Genealogy Chat

Peter I'm not frowning, I do exactly the same thing! However, they don't go on my official tree unless they are proven - like yours, they go in my database and are offered out with the advice that they need to be confirmed (although I have almost always confirmed from PRs - I am talking pre 1800s, mostly). I have about 1400 people in my tree, all have a blood relationship with me. But I have about 7,000 people in my database, who are connected in some way to my tree, even if it is only by a second, sterile marriage. These second, late marriages are mostly to the ugly leftovers, as I call them rudely - a loose relation of the dead wife, usually a spinster and usually well into her forties, brought in for housekeeping duties, no doubt. It rounds off the story and ties up loose ends. OC

Or 21,000 miles depending where you live. But so much fun, OC. Ozi.

One of the interesting things about collecting information about all the individuals who just might be connected to your tree is that it can lead you to find distant relations. You learn a lot of background history too. For example I have an interest in the name Storey. But my Storeys are in Somerset and they are very out of place there. I don't know when the first ones arrived but I'm fairly sure that virtually all the ones on the earlier censuses in Somerset are related. I thought I'd got some outsiders in my area when I found two men born in Wales and one in Ireland........then discovered they were all brothers and their father was a mariner. I made a separate offline tree for all the people on their tree simply because I kept coming across them and wanted to eliminate them from my line. Then a Canadian contact appeared and they were her Storeys. After about 5 years of digging I finally realised our two branches do meet up back in the late 1600s. That particular group of relations must be very distantly related to me and I haven't bothered to work out how many times cousin my Canadian friend is but tracing her tree as well as mine in the Records Office was interesting. Her people became seamen while some of mine were river and canal boatmen. If you get stuck or bored I recommend doing as much background reading as you can about the places your ancestors were and what was going on in the world around them. It makes a lot of sense of the bare details. Sue

Oh, I go so far sideways I sometimes meet myself coming back round the other side! No, I am not a name collector. But I have discovered that one line comes from a small village and intermarried in that village for 400 years. Whoever I follow in that village eventually meets up with my line. (So far). And often brothers married sisters, or dead uncle's wives, so it is always worth pursuing them all. This makes up for the line which refuses to budge back past 1824! But it's your tree, there is no right and no wrong. The only 'wrong' in my opinion, is not checking that you have the right person. I personally don't find distance research much of a problem - the LDS have filmed most of the parishes which interest me, and Wills and other documents can be sent for - a lot cheaper than me doing a 1000 mile round trip to the Archives. OC

No rules at all - do what you want to do. Obviously for most people, their main ancestry lines are their main priority, but if you want to research one of the branches feel free to do so. Personally, I like to explore any branch that is connected to mine, albeit by marriage only. Sometimes I am only interested in one generation, other times I will go farther afield. I have a handful of names where I have my own unofficial 'One Name Studies' and will happily research any lead that comes along, and share what I have with anyone who has a genuine interest. Just to give you one example, I have an interest in the Goacher family from Leicestershire, in the area around Ashby de la Zouch, Coalville and surrounding villages. As far as we can ascertain, every single Goacher in that area is related, as they are all descended from one Edward Goacher who move to the area from Shropshire around 1740. So far I have over 300 Goachers, all connected, in my database, which grows to over 800 when you add in all their descendants Now, how valid is all this? I don't know, but I only add details when there is evidence to substantiate this from the Census and GRO records, as a minimum. Apart from my own direct interests, I don't have birth marriage or death certs, but I do record all GRO refs for future reference. If anyone contacts me, and can prove they have a genuine connection, they get their bit sent to them, or, if they are proved to be related to me might get to see my tree on GR. I know OC may frown, but for me this is how I enjoy our hobby.

I have to agree with a point that Sue has made. Whilst bored stiff at work today, I found a tree on Tribal Pages that had one of my ancestors on it. Whilst my tree on that line has stopped at c1790, she has the same line going back to the 1550's. She did admit in the notes that she wasn't 100% certain she had the right person at one point (the point I am stuck at). Whilst I have copied all the info down, I am not going to add it to my tree until I have checked the parish records etc and satisfied myself that it is the right family. At least it gives me something to go on. That said, I do track all the children etc of siblings of my direct lines. After all, they were all aunts/uncles/cousins of my direct ancestors and it gives me something to do when I have come to a bit of a stop on my direct lines! Sam x

