ROOTS, BRANCHES, TWIGS & LEAVES

[Bob Spiers]

Peter spoke about the difference between ROOT & BRANCH (or collateral) lines and asked if others used different terminology. I do use ROOT & BRANCH, with Root applying to our ancestral lines (back in time) and BRANCH being lines that (yes) branch off my Direct Line. The only thing I eventually added was TWIG and LEAF to appease younger family members.

It began a few year's back when a Niece (and later other 'branch line' family members) complained the Tree was all about OLD FOLKS and stopped with their parents and themselves -who 'just about' got a mention. But what about their own families, and that of their children?

I asked my sisters and first cousins (their parents) to pass along how difficult it was for me to keep pace with individual family relationship (which they privately admitted they could hardly do so themselves). Children born outside of marriage (no moral stance on my part, merely reporting facts). Children not living with their 'birth' father or brought up by a single parent mother. I could go on as the permutations are endless, and covered relationships inside and outside the UK.

I said what was needed was someone to take over from where I left off. I know of one cousin that tried only to openly admit she could not keep pace with her younger brother who had had 'interminable' relationships and sired at least two children. My Australian sister also tried with similar problems; so what chance had I?

So in my Tribal Page introduction I refer to ROOT, BRANCH, TWIG & LEAF and mention only the first two are well covered so to expect gaps within Twig & Leaf descendances. So my Tree covers ROOT & BRANCH and updates TWIGS when known and I am afraid younger family members will just have to put up with that until a successor takes over. If and when that ever happens.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Interest in family lineage often begins when nephew and nieces have their own children reqiring help in compiling their own Family Tree as part of a classroom project. Invariably they are told Uncle Bob will be able to help them with that. And of course I do so help, and then the fun starts.

It also explains why the term Root gets misinterpreted with Branch, because the child is told they are to be the 'Root' person of the project. I often let this go or counter by telling them (usually through the parent) they represent one of the Twigs; with parents the Branch, and Grandparents (and further back) the Roots. But the child can generate its own confusion when they ask why the Tree presented stops short of showing other family members known to them (and of similar ages). By this they mean siblings (often half siblings), cousins (ditto half, or removed). The parent understands, and eventually so do I, but to include all permutations known to the child would be nightmare for the Teacher.

I will give an instances of what I mean which is not far removed from an actuality but warn it it may be difficult to follow:

Niece 1 asks on behalf of A her daughter. 1 also has B,C & D children and only B by the same father. 1 is a singleton child from her mother's THIRD marriage. There were no children from a second marriage, but 4 from a FIRST. So 1 has 4 half siblings. Numbers 2,3,4 & 5 also have children, and 3 and 5 from convoluted/dubious relationships. Child A is not aware of this, or only very vaguely, and thinks they should also appear in the chart..."because they are family".

This is where I find a corner to hide and tell the parent (a sibling or cousin) to explain why it would over complicate the Tree to include all except A's siblings. The child will know she only shares a father with one of her siblings, so it will make sense (even to the Teacher) if both father's are shown.

In all the time I have helped out with school FT projects, only one was simple and uncomplicated. The others each