15 years of Family History

[Franko]

I’m a 76 year old Yorkshireman now living on Vancouver Island, Canada. I began my interest in family history about 2005, with a view to finding something about my father and his family who came from Barnsley, Yorkshire. I hardly remember my father as my mother (and me and my siblings) left him when I was 5 years old and from then on, talk about him was taboo.
My early searches proved very fruitful as my father was born in 1887 so he appeared in 1891 and 1901 Census reports which gave me census links back to 1841. From then, expanding the trees was just a matter of how much time I wanted to spend.
As more and more information came available online, I was able to find out so much more, both on my mother’s and father’s side of the family.
I find it such a fascinating hobby, I feel it’s a bit like being a detective, finding facts, proving them and then collating them.
My pet hate: Ancestry.com Family Trees. So many people are sharing information that is suspect ,with people who are accepting it as fact, and just copying it.

 

[KerryM]

Hi Franko, I share your pet hate - but extend it to My Heritage too! I get SO frustrated when I contact people to say that their 'match' is incorrect & tell them why (wrong parents, places, dates etc) but yet they do not change it and go ahead to 'confirm' the match from their side! Seriously, what is wrong with people that they don't check in the first place and don't care whether it's correct?! It's like it's a game to them to collect 'ancestors'. Okay, rant over Good luck with your research Franko, it's addictive, isn't it ?

 

[Bob Spiers]

I share your pet hate - but extend it to My Heritage too! I get SO frustrated when I contact people to say that their 'match' is incorrect & tell them why (wrong parents, places, dates etc) but yet they do not change it and go ahead to 'confirm' the match from their side!

A feeling of deja vu comes over me reading your comments about My Heritage Trees and Tree owners, and to let you know I have aired similar and more besides in this Forum. My memories go back 5-7 years or so, with exactly the same reactions and why I now give them wide berth. This includes resisting having anything to do with the DNA side of their activities which may or may not be an improvement on their Tree database.

I have to say in comparison the "odd ball" Trees in Ancestry are (generally for the most part) second division in comparison however frustrating they may be to come across. I have also given up trying to point out errors as they are so rarely accepted. I do think however that Ancestry DNA is head and shoulders above their competitors.

 

[Helen7]

My pet hate: Ancestry.com Family Trees. So many people are sharing information that is suspect ,with people who are accepting it as fact, and just copying it.

I couldn't agree more. We've had a discussion of this recently in the thread 'Errors in Ancestry trees'

 

[Franko]

Thank you all for your comments. I'm new to this forum but should have realised that my (almost) throw away line about Ancestry family trees would resonate with so many people. Anyway, now I do know. So thanks again.
By the way, my North American spell checker wants me to spell "realised" as realized ! I have enough problems trying to educate my Canadian family on how to speak English without this!

 

[peter]

By the way, my North American spell checker wants me to spell "realised" as realized

Don't worry, when you look at the spellings in old parish registers you'll realise that it's the (modern) English who have got it wrong.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have enough problems trying to educate my Canadian family on how to speak English without this!

You stay on course to teach your family to speak English Franko, but as Peter infers, sometimes, US English spellings do follow 'Old English' traditional form. As it happens both spellings are perfectly acceptable in the UK, even if when spelled with a 'z' (pronounced 'zed' by the way not 'zee') it is referred to as an 'alternative' spelling.

America even uses 'Mom' (short form for Mother) interpreting the Shakespearean dialect, still spoken and written as such in the West Midlands, instead of 'Mum' the more common short form. I read however that the term Mom is growing in popularity and one Publisher of Mothering Sunday cards has decided to use 'Mom' instead of 'Mum' causing language experts to warm of a creeping Americanization (note the 'z'). Gee Whizz what next!

Just don't get me going on the US singular 'Math' as a short form for Mathematics instead of 'Maths'

 

[Bob Spiers]

Apropos 'Mom' versus 'Mum', my wife tells me that her florist friend refers to Autumn floral creations being mostly centered (shouldn't that be centred?) around 'Mums'. In this case a colloquial term for Chrysanthemums used apparently by Florists in the UK and and in America where they are often referred to as 'Fall Mums'

Mum also serves as both a noun and an adjective. The latter when saying 'Mum's the word' (keeping silent). Mom is only ever used as a noun.