Genealogy Chat

What exactly is a One World Tree, and how does it differ from a private member tree?

Ann I was SO suspicious, I didnt even bother checking it, lol. OC

OC Lol!!! you'd have to be suspicious of it then wouldn't you? Ann Glos

Oooh, I wouldn't trust a One World Tree as far as I could throw it! Certainly not without checking every single thing on it. Not since I saw my poor old 3 x GGM, with her 44 children, married to her own son five years before he was born! OC

Having looked at One World Tree I think that it is perfectly correct. It only has the one child, Elizabeth Jane, giving her birth date as 28 Dec 1854 (wich ties in with being aged 6 on the 1861 census). Looking at the 1901 census, there is a Jane Lawrence married to Arthur who was born in Leigh, Dorset in 1855. (In 1881 her husband is down as John which I believe is his middle name). There are two Public Member Trees who do not have Eliza on the list of children - they have obviously thought that Eliza and Elizabeth were one and the same which of course they are not. So what is there is correct but is incomplete - at least it gives you lots of info on a sibling of your ancestor without any expense!!

I think you'll find that there are lots of us on here who have been caught out by One world Tree. I have one that had one of my ancestors married to his daughter-in-law and his grandsion's death recorded as his! All after 1837 and easily checked with certificates! Never trust the One World Tree (but possibly worth hanging on to as a reference) Sue

I've sometimes come across the same (or similar) names within the same family. For example, the first born son was named John after his father, but then died in childhood. The next son to be born gets christened John again. It seems a little odd to me, but maybe that's why you've got similar names. After all, you wouldn't normally call two sisters Eliza and Elizabeth would you?!

My ancestor was christened as Eliza and married as Eliza so I am assuming its not the short form. What confuses me is there is an Eliza and a Jane on the 1861 census, but the rest of the census' just record Eliza, no Jane. and the person who wrote the one world seems to have just merged the two sisters. Well, its taught me a lesson, never trust one world tree! :)

I think one girl is Eliza and the other Elizabeth Jane birth Elizabeth Jane Pollard 1855 Jan-Feb-Mar Sherborne Dorset, Somerset Eliza Pollard 1853 Jan-Feb-Mar Sherborne Dorset, Somerset

One world trees are only as good as the researcher who put it there so of course it can be wrong. Anything that has already being transcribed by anyone how matter how good they are can have errors in . Julie

In my experience, I have found Elizabeth written as Eliza or Eliz on census returns as a short form. If you look closely at the original, you can sometimes see a little 'th' high up on the line. Perhaps then, Eliza and Elizabeth are the same person and Jane is someone else? Sorry I can't shed any more light on it, but these things are open to interpretation and if someone has interpreted it incorrectly, there is not a lot you can do.

My ancestor, William Bailey married Eliza POLLARD born 1852 in Leigh, Dorset. In all the census' where she is living with her husband she is written as Eliza.... I have found who I believe her parents are to be Charles Pollard 1811 Hermitage, Dorset and Emma Read 1824 Leigh Dorset. She is written in some of the census when she is living with her parents. I looked this up on ancestry site and on their one world tree they have Elizabeth Jane Pollard, with those parents and same siblings etc but married to a Mr Lawerence. And no mention of an Eliza in the family. On the 1861 census as well as other children there is a seperate JANE and ELIZA, born a year apart. The name JANE is not used on its own on any other census. Right... I am convinced I am right that my Eliza is Eliza and the Jane on the 1861 census is the person listed as Elizabeth Jane, and someone has put it in wrong, assuming it is one person (and two people have copied it into their trees wrong) I have contacted one of the people who told me she had copied it from one world tree and insisted i am wrong as it can't be one world tree that is wrong. So who is right? and if I am wrong why were they written as two seperate people in 1861... sorry for the writting but I am soooo confused