Reaching conclusions

[Peggy]

Not a beginner, but I have a lot to learn! I'd appreciate the thoughts of some of the experienced genealogists here on the issue of reaching conclusions when absolute proof can't be found. Where records are scarce, when do you have enough evidence to add someone (always subject to new evidence) to the family tree?

One example (making this as brief as I can): Henry pops up out of nowhere in 1724 in a small NY town, getting married. The Dutch church record, after mangling his English surname, says that he was born in "Nieuw Kessel." He named his first son Adam. There was only one New Castle at the right time, in PA, and Adam of New Castle (bpt. 1666 in England, arrived PA 1682, d. 1748) mentions a son Henry in his will. From his place in the list of children in the will, he was born around 1700. No other record of this Henry can be found in New Castle. No other Henry who fits has been found. Does Adam get added to the tree?

Peggy

[Genevieve]

Sorry Peggy, not an answer but an expression of interest in the answer(s).

I'm not as far back as you are but I have 'dotted lines' on some parts of my tree. I'm using my own judgement on when I either make those lines firm or erase them. So far, most educated guesses have graduated to firm lines but some have had to be severed or rearranged.

With some, particularly where names are common, I am not sure whether I am going to prove (to my satisfaction) or disprove the connection. I am very interested in how others make that call.

Gen

[Peggy]

Hi Gen,

I'm relieved to know that my question makes sense, at least to you. :) I wasn't sure quite how to pose it. I'm wrestling with the problem on various lines. In my database (FTM) there are no dotted lines; I either link the person or leave him/her as unrelated. So far I don't think I've had to unlink anyone, but that's because I've been afraid to link anyone without cast iron proof. I've wondered if there is a genealogical standard like "preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something.

Thanks,

Peggy

[Guy Etchells]

Virtually all genealogy is compiled on preponderance of proof there are no cast iron certainties not even in modern times.

This may sound harsh but in reality we all accept that our parents are who they say they are, sometimes just prior to the death (or after the death) of a parent this belief is shattered.

As we progress further into the mists of time we rely on the correct facts being written in records that in most cases are actually transcripts rather than original records (yes even parish registers are transcripts of notebooks).

Inevitably family history research therefore depends on weighing evidence and deciding whether we feel that a case has been made or not.

As the tree stretches further back in time the evidence gets scare and tentative decisions have to be made on less and less evidence until only theories survive.
I believe it is important to note such theories but not to add them into a tree.
It is up to each individual how much or how little proof they are satisfied with.
Cheers
Guy

[Peggy]

Poor choice of words on my part, Guy. For "cast iron proof" please read "documentary evidence."

Still hoping to learn how others go about making the call when such evidence is scarce.

Best,

Peggy

[Mandie]

I don't envy your position. It sounds as though there could be a connection, but maybe not enough at the moment to make him a fully fledged member of your family tree. Is there anyway you can flag him as a maybe in your particular family tree software?

What I do is have another basic version of my family tree which just has scant details and all the 'maybes' go in there. Then they can be merged into the proper tree at a later date.

Also, someone might read this post and give you an idea of how to locate some more evidence to make Adam one of yours. :) Well, you never know!!

[ChristineR]

As Guy says, it's really how much proof you are satisfied with.

When I add a person in that is in doubt I always add (possible) in brackets after the surname boundaries - this is so I know that I haven't followed the relationship up with proof, but the person is still in place so I don't forget about them.

Christine

[ChristineR]

I do have a John Henry Simpkins in much the same boat - his parents are recorded as Mr and Mrs Simpkins on his 1881 marriage registration (we normally get both parents and mum's maiden name after July 1853), his parents are not known at his death. I do have a birth certificate for the place and year that his age and birthplace as recorded on all certifcates indicates. I can see no other John Henry for this time being born.

There is no naming pattern used in John's family to link them to these parents, but on research back another generation there was no naming pattern obvious within that family either. It was this that helped me decide to 'keep' them. But it bothers me, I want to find his mother or a sibling living with them. I so envy you with the censuses.

Christine

[Rod Neep]

One example (making this as brief as I can): Henry pops up out of nowhere in 1724 in a small NY town, getting married. The Dutch church record, after mangling his English surname, says that he was born in "Nieuw Kessel." He named his first son Adam. There was only one New Castle at the right time, in PA, and Adam of New Castle (bpt. 1666 in England, arrived PA 1682, d. 1748) mentions a son Henry in his will. From his place in the list of children in the will, he was born around 1700. No other record of this Henry can be found in New Castle. No other Henry who fits has been found. Does Adam get added to the tree?

PeggyPeggy. As it stands Adam is a distinct "possible". But can you see how you are thinking in a linear fashion?

Adam

had a son Henry

Now think laterally as well.....

Adam had several children, one of whom was Henry. (You have the names of those other children from Adam's will).

Now try to prove that those other children of Adam are related to your Henry. Trace them! For example, look at their wills. Do they name their brothers and sisters? Or better still NEPHEWS! Look at their marriages. Look at their children and their naming patterns. Do any of them turn up in the same place as your Henry?

If you think about it, one Henry can be hard to relate to a family group. But one family group can provide lots of information to prove or disprove that it is your family group.

Regards
Rod

[Peggy]

Hi Mandie,

My software lets me enter "unrelated" people. Some of them eventually get linked when I decide that I have enough evidence. Henry & Adam (still unrelated) were just used as an example.

[someone might read this post and give you an idea of how to locate some more evidence to make Adam one of yours. Well, you never know!!]

