I first started out I couldn't find a Robert Russell because he was listed as Robert Rusale 

[Romilly]

Oh dear... I haven't finished Week 2 yet!!

Romilly.

[SmallTownGirl]

Many more umms and ahhs, and an embarrassing  lack of ability to give a coherent definition of established church. 

On a positive note though, I really like Chris and her cardigan 

STG

[groom]

I agree about the clarity of some of the references to records, and really basic things like the not mentioning the rounding down on the 1841 and the misinformation re making their mark doesn't help an absolute beginner.

Perhaps they are trying to cover too much and over too wide an area. Several shorter courses, or even sections, covering different aspects might have been better eg one on records from the UK, one on records from the US, one on Australasia and one on the rest of the world. That way people could choose what they needed.