How many direct ancestors have you found?

[JoyNor]

Prompted by a remark in today's newsletter by Peter about the number of 3 x or 4 x great grandparents anyone may be able to establish made me wonder if I am fortunate in my findings, which I feel are quite poitive. I was born in early 1950s, just to give context to where I have worked back from. With absolute certainty I have the following

8 out of 8 Gt G/P
16 out of 16 2 x Gt G/P
31 out of 32 3 x Gt G/P
52 out of 64 4 x Gt G/P
61 out of 128 5 x Gt G/P

This does not include a few of the females where I have a first name but no maiden name. With very few exceptions I have found these ancestors through paper research without any DNA matching input. Of course one person missing in a generation creates two AWOL in the previous one. My missing 3 x Gt G/F creates a big hole, but as he was the unknown father of the only child of my 3 x Gt G/M chances of filling the gap are slim to none.

I have a number of quite good DNA matches (20-40cM) shared with a first cousin, also missing the same 3 x Gt G/F, but all are without trees, or with minimal trees and most have not been on Ancestry since they uploaded their results over a year ago. Perhaps several are descendants of that missing 3 x Gt G/F, although I find very few of my matches have got back to 3 x Gt G/P level. Messages to those who appear active go unanswered.

 

[peter]

a remark in today's newsletter by Peter about the number of 3 x or 4 x great grandparents anyone may be able to establish

I wasn't talking about how many someone can find, but how many I personally had found. My statistics are currently very similar to yours, but without DNA they would be significantly worse.

With absolute certainty I have the following

Although you may have found most of those ancestors without the use of DNA, as I did, it's worth reminding everyone that only DNA that provides certainty, and only DNA can compensate for the gaps in the records.

 

[JoyNor]

I was simply prompted by the newsletter comment to wonder what proportion of direct ancestors people HAD established, prior to DNA input. DNA has expanded my cousins database but only one single match established number 31 of the 3 x great G/Ps now in my tree in the absence of previous paper proof. I had found the other 30 with decades of good old paper records & collaboration with other researchers, which I totally agree are the bedrock of research. Too many results appearing online now are possibly from people who think the DNA test is a magic wand to a full family tree. I am simply curious if those of us with established paper lines of research fare much better than those who rely more on DNA to conjure up a family tree.

I have several recent matches where Ancestry tells me we are connected by a specific ancestor. Certainly James is MY 4 x Gt G/F but the daughter all the others supposedly descend from, sister of my direct ancestor, died as a young girl, unmarried, leaving no children. I trust my paper records more than the little green aliens on the ThruLines generated by information from several trees which when I examine them have all copied the same error from one starter culture. The DNA match I share with these dozen or so scribes must be attributable to some other common ancestor, perhaps a generation or two back from James. Or even from a totally different 4 x Gt G/F.

 

[peter]

I was simply prompted by the newsletter comment to wonder what proportion of direct ancestors people HAD established, prior to DNA input

It will vary enormously depending on how old the person is, where their ancestors came from, whether the relevant registers are online, and - perhaps most importantly - where in their tree the illegitimacies are. For example, someone who is the illegitimate child of an illegitimate mother might be able to research only a quarter of their tree without the help of DNA.

I have several recent matches where Ancestry tells me we are connected by a specific ancestor. Certainly James is MY 4 x Gt G/F but the daughter all the others supposedly descend from, sister of my direct ancestor, died as a young girl, unmarried, leaving no children. I trust my paper records more than the little green aliens on the ThruLines generated by information from several trees which when I examine them have all copied the same error from one starter culture. The DNA match I share with these dozen or so scribes must be attributable to some other common ancestor

This is quite a common situation, and it's one of the reasons why 1 match with a 'lost cousin' can be worth 100 matches with Ancestry users. But they're still your cousins, so help them out if you can.

 

[PhilGee]

... This is quite a common situation, and it's one of the reasons why 1 match with a 'lost cousin' can be worth 100 matches with Ancestry users. But they're still your cousins, so help them out if you can.

Agreed, but ... it doesn't always have the desired effect. I have one match who has a direct ancestor (DS) born Chippenham District, which is correct according to my research, with parents of someone of the same name/age born in the Malmesbury area and not a (known) relation of mine. I mentioned that the person shown was likely to be correct as, whilst our match was 32cM someone else with whom I had a 33cM match was a 124cM match with her - he was descended from the sister of DS. The net effect was that my tree was used to support the "wrong" mother; who is definitely NOT in my tree!

A second match has a brick wall - with me on the other side (as are the ancestors of DS above!) - and her direct ancestor emigrated with two siblings after their parents died. She is adamant that the parents were born in Bristol, as shown on the 1871 Bristol area census and Ancestry have kindly supported that with hints. However, the family are living in London in 1861 and the parents shown as from London and Wiltshire! Apparently, more credence is given to a place of birth if it is where the person is living!!! However, there doesn't appear to be any Wiltshire "Huggins" of the same name/age, so I am unable to link her to any of my Wiltshire "Huggins" relatives (and the Ancestry "hinted" details are still there, even though both families are present in the area in 1871).

