How do I tell them?

[LizzieL]

A few days ago, I noticed that someone with my rather uncommon maiden name had been viewing my Ancestry tree. I was curious to see if we were related, so I messaged them. She said that she had been researching for several years and had got back to the same ancestors I had in Oxfordshire. She opened up her tree so I could have a look. Her tree correctly has ancestors based in and around London back to births in the 1760s.
I have traced this line previously because of the unusual surname but found no connection to my Oxfordshire family. But she has a link via a man who as far as I can find had no children. He left a detailed will naming nephews, nieces, some of his wife's relatives and charities. Then to link him to my tree she has this childless man who was actually born at the other end of the country as the son of one of my direct ancestor's brothers (who was baptised 1680) marrying in 1769 - age 89!, and on the way was getting re-baptised in Cambridgeshire in 1722. She has collected all records she can for a man with the same name from wherever in England and attached them to one man.
How do I tell someone that their tree is so badly wrong. We may turn out to be related but certainly not through the link she has.

[scotmum]

 
I find the 'direct, albeit as understanding/empathatic as might seem appropriate' approach works for me, alongside offering to help them untangle the inevitable mess. Even if the other person chooses to ignore (and obviously they are free to do so), I at least know I have tried. I would also add relevant details to the 'comments' section of the respective entries on their tree (particularly if they choose not to correct details).

Your post might serve to remind folks of the need to 'switch off' this function if they would rather members did not know they were viewing their tree:

[markw78]

LizzieL
I had a similar experience with distant ancestors of my wife who had incorrectly linked 3rd grt grandparents to the wrong birth record. I advised them that this was wrong as he had written his autobiography where he had written where he was born.. and I had his wife's DC which detailed her parents..   Needless to say they did not take it well and broke off all contact.. so obviously annoyed with either me for telling them or themselves for poor research...
Rgds Markw

[Biggles50]

On my Wife’s tree a direct ancestor was born 10 miles away from their siblings and has the correct parents listed in the records.

Now other trees had this person born in the next County and this person’s ancestry goes back to royalty. 

When this error was pointed out, zilch, nothing.

Many other trees have errors.

My attitude now is “why bother”, very rarely does one get a response.

I would just pose the question, “why did the person make allowances in their will only for nieces and nephews”.  Then leave them to it.

[Steve3180]

I think it is best to avoid, if possible, telling them they are wrong and limit your reply to why you believe what you do. It may be possible to steer them in a better direction after further communications but it can be very delicate. People can be very possesive of their ancestors.
I have had a few of these kinds of conversations over the years and they rarely turn out well. The worst being a gentleman who insisted I change my tree to match his. When I pointed out that the daughter of a Glasgow University professor was unlikely to marry an East Lothian coal miner things got rather heated.
For a while after that I was in the "why bother" camp, but now I think it's worth persevering, delicately, because now and again they are right and on further inpection I am wrong, which is great as far as I'm concerned.

[coombs]

Or if I make a discovery such as a more recent ancestor had a marriage very close to the birth of the first child, should I tell them or let them find out, they may already know. Also nothing unusual about bridal pregnancies. My dad and aunty said "that was not allowed" when I found out that thier gran was pregnant at marriage.

I have a distant cousin born 8 Jan 1930, parents wed in September 1929. The odds are in favour of the man being the father but not totally guaranteed. One lived in Norwich and the other lived in a village a few miles north at the time of wedding. But they likely met through work, neighbours or so.

[LizzieL]

My dad and aunty said "that was not allowed" when I found out that thier gran was pregnant at marriage.

Even today, people refuse to believe that their ancestors were pregnant before marriage or had illegitimate children. A DNA match of OH's has a tree where his 3 or 4 x great grandmother (OH's 2 x g-g-mother) is shown as a widow, previously married to a well to do gentleman with a coat of arms shown. He refused to believe that the common ancestress was a spinster when she married OH's 2 x g-g-father, despite it being clearly written on the marriage record and the two children born pre-marriage have no father's name on their birth records.
And a DNA  match of mine has a tree which left out the death date of his maternal grandfather (1917). When I contacted him with details from CWGC of his grandfather's death, he already knew the information, I guess he was deliberately not adding the death because his mother was born in 1920. I think my match with him is through that unknown father, but he doesn't seem to want to know.

[coombs]

My dad and aunty said "that was not allowed" when I found out that thier gran was pregnant at marriage.

Even today, people refuse to believe that their ancestors were pregnant before marriage or had illegitimate children. A DNA match of OH's has a tree where his 3 or 4 x great grandmother (OH's 2 x g-g-mother) is shown as a widow, previously married to a well to do gentleman with a coat of arms shown. He refused to believe that the common ancestress was a spinster when she married OH's 2 x g-g-father, despite it being clearly written on the marriage record and the two children born pre-marriage have no father's name on their birth records.
And a DNA  match of mine has a tree which left out the death date of his maternal grandfather (1917). When I contacted him with details from CWGC of his grandfather's death, he already knew the information, I guess he was deliberately not adding the death because his mother was born in 1920. I think my match with him is through that unknown father, but he doesn't seem to want to know.

I guess some know the obvious truth but refuse to say that on their trees on Ancestry.

[Wexflyer]

Actually, some folks fully recognize that what is on their tree is incorrect or impossible. It can be a deliberate policy to simply collect any possible relevant material on one person. For convenience.