It's your tree and you can do what you like! I was particularly interested in my direct ancestors and found doing a fan chart for them enabled me to see where the gaps were more easily. I was happy to find a couple of lines got me back to the earliest parish records. While trying to find some of them in my local Records Office I sometimes went sideways and was intrigued by a couple of surnames which I knew were unusual and all the people were probably related. That's led me to do an unofficial one name study for one surname and run an online group for them. I've found some really interesting characters who I think are probably only distant relations but worth looking at. On one side of my family I thought I'd gone as far as I was likely to unless I could spare weeks of time to go to Lincolnshire in person......then a real surprise appeared when my agricultural labourer grandfather turned out to have a grandmother who was directly descended from Earls of Lincoln. That meant I was handed an enormous amount of information ready researched because that family intermarried with many royal descendants. The limit on that one goes back with reasonable certainty many hundreds of years and dozens of generations. The only thing to be careful about is that you do your research with as much care as you can and only add people on trees you share that you are confident about and have good sources for. Most of us will have scrappy notes somewhere with our latest theories but there are some online trees which are full of errors and wild imaginings. Don't assume that because lots of people online have exactly the same information that it is necessarily so. They could all have got it from the same wrong person. Don't help yourself to chunks of other people's trees without asking and avoid adding living people to trees. It's too easy for information about living people to be passed on and you shouldn't do that without their permission every time. Have fun Sue

As said before, going off on tangents can really help connections. Following the brother of my great-grandfather found him living with a cousin which then connected the whole family. Until then I only THOUGHT they might be related. Ozi.

Interesting thread. I look for as many of them as I can - all branches - but made a promise to myself that if I cannot easily go back beyond that 1800-1840 ish period I won't pursue those ones until I have more time - after retirement? So, at the moment, I'm taking all lines back to 1840 or a bit earlier. Then I will write up bits of the 'narrative' - because I get distracted into the social history side and like to work out what it was like where they were at the time(s) they were there. And some of mine have a bit of interest/scandal etc. When they're all back to 1840ish, and the narrative is 'tidy' I will probably be retired - or working shorter hours - and going back further might be a bit easier. All those holidays in strange parts of the country to look forward to!! Jill

Hi Make your own rules as you go along. I started off searching for direct ancestors, (some of them are in the 1600s),then looked for children etc., with a lot of help from the people on here and even more searching myself. I have not gone back from any non blood relatives, just included them as a spouse and come forward with the children from there. Still have so much to do on the direct lines, but every now and again I swerve to the side and might look for marriages, baptisms etc of siblings and children. Find occupations from censuses, where they lived in certain years. This hobby is absolutely never ending, but fascinating and will still be here unfinished when we have joined our ancestors in that great family tree in the sky. Good luck to everyone with their research. Marilyn

There definitly no rules, and while there are some people who have ideas of the 'proper' way to do things, what it comes down to is your own interest. I regularly start off with a clear objective of researching a specific person but then come across something not related to them at all - or my thought path takes me off on a tanjent and I end up making a break through where previously I'd been stuck! It's your tree, your time, your enjoyment - so do what interests you!

Where do I stop? how long is a piece of string? Just keep going... if you can't go back go sideways for a while... or take a break and investigate someone else's tree. There are around 1000 people on my tree now and I'm nowhere near finished. The brick walls will keep me busy for another few years yet! My husband has over 4000 on his - but he started first! Personally, I'd only consider my tree complete if I'd taken every direct line back to the start of parish records. Somehow, I doubt I'll ever finish, but I'm having fun trying! :o) Lin

As others have said, it is very much a 'do your own thing' hobby. I have seen however a suggestion that you should aim to get up to your 16 ancestors, ie 2 parents leads to 4 grandparents leads to 8 great grandparents leads to 16 great great grandparents. You should investigate all those lines before wandering off into in-laws, cousins etc. But easier said than done when the others look so interesting. Good luck Keith

There are no rules! You can search as much or as little as you like. At first you will probably concentrate on your direct line. However, if you have a tree like mine you will probably find a cousin or an aunt or uncle mentioned in a census return, and then your curiosity will probably get the better of you! My tree has snowballed, but I have investigated every member myself. Just do what you want - some branches will be in more detail, others might not have much detail at all. Enjoy!

Personally I wont stop until all trails lead to a dead end. I tried to stick to blood relaitves at first but sometimes adding that extra person to your tree can result in a match. So have extended most branches

Hi, I have only just started my family tree and already have over 300 members, I wondered if there was a rule on how many people to add or where to stop. Should I only follow certain lines? Any advice would be gratefully received. Well thanks a lot everyone, this has been helpful, thought I might have been the only one getting a bit carried away. It's just so interesting you get caught up in it too easily. Cheers