Stranger things have already happened here! :) But I'm just looking for some input on how others go about deciding how much evidence is enough.

Peggy

[Peggy]

Christine wrote [it's really how much proof you are satisfied with.]

Well . . . I'm asking how much proof y'all think I should be satisfied with. :) Or how much proof satisfies you. And not in this particular case, but in general.

Btw, our first "all-names" census was 1850. We don't have that much advantage there. And our 1890 was destroyed in a fire. :(

Linear/Lateral:

I agree with your point, Rod. I was keeping my example brief, but I look at siblings, aunts & uncles, nephews & nieces, and the various in-laws for clues. I've gotten through a few brick walls that way. Hasn't worked with H & A yet, but I still have hopes. I used H & A as my example partly because a number of Henry's other descendants do claim Adam as an ancestor.

Peggy

[Mandie]

Christine wrote [it's really how much proof you are satisfied with.]

Well . . . I'm asking how much proof y'all think I should be satisfied with. :) Or how much proof satisfies you. And not in this particular case, but in general.

Peggy

Hi Peggy,

I think you've asked the question no-one really knows the answer to! It's sometimes down to gut instinct - which isn't very methodical or the way you're supposed to do things. :D

A 'Henry' is mentioned in the will (which you'd likely class as primary source - if its the original or a photocopy), therefore I'd say put him in the family tree. I always go on primary sources first and then search around for other evidence. If the will is a transcription or a bit dodgy (can't think of the word I wanted) then it's not a primary source (only secondary/questionable/unreliable) and I wouldn't put him in.

Mandie

[ChristineR]

Proof - I like lots of it - I like to have two primary documents at a minimum. I usually buy the ancestors birth certificate, the last known sibling and sometimes the firstborn sibling - one gets the feel of the family. The firstborn will often have the mother's mother in attendance, or the birth will take place at her home - all helps establish the links between families.

But everyone has different standards - I know some people will be happy to add people to their tree - just because they have the right names and ages, and will not give it a second thought |banghead|

So it's back to what you can live with. It's your family tree. You obviously dont think you have enough evidence or you probably wouldn't have posted the question in the first place.

Christine
Australia

[Guy Etchells]

Well . . . I'm asking how much proof y'all think I should be satisfied with. :) Or how much proof satisfies you. And not in this particular case, but in general.

Peggy

In my case the standard of proof varies with the availability of records, but I never accept anything as conclusive no matter how many sources agree.

Example.
My mother-in-law grew up believing one person (a) was her father, after nearly 55 year her mother informed her that the man she though was her father was in actual fact her uncle.

Every record would provide proof that (a) was the father when in truth this was not the case, therefore it makes no difference how much or how little proof there is it is the quality of proof that is important.

In general the more proof gathered the more certain the fact but we must never forget we are dealing with people and therefore official records may not be accurate.

When compiling a pedigree we must balance the probabilities and then make the decision whether to accept the result or not. It may be that all the evidence point to one conclusion but some hunch stops you from accepting the conclusion.
Keep an open mind and decide each event on its own merits, sometimes this will mean accepting the event with little or no additional proof other times it will mean rejecting an event due to one piece of top quality evidence which contradicts all the other evidence available.
Cheers
Guy

[Rod Neep]

Every record would provide proof that (a) was the father when in truth this was not the case, therefore it makes no difference how much or how little proof there is it is the quality of proof that is important.

In general the more proof gathered the more certain the fact but we must never forget we are dealing with people and therefore official records may not be accurate.

Guy
However Guy, despite the fact that few of us are able to prove the male line, that is a matter of blood - i.e. Genealogy.

Family History is a totally different thing. If a child was brought up by the "father", then it is Family History.

Therefore I am happy (unless it can be proved otherwise, by records of illegitimacy) to follow the "Family history" line.

or... as it was once put to me.... "Any fool can father a child, but it takes much more to be a father".

Regards
Rod

[Guy Etchells]

Quite so but that does not alter the thrust of the matter that in family history there can be no standard level of proof to determine a fact. Each fact must be weighed and the determination made on the particular circumstances.
Cheers
Guy

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

or... as it was once put to me.... "Any fool can father a child, but it takes much more to be a father".
Regards
Rod
Yes, I agree 100% with that comment, as I am speaking from personal experience. When my first husband left me, this meant that he also left our six year old daughter.

I was lucky enough to meet my second husband who brought up Debra (then aged 7) as his own, doing all the usual Father things of mending punctures, helping with homework and later on, driving her to her friends' houses etc.

Although my ex saw Debra on the usual Sundays of every week, I know who Debra's 'real' Father is and so does she! Gerry has his own special place in her heart, as he never tried to oust my ex in any way ...... and she insisted on her Wedding Day that both Fathers' gave her away, much to our delight!

Our Grandaughter knows that she has three sets of Grandparents, as yet she can't really work out who's who, but in time .......

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

P.S. Forgot to mention re the Family History, that when she was 11 years old, Debra asked if she could have the same surname as the two of us, as she felt a little 'left out', (though why she wanted to change from Shaw to one like ours, I don't know!)

After consent was given by my ex, this was done by Deed Poll as a freebie by my Solicitor boss. On my FTM programme, Debra is entered twice under both her surnames, with both my husbands appearing as her Father.

On this one point, I don't really care if doing this is incorrect, as it's what I wanted to do.

[Rod Neep]

Diane

Don't let anyone ever tell you that what you have done is not correct!

Bless you!

Rod