 

[peter]

You can't expect someone to change their tree instantly in response to your suggestions. If I spot an obvious error I not only contact my cousin, I also post a helpful comment against the relevant relative(s) in their tree as a reminder to them and a warning to those who might otherwise rely on the information.

It's worth reminding readers who aren't as familiar with the geography of the area as you are, that Bristol was split between three counties, one of which is Wiltshire - so the birthplaces in those censuses are not necessarily inconsistent. Sadly the baptisms of my Bristol ancestors - who also came to London - can't be found in any of the three counties.

 

[PhilGee]

You can't expect someone to change their tree instantly in response to your suggestions.

I do not. They were both nearly 2 years ago - so plenty of time for a reply even if it was "that's rubbish".

It's worth reminding readers who aren't as familiar with the geography of the area as you are, that Bristol was split between three counties, one of which is Wiltshire - so the birthplaces in those censuses are not necessarily inconsistent. Sadly the baptisms of my Bristol ancestors - who also came to London - can't be found in any of the three counties.

I've not considered that, especially as the Somerset/Wilts boundary runs east of Bath and stays to the east until it changes to the Gloucestershire/Wilts boundary - though I have not checked before 1840 on the NLS website.

 

[peter]

Perhaps the word geography was misleading - it's not about boundaries but whether or not people considered they were from Bristol.

 

[peter]

You can't expect someone to change their tree instantly in response to your suggestions.

I do not. They were both nearly 2 years ago - so plenty of time for a reply even if it was "that's rubbish".

I agree - assuming you posted comments against the relatives to remind them and warn others. If not then the chances are it got forgotten - I don't know anyone with a perfect memory.

That's all assuming they got your message in the first place. Ancestry's messaging system has in the past been very ropey, and it's only recently that you've been able to see when and whether a message has been read.

 

[PhilGee]

I agree - assuming you posted comments against the relatives to remind them and warn others. If not then the chances are it got forgotten - I don't know anyone with a perfect memory.

That's all assuming they got your message in the first place. Ancestry's messaging system has in the past been very ropey, and it's only recently that you've been able to see when and whether a message has been read.

All messages marked "read" - in the second case we had a longish dialogue (which included a reference to "royalty").

My comment was really more general regarding the "Place of Birth" being "where they are living". For my 2gt-Grandfather, John Jones, his PoB was:

1841 not Pembrokeshire, 1851 Carmarthenshire, 1861 Llansellio(Llandissilio?) Carms, 1871 Llangyflach(Llangyfelach) Glam, 1881 Morriston Glam, 1891 Rhydwilym, Carm, 1901 Carmarthen, 1911 Morriston, 1921 Morriston

1891 is the favourite! They were living in the Llandilo area in 1841 - Rhydwilym is a few miles from Llandilo. Perhaps I should get his sisters birth cert (Narberth registered) who also gives Rhydwilym in 1891. Llansellio does not exist, but Llandilo is just north of Llandissilio where his parents were married and the parish reaches close to Rhydwilym. The 1901 reference is somewhat suspect; it is the only census where he is not with at least one family member and the only time he is in Carmarthen - though name, age and occupation match. That means I am unable to prove it is him - conversely, I am unable to find any evidence in the 1891 nor 1911 census to suggest it is not him (no-one matching age +/- 5, occupation "tin" related).

 

[peter]

My comment was really more general regarding the "Place of Birth" being "where they are living". For my 2gt-Grandfather, John Jones, his PoB was:

1841 not Pembrokeshire, 1851 Carmarthenshire, 1861 Llansellio(Llandissilio?) Carms, 1871 Llangyflach(Llangyfelach) Glam, 1881 Morriston Glam, 1891 Rhydwilym, Carm, 1901 Carmarthen, 1911 Morriston, 1921 Morriston

1891 is the favourite! They were living in the Llandilo area in 1841 - Rhydwilym is a few miles from Llandilo.

I wouldn't be so sure - enumerators are more likely to 'hear' a local name. In 1851 my 4G grandfather was living in Deptford (on the border of Kent and Surrey) and shown as born in Hatcham, which is 2 miles away. In fact he was born in Fetcham, which is about 27 miles away.

On the other hand, in the same census my 3G grandmother was living nearby and shown - by a different enumerator - as born in Leith, Scotland. In fact she was born 4 miles away in Lee.

 

[PhilGee]

I wouldn't be so sure - enumerators are more likely to 'hear' a local name.

That is reasonable, but your example is "similar sounding" places and that does not explain why someone would write "Morriston" when told the place was Llandissilio, which is why I think it is "I'm from here" syndrome. There is always the language barrier, the 1911 census indicates John did not speak English - though for that census he was with his daughter and son-in-law, both bi-lingual, and he was with his son in 1921; however both children were brought up in Morriston.

For some reason, that reminded me of something my mother told me - which is totally irrelevant! She worked in a bakery shop for a while and, one day, she served an elderly man and, thereafter, he would wait for her to be "free". A bi-lingual conversation would follow - he spoke in Welsh and my mother in English!

 

[peter]

That is reasonable, but your example is "similar sounding" places

Remember that what we see in the census isn't necessarily what the householder said or wrote, it's the enumerator's interpretation of what he thought they said or wrote. An enumerator who heard 'Brixton' might write London, when what the person said was 'Brixham' (in Devon).

If the individual wasn't the householder then there is further scope for misinterpretation.

 

[PhilGee]

Remember that what we see in the census isn't necessarily what the householder said or wrote, it's the enumerator's interpretation of what he thought they said or wrote. An enumerator who heard 'Brixton' might write London, when what the person said was 'Brixham' (in Devon).

If the individual wasn't the householder then there is further scope for misinterpretation.

Last response, as you keep referring to "similar sounding" errors. That is a given. My examples include 1911 and 1921 where the householder is the son-in-law and son respectively. I also have an "erroneous intervention" in another 1911 return where the householder listed his mother-in-law as "relative" and this has been corrected (?) to "Aunt".

 

[peter]

you keep referring to "similar sounding" errors. That is a given.

Only because it's easier give examples of place names that might be misheard than place names that might be misread. The key point is that what we see in the census isn't necessarily what the enumerator heard or read, it can be a stage removed.

 

[Pauline]

You can't expect someone to change their tree instantly in response to your suggestions.

Some people give the impression either of not being particularly interested in facts, or not understanding the relevance of the evidence offered, and have no interest in changing their trees - to the extent of blocking messages or withdrawing access to their tree (if private). In my experience, these people seem to fall into one of two categories:
- their information comes largely from other Ancestry family trees
- the research was done by an earlier family member, particularly if that person is now deceased

Of course, there are others who readily accept that they've made a mistake but lack of time or enthusiasm means they don't get around to updating their tree. This is why the suggestion of adding a comment can be important, as others besides the tree owner can view these, and may think twice before copying the information. I've often had better responses to comments than I have to messages - some admittedly are ignored, but other times the information is changed promptly, and occasionally a 'thank you' is sent as well.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Some people give the impression either of not being particularly interested in facts, or not understanding the relevance of the evidence offered

Whilst I have little disagreement with this, what about when the boot is on the other foot. Someone tells you you have wrong information and you know that is not so.

I can recall two (and there were others of less import) occasions when this happened. The first was memorable in that it applied to a Grand Uncle (brother of a Grandfather who had died before I was born) and who I met fairly frequently until he died when I was about 8. I ended up providing a handful of data proofs, and reiterated he had been a life long bachelor and NOT as they insisted, married with 3 children living two counties away. It took quite a while before the information was accepted, somewhat begrudgingly.

Then a contact admonishing me for showing incorrect information on a maternal family member. On this occasion I was only about 97% certain the information was correct. Luckily I was able to confirm this by contacting an Aunt who's sister had married into the family in question. Again I provided proof and family knowledge only to have the other person tell me they did not accept the information; and would stay as they were.

BUT I did famously go wrong in my early days (and have recorded it before I recall but some years back). I had begun to tackle my Adams maternal line, and knew from family information that back to Great Grandfather it was correct -and even my choice of Gx2 parents was on target. But it seems after that I took a wrong turn and then eager to get on had copied from another Ancestry Tree with dire effect. Then a month or so later I received a charming broadside from a lady who said she knew my line and hinted that I had gone astray in selecting the wrong 3rd Great Grandparent. By this time I had added a 4th and 5th only to be convinced with the amount of proof provided I had indeed gone wrong. I gracefully accepted and was profuse with my thanks.

In the end I had to learn the laborious process of deleting people from Ancestry, siblings and all and then the same again from my Tribal Pages, which at that time was new to me. It would have been quicker to delete the entire content and submit a Gedcom from Ancestry, but even that knowledge was new to me at the time.

Older and wiser (hopefully) I no longer worry about other Ancestry Trees and have reluctantly come to accept 'Good, Bad & Ugly' content throughout and the trick to learn to tell them apart! These days contacts more readily provide date, location and additional family member information. I check such things out and if they pass the test, I thank them and make the necessary adjustments.

 

[Pauline]

Whilst I have little disagreement with this, what about when the boot is on the other foot. Someone tells you you have wrong information and you know that is not so.

This has happened to me a couple of times, and I've endeavoured to explain why I think my information is correct and what records I've used to back this up, and as far as I can remember, my explanations were accepted. Nevertheless I am always grateful to people who do contact me about potential errors - I take the opportunity to re-examine my evidence, and I'd rather know if I've got something wrong than continue up the wrong tree in blissful ignorance.

We can all make mistakes - sometimes it may be just a typo or other relatively minor mistake while other times it may be something which could affect the integrity of the tree. On one occasion in the dim and distant past I copied the date of a burial in a register from the line above the entry by mistake and passed this wrong date to other researchers during correspondence. Luckily this counts as a relatively minor error, as although I've since corrected my tree, I still find other Ancestry trees showing my original error.