Errors in Ancestry Trees

[canadianbeth]

I would always advise against entering another person's information into your tree (however competent and experienced the researcher) without first checking it through for yourself. All research (whether genealogical or whatever) will benefit from periodic review, and a good researcher will value feedback and be willing to re-check their research if something might be amiss.

Chris, my 4th cousin, does appear to have done extensive research, especially for his own branch. He has sent for and received copies of birth, marriage and even wills for some of them. I have to hope therefore, that what he has sent me regarding our 4th gg and his descendants is correct. I do have several matches with more than one of them and have received messages from at least two, confirming more information. It helps that our third gg has a very unusual second name, (Onesimus) and it was passed down to my 2nd gg and then to my 2nd great-uncle, who married the sister of my grandmother. (I have no further information about him however)

Whenever I find a source for something, I do now save it to my tree; I admit that when I first began I did not do that; did not realize its importance. With the preponderance of James Joyce's out there, (8 alone in my tree) and others with the same given names, I realize how important it is to get the correct ones, especially when dates and places are very close. Unfortunately - haha - I can find no connection to James Joyce in Ireland. I had wondered initially since my Dad wrote in my book my grandmother was from Dublin, but that has been shown to be incorrect.

 

[peter]

If when checking through someone else’s research, I am unable to work out why (or how) they reached a particular conclusion, then I will ask.

Very few people will be able to answer that question. When there is an answer, it's usually that it came from the handwritten tree of someone from a previous generation, now deceased, who carried out their research in the days before the Internet. Remarkably I've found that despite the circumstances in which they were researching those pioneers usually got it right!

And on the whole, where reasoning for such conclusions is unlikely to be apparent in my own research, I will add an explanatory note.

It's hard to anticipate what questions we're going to be asked - it's not just about why we identified a particular entry as being the 'right' one, but also why we rejected all the other options and how far we went in looking for them.

For example, I don't always search for baptisms as a teenager or as an adult, though these often surface when researching siblings - and whilst this hasn't tripped me up so far, I can think of at least one cousin who traced the wrong line as a result.

Did I search every parish in the county? Almost certainly not, unless the records were online at the time. Did I look over the county boundary? Again, probably not if I found feasible entries in the parish(es) where I expected to find them.

 

[jorghes]

For example, I don't always search for baptisms as a teenager or as an adult, though these often surface when researching siblings - and whilst this hasn't tripped me up so far, I can think of at least one cousin who traced the wrong line as a result.

That reminds me of my 3x great grandfather - who was born in 1815 but baptised in 1849, just before he got married for the third time. The other interesting thing about him was that between marriage two and three, he'd emigrated to Australia. He returned to England to get married a third time, and to be baptised.

(his year of birth is written in the margins of his baptism record in 1849...)

 

[Bob Spiers]

Remarkably I've found that despite the circumstances in which they were researching those pioneers usually got it right!

Did I search every parish in the county? Almost certainly not, unless the records were online at the time. Did I look over the county boundary? Again, probably not if I found feasible entries in the parish(es) where I expected to find them.

I can say Amen to both sentiments.

The best piece of family history information ever received was from a once removed cousin -still living and in her 90's - who (some years back) passed on a handwritten Tree compiled by her and two of her sisters with the help of their mother, and long before the internet. I could hardly fault a thing, and when I did have a small query on (say) a date, she would invariably explain why her record was correct. The second best, (a different source but still on my maternal side) were notes in the fly leaf of a family Bible which I was allowed to copy. The detail was very useful and (at times) alarmingly brutal as to who begat whom, which I will not go into. I only wish the same sort of help had been available on my paternal side. The only exception being a stray remark by my father's brother a few years before he passed away . "Of course you know your great grandmother was Irish" (never mentioned by my own father) - and which later proved invaluable in my research. Otherwise no handwritten Trees, no family Bible, indeed nothing.

My second amen is reserved for the common sense message underlying what Peter says. One should strive for accuracy, but sometimes - indeed many times - one does not need to go on a fishing trip to achieve this. If I set out to find or prove something, and within reasonable bounds, come across what I seek within the right time and place and not too obfuscated by other 'niggles', then that information is used. In my Tribal Pages it is my practice to write a note for future reference, so should I later discover facts which challenge the information - perhaps even communicated to me by other researchers - then it may be time for the fishing trip!

William of Occam (1287-1347) said: 'Entities should not be multiplied without necessity (aka, the simplest solution is most likely the right one-providing results match). See what Wikipedia says about Occam's razor.

 

[Pauline]

When there is an answer, it's usually that it came from the handwritten tree of someone from a previous generation, now deceased, who carried out their research in the days before the Internet.

At least you then know what the source is and can make up your own mind how much credence to give it.

Remarkably I've found that despite the circumstances in which they were researching those pioneers usually got it right!

From my own experience I would tend to agree with that, but I wouldn't want to rely on it being the case. I have seen research carried out by a 19th century 'professional' (ie they charged for their services) and the resulting tree was pure fantasy. Even with more reliable research, some of the details may be incorrect, one of which may be crucial to our direct line.

