genealogy websites uk

[coombs]

MyHeritage or Find My Past are good sites for other people's trees but still err on caution about accuracy of the trees. Some people are name collectors but most are genuine researchers and may have been lead up the garden path by a huge coincidence in names and ages (or half coincidence if the two people were first or 2nd cousins). Or you may occasionally find (usually through ancestry DNA testing) that the supposed ancestor was not a blood ancestor, ie a straying wife or informal adoption.

Yes there is always the small chance that the man named as father on the birth/baptism was not actually the correct one, but expert estimates still have that as quite low, about 2 to 3%. In 1861 the population of the UK was about 20 million, so I guess about 300'000 or so were the result of not paternity expected or informal adoption.

[Guy Etchells]

"only following the male members"

Weird,  If you're only going to follow one sex, doesn't it make more sense to follow the females since you can be almost sure that the parent/offspring relationship is correct.  Fathers can be iffy.

Following the male line is the normal or historical route of genealogy, few lineages followed the female line unless the male line had died out.
I suggest you are looking at it from a 21st century point of view.
Cheers
Guy

[Erato]

"Following the male line is the normal or historical route of genealogy"

Normal?  It's only the "normal" point of view because it's the male point of view.  And men have long considered themselves to be normal humans and women to be a lesser and somewhat aberrant form whose point of view was irrelevant.

[rogerb]

To be fair, I think I was first drawn to genealogy to trace back my surname - which is obviously along the male line.  Maybe others were the same.  But it soon becomes clear that the male lines are more susceptible to, err, fake news back in the day!

[Guy Etchells]

"Following the male line is the normal or historical route of genealogy"

Normal?  It's only the "normal" point of view because it's the male point of view.  And men have long considered themselves to be normal humans and women to be a lesser and somewhat aberrant form whose point of view was irrelevant.

It is normal because family trees were normally researched for heraldic reasons and very few women have a Blazon in their own right, though many use their father's Blazon.
We cannot change history but we can prevent ourselves from holding a grudge against half of society.
The ruler of this country is a female who is held in high esteem by most right thinking people, not only in this country but in many other countries of the world.
Cheers
Guy

[KGarrad]

I first got into genealogy because both of my grandfathers died before I was born.
Initially I chased the surnames, Garrad & Sims.

I very quickly moved onto other lines: Crocker, Weech, Pearse, Goold, Vanstone, Cousins, Baker, Steele & Whitmore on dad's side; Bridger, Fowler and Baldwin on mum's side.

Makes for a much more complete tree

[Erato]

"very few women have a Blazon in their own right"

Gosh, I wonder why that was?  Maybe it had something to do with the matter of who had 'rights' and who didn't.

[tezzer]

hi guys looks like i opened a can of worms stating that i follow the name (male) side of the family. i have nothing against the female side and agree it does sound a bit sexist in this day and age ....as i did say I've been tracing only the name for a reason ...it was the task set for me by my uncle who travelled to Ireland to trace our Joyce family line and found so many Joyce families he got completely confused. My uncle and father where two of 5 brothers whos father, my granddad had informed them that he could remember leaving Ireland as a very young lad. With my research i had the very unenviable task of informing them that he had led them on. i have traced the family back living in London to 1822. Using only 100% connections all traced and proven by me. I suspect i can go back at least 2 more generations but i can not prove 100% the link so until i do i stop in 1822.
the reason i am interested in other peoples trees is because with a limited amount of people to trace i have been lucky enough to be able to collect a lot of information about the members of my tree. that includes contacting other researchers and exchanging information as well as pictures i have now built up quite a collection of photos of individuals in my family but there are two branches in particular that i have been unable to find any body researching them ...so i need to broaden my search to other sites to try and find other researchers. i do agree with what most of you have said about not taking other peoples information with out thoroughly proving its right first.
                                                                                   tezz   

[Maiden Stone]

....as i did say I've been tracing only the name for a reason ...it was the task set for me by my uncle who travelled to Ireland to trace our Joyce family line and found so many Joyce families he got completely confused. My uncle and father where two of 5 brothers whos father, my granddad had informed them that he could remember leaving Ireland as a very young lad. With my research i had the very unenviable task of informing them that he had led them on.

Did he also claim kinship with the famous James ? 
I remember seeing Irish people in England in 19thC. putting Joyce country as place of birth on census.