Am I wrong:?

[BevMatth]

Hi everyone.

I am tracing my tree and have been for the last 6-7 years. I am also looking at my husbands tree and it is looking at this that I have come across my problem.

From the start of my research I have always tried to get as much proof for my findings and note sources as much as possible. I have come across a few trees on a well known website that match part of my own yet when I get to an ancestor called Thomas Kennett abt 1776 Wickhambreux, Kent I have completely different information than them. They have him marrying Mary Ann Fox yet I have failed to find a marriage that I think is correct and the name I have is just Mary (could be Mary Ann I know). The one possibility I can find puts him at 13 and her at about 9! They also have completely different parents from the ones I have. I can only find one baptism in 1776 +/- 2yrs on family search and that has parents as John and Anne Kennett. As there is no source information I am unable to check the information in the other trees. Should I completely disregard the other trees? Unless I can prove something (within reasonable bounds) I dont like moving backwards with something. I have come across this before a couple of times and have always been able to sort out the differences. Help!

Bev

[Ladkyis]

Bev, you are doing it right! Other members will tell you not to trust online trees until you are aware of their research methods and their proof.
It sounds as though your research is methodical and verified at every stage so trust your judgement.

Oh and welcome to Brit-Gen, You are just up the road from me. I am in Newport Gwent.

[nataliew]

yes Ladykis is right! I wrote almost exactly the same post a while ago myself... Several trees had my Daniel Burford of Brentford married to Mary Jessop but as you rightly say, with no source information. I looked everywhere for this myself and contacted tree owners but with no results. I guess they didn't know the source either...
Eventually I found an alternative being a 1818 marriage to Mary Chandler. It wasn't a perfect fit and I contacted the FHS to see if I could find fathers' names (which I couldn't). After marriage, Mary twice gives her birthplace as Beeham, Berkshire and once it's Benham Hill, Bucks! I found a birth in Berkshire but not in Bucks so I tentatively went with it, put it on with an explanation and now if you search other trees for Daniel Burford, you'll find Mary Chandler most often listed as his spouse and not Mary Jessop. Some have started to take the Jessop line right back but I'm waiting to look at the marriage still when I eventually go to the LMA.
You'd be amazed how many people would rather put something on their tree than have a blank...

[MythicalMarian]

You'd be amazed how many people would rather put something on their tree than have a blank...

How right you are, Natalie! My earliest Stokes grandfather has remained exactly where he was (with only his proven death date) since 1985 on my tree. Other 'cousins' have added fathers for him that I disproved back in 1986! I'd rather wait until I have a real father for him (and it may take me the rest of my life) than just shove someone on there whom I know does not belong.

[Megan Roberts]

Unfortunately sometimes things get lost over a period of years. In the days long before computers, my predecessors put together hand written trees, and shared them around. The would have been some assumptions, or suggestions, in the letters that they exchanged. These have been lost, but then the trees have (as is said in modern parlance) gone viral.

I have a tree on line, and where ever there are assumptions, or things not proven I highlight these, but I know that these have sometimes been ignored. Rather than getting all het up about it, I work on the basis that anyone joining in the research, will see that my tree has more sources than anybody else's and so it is a good place to start looking. If not, they are the losers.

[nataliew]

Absolutely Megan! I judge an online tree by how reliable it looks - if it can't give sources for the information I'm after, is it well-sourced for other data etc?
But I'm not anti-online at all! I've had some great breakthroughs recently by finding researchers who are descended from branches that emigrated to Australia, Canada etc and have access to records that I don't.

[tomg]

Well there is already a lot of good advice in the replies so far.

In my experience it's best to treat other peoples research with caution even if there are Sources for the information. IMVHO you need to see the source for yourself.

The initial research on my tree had been conducted by my brother on my fathers side and my cousin on my mothers side. Since they did their research before the advent of on-line research they had to plough though BMD registers. Cross checking was not that easy in those days. In both case they made errors.

In the case of my brother he passed on his research to someone who has put the information on a web page and despite my attempts to contact the owner of the web page to get it corrected I've not received any reply.

My partner was given her Family tree and it had an ancestor with a very rare christian name. Everyone in the family really liked that name and truly believed her to be an ancestor. However, after a relatively short search it became apparent to me that she was not an ancestor.

One of my cousins has also started to research my tree but has the wrong people once you get back to my Great Grand parents. Despite been told and an offer to visit and show him my research his tree is still wrong.

I have found that you get benefit from checking everything for yourself. For example, one my ancestors was missing from the family in the 1881 Census but re appeared in the the 1891 census. I then found her in the 1881 census as a visitor in a household that she had worked for as a servant prior to her marriage. The other interesting thing about that census was that she had her son with her. So I'm pretty happy I have the correct person in this case.

It's not so much how many people say in their tree who your ancestors are but how well you can verify the links with any given ancestor. I have found that in most cases you can find a person in the BMD register Index and in the census returns but it may take some creative thinking to find them due to miss-transcription or alternative was of spelling the name. After all it's no good asking an illiterate person if they spell their name Clark or Clarke is it. So once you get back to the 19th Century that sort of thing can happen a lot.

The other thing I get the impression of is that after spending a deal of time and maybe money on research some people don't like to be told they got it wrong so will refuse to believe or discuss your differing research.


So all in all I believe it really is best to treat other people research in to you tree with caution. Get as much information as you can from different places to reinforce you findings.

[Waitabit]

Some people will just not listen. Maybe they have no faith or liking for what is truly theirs so cling to the romance of.......I have one such & am so deeply disappointed in that person. No amount of contact makes a difference. Perhaps that relationship broke up & the remnants don't care.
So much for that religious experience.

[pottoka]

With public online trees, if one person puts in the wrong information, then loads of others will just copy it and not try to check it, even something as easy to verify as death date in the BMDs.

Then there are those who accept all the "hints" offered by the website so that they end up with a man married three times in different places and having children with Mary, Mary Ann and Maria, but all at the same time!

Beware the public tree

Carry on doing your research carefully, your way, to your satisfaction, and you'll be much happier.

[Peter Goodey]

Online trees are the equivalent of overhearing a bloke in the pub saying something.

A good detective listens to all possible clues but doesn't confuse clues with evidence. Online trees and Great Aunt wotsername's recollections are things to be tested not things to be believed. Test them by following through their citations and repeating the research. Then you may be able to declare them credible.

they had to plough though BMD registers

Throw away lines like that worry me. That's what some of us call 'proper research'.