- it's not just about why we identified a particular entry as being the 'right' one, but also why we rejected all the other options and how far we went in looking for them. .............. Did I search every parish in the county? Almost certainly not, unless the records were online at the time. Did I look over the county boundary?

Personally I wouldn't see this kind of question as being particularly relevant. While it is true that the further we go back with our research the more likely it is that there will be a degree of uncertainty in what we find, there needs to be something more than an event being 'the only feasible one found'. I will sometimes add in 'possible' marriages, burials etc for people who are not in my direct line, clearly indicated as such with question marks, but it is not really safe to build a pedigree on such events.

 

[Bob Spiers]

While it is true that the further we go back with our research the more likely it is that there will be a degree of uncertainty in what we find, there needs to be something more than an event being 'the only feasible one found'

I understand the point you make, but if venturing back beyond (say) 4GG levels (and sometimes even within earlier generations), one feasible result is quite an achievement. We cannot all have access to professional historians and researchers (such as those made available to WDYTYA celebrities) and so in such circumstances the 'feasible' ancestor most likely would be added into the Pedigree. I would make a note (sometimes write a story) to explain my decision.

Fortune favours the brave and so later research - often tangential to the original - may uncover proof to confirm the earlier action, or cast doubt to allow you to follow a different trail.

 

[Pauline]

Bob, when I started out in family history, back in the dark ages, the ‘gold standard’ was that you should have at least 3 independent strands of evidence before adding someone to your tree. It’s not a bad ideal to strive towards but in the real world there are going to be times (and maybe many such times) when those 3 strands of evidence simply don’t exist.

So although I mentioned the need for ‘something more’ sometimes this can only be circumstantial evidence, or the passing of an unusual forename down the generations, or a known relative witnessing a possible marriage, or signature comparison etc etc.

EDIT: My comments above about what may constitute the 'something more' do presuppose that you have already run routine checks on the 'feasible' event - eg you have looked at the original record and not just a transcript, you have checked for burials after a baptism, and you have checked that there isn't another couple with the same names that may have an equal claim on that marriage, etc.

 

[jorghes]

Bob, when I started out in family history, back in the dark ages, the ‘gold standard’ was that you should have at least 3 independent strands of evidence before adding someone to your tree. It’s not a bad ideal to strive towards but in the real world there are going to be times (and maybe many such times) when those 3 strands of evidence simply don’t exist.

I think the ways that we keep our trees from complete fantasy is making sure there is something there to back it up - and I think at least 3 records is a start, even if it includes photos, entries in a family bible or an entry on a family tree as produced by a different relative.

If the records can't be found no matter how hard you try, perhaps that branch needs pruning, or something else is going on - like the wrong name, using a nickname or this person simply isn't who you thought it was. I found a couple of relatives missing off my paternal grandfather's tree because they were registered under different variations of our pretty unique surname within the records. So far, according to the error ridden other versions of the tree, I may have been the only one to go looking properly into the database!

One of my goals is to update the before mentioned paternal grandfather's tree, remove the small errors, and pass it out to the extended family like he did (unfortunately he died when I was 12, so he hasn't seen me take up the research).

 

[Pauline]

I think the ways that we keep our trees from complete fantasy is making sure there is something there to back it up - and I think at least 3 records is a start, even if it includes photos, entries in a family bible or an entry on a family tree as produced by a different relative.

The ‘gold standard’ I mentioned was intended to be 3 official and contemporary records - so things like wills, manor records, rate books, poor law records, and for more recent research, census records, in addition to the more obvious parish registers and certificates etc.

Many of my lines end in question marks as, although there is a feasible baptism to take me back another generation, there simply isn’t any other evidence (official or otherwise) to back it up.

 

[jorghes]

The ‘gold standard’ I mentioned was intended to be 3 official and contemporary records - so things like wills, manor records, rate books, poor law records, and for more recent research, census records, in addition to the more obvious parish registers and certificates etc.

Many of my lines end in question marks as, although there is a feasible baptism to take me back another generation, there simply isn’t any other evidence (official or otherwise) to back it up.

Oh yes, I know. I mention things like photos as I have only had evidence of a relative from within a photo, but no other records (even asked for help from the forum on one such case), and it took a while then to find the correct set of records - I now have found birth, death and marriage certificates etc for that relative who previously I only had stories and a photo.

 

[PhilGee]

I concluded some time ago that use of Ancestry addles the brain and prevents logical thought

My 2gt GF has the very unusual name of .... John Jones (I jest). I seem to be the only one that does not think his wife died in 1893 (John is listed as a widower in 1891) and, again, I do not agree he died in 1914 - there is only one death index record that fits in that year and a corresponding burial record shows conclusively that it is not my ancestor, with easy confirmation by checking the 1911 census. Also everyone has his birth in the Llangyfelach area of Swansea and there is a corresponding selection of sets of parents despite three out of five census returns after his marriage stating he was born in Carmarthenshire; the others give where he is living at the time!

I rest my case

Phil

 

[jorghes]

I concluded some time ago that use of Ancestry addles the brain and prevents logical thought

My 2gt GF has the very unusual name of .... John Jones (I jest). I seem to be the only one that does not think his wife died in 1893 (John is listed as a widower in 1891) and, again, I do not agree he died in 1914 - there is only one death index record that fits in that year and a corresponding burial record shows conclusively that it is not my ancestor, with easy confirmation by checking the 1911 census. Also everyone has his birth in the Llangyfelach area of Swansea and there is a corresponding selection of sets of parents despite three out of five census returns after his marriage stating he was born in Carmarthenshire; the others give where he is living at the time!

One of my favourite (not really) errors about my 5x great grandfather, who has a reasonably unique name, that appears on pretty much every Ancestry tree is that he died in 1855. A cursory examination of the GRO index would reveal that the individual who died in 1855 was 1 (actually 17 mths when I checked).
My great-grandfather married in 1807, and had his first child in 1808. He actually died in 1861 at the age of 73.

Plenty of those same trees have my 4x great grandfather (the above's son) on the censuses in 1841, 1851 and 1861 in Sussex, when he emigrated to Australia in 1840 and was busy having further children in Australia during that time he was also supposed to be in England (and was born in Hampshire, and as far as I know, has never been to Sussex.) Most of them have both the censuses and the children in Australia on the same tree.

 

[lindy]

My grandmother is in 24 public trees on Ancestry. In 8 of them she was apparently born in the USA, even died there in one of them. Her actual birthplace has several towns of the same name in the States and I assume the mistake has just been copied onwards. Why bother! What interest do these people have in her history if they can't even get a birthplace on the right continent?

 

[peter]

One of my favourite (not really) errors about my 5x great grandfather, who has a reasonably unique name, that appears on pretty much every Ancestry tree is that he died in 1855. A cursory examination of the GRO index would reveal that the individual who died in 1855 was 1 (actually 17 mths when I checked).

Until the new death indexes went online the only way to find out which was the correct entry would have been to find his burial or order the death certificate. The former is often very difficult after the mid-19th century, and the latter is expensive. If the name was 'reasonably unique' and he was missing from the 1861 Census, you can understand why they would have picked the 1855 entry, particularly if his death wasn't registered until the 2nd quarter of `1861 (ie after the census).

I don't suppose that many people went through their entire tree checking that the death index entries they had previously found were indeed correct.

 

[Helen7]

My grandmother is in 24 public trees on Ancestry. In 8 of them she was apparently born in the USA, even died there in one of them. Her actual birthplace has several towns of the same name in the States and I assume the mistake has just been copied onwards. Why bother! What interest do these people have in her history if they can't even get a birthplace on the right continent?

I remember a few years ago being horrified to discover that Ancestry had added 'Jamaica' to all my relatives born in Manchester. I had to do a blanket change of them all from Manchester, Jamaica to Manchester, England. I now make sure I include a country in all the place names in my trees, otherwise Ancestry add a country, usually the wrong one!

 

[Pauline]

Until the new death indexes went online the only way to find out which was the correct entry would have been to find his burial or order the death certificate. The former is often very difficult after the mid-19th century, and the latter is expensive.

Ages were included in the original indexes from 1866, but while knowing the age helps in ruling out some possible deaths, it doesn't necessarily help in determining which is the right one. And because the information provided on England & Wales death certificates is somewhat limited, sometime you can still be none the wiser after purchasing the certificate, particularly if some of the information provided at registration was wrong.

 

[peter]

And because the information provided on England & Wales death certificates is somewhat limited, sometime you can still be none the wiser after purchasing the certificate, particularly if some of the information provided at registration was wrong.

Especially if the death was registered by a neighbour, or the address is not a familiar one.

 

[Pauline]

I experienced a good example this afternoon of how much care is needed when looking for deaths. In the indexes I found what seemed a very likely death of one of my relatives in 1947, very close to where she and her husband were in the 1939 register, and of exactly the right age. I was even able to find a matching burial which confirmed her age.

Then I looked for the death of her husband which turned out to be in 1963, but when I went on to check the Probate Calendar, I discovered that probate was granted to his widow! So the 1947 death was clearly the wrong one.

 

[peter]

So the 1947 death was clearly the wrong one.

Probably, but.... my grandmother died in 1947, and my grandfather married the next year to a younger friend of his late wife who had the same forename. So when he died in 1954 he left a widow with the same name as the wife who had predeceased him.

 

[Pauline]

Probably, but.... my grandmother died in 1947, and my grandfather married the next year to a younger friend of his late wife who had the same forename. So when he died in 1954 he left a widow with the same name as the wife who had predeceased him.

Yes, that happens sometimes and adds to the confusion potential. However, in this case I was able to locate the right death in 1971 so it had the full date of birth. Two wives with the same name and the exact same date of birth? That would be unfortunate!