Conflicting Sources - What to trust?

[GreyAus]

I am researching the Russell (Russil) family of Rowley Regis, Staffs, UK. The first Russell in my tree is an Amphillis Russell (abt 1704- abt 1778). As it is such an unusual name, I did a search for her name in various searches and came across an article on a Morgan family website about her family showing her marriage to my ancestor, Joseph Willets - so we are talking about the same person. The article had a list of sources which included wills of the family and The Gentleman’s Magazine Vol 54 1784
Article link; https://www.morganfourman.com/articles/benjamin-willetts/

I found the The Gentleman’s Magazine Vol 54 1784 online - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015013465888&view=1up&seq=441&skin=2021&q1=russell

On page 889 is a tree showing the ancestors of Amphillis Russell drawn up by John Harrison, Norroy King of Arms in 1784. At this time, Amphillis was either near the end of her life or had recently passed away so it seems as if the information would be likely to be correct.

I entered the family tree into my Ancestry tree, expecting to find documentary evidence of this tree, but instead Amphillis is listed as having different parents on a baptism at the correct time and there are very few hints (and those that are there do not support this tree)  or mainly not coming up at all in hints or searches.

So my question is, did the person who drew this tree up just make it up??? Or are there many documents missing on Ancestry??? Of course there are many trees on Ancestry which are all identical and which take Amphillis's ancestry back through a completely different route but I am wary just to accept that.

Many thanks!

[Ruskie]

I’d say that just because it is published - and that includes old and on paper, as well as online - doesn't mean either is correct.

I think it is advised that you do your own research, dig out the original records (baptisms, marriages, deaths, wills etc etc) where they survive, and draw up your own tree.

Old contemporary family trees can still be incorrect and even embellished to make people appear more grand than they were.

[Liza115]

Yes, I agree with Ruskie, you need to check for yourself, looking at original records wherever possible.
Being on an Ancestry tree doesn't make it true, although lots of people will assume it is, and copy it, making it look more credible than it is.
Ancestry does have access to many documents, but there are lots more that aren't on Ancestry.
Also, while Amphillis is an unusual name, it's not uncommon for unusual names to be repeated within families, so it's possible that she had a cousin of similar age with the same name.
Good luck!
 

[GreyAus]

Thanks Ruskie and Liza,

Yes the 1778 tree includes one person of note (Edward Russell -Justice of the Peace in Surrey) but Amphillis is not descended from him. It is possible the tree was drawn up to enhance the family reputation. As far as I know they were pretty standard working class people of the time with the odd shop keeper amongst them who might have had aspirations of grandeur!

Liza, yes very possible that there is a cousin of the same name as Amphillis named her daughter Amphillis and there is a grand daughter Amphillis too.

I think I will start again from scratch, as you say find as many other original sources as I can. What a disappointment! 
 

[Liza115]

It's disappointing isn't it? When you find something that looks like the answer to all your questions, it's natural to hope it is correct. It's probably a good thing to find conflicting trees, since you might not have questioned their validity if you'd just found one of them.
 

[GreyAus]

It's disappointing isn't it? When you find something that looks like the answer to all your questions, it's natural to hope it is correct. It's probably a good thing to find conflicting trees, since you might not have questioned their validity if you'd just found one of them.
 

Yes, so disappointing, but it has only been in my tree for a day so no long lasting problems. 

[jomcd967]

It may be a very old family name… an Amphyllis Russell married a Wyllm. Summer, 6 Nov 1583, Edlesborough, Buckinghamshire…..

[GreyAus]

It may be a very old family name… an Amphyllis Russell married a Wyllm. Summer, 6 Nov 1583, Edlesborough, Buckinghamshire…..

Thanks, that is interesting. I have a feeling you may be right that it is a name that is passed down the Russell family. Where did you find that marriage?

Looking at the tree and what is on Ancestry, I think the tree I found is related to my Russell line and they have attributed similarly named relatives from Rowley Regis when they couldn't find the correct ones!

Thanks again!

[Jebber]

NEVER take information from an online tree without confirming the facts with your own research, using original records where possible.

I have lost count of the number of trees that show the stupidity of some people happy to copy trees regardless. Countless  trees show my grandmother’s brother born  in 1876 who apparently married someone born in 1469 along with all their descendants.

Either these plagiarists have no understanding of  dates, or they believe in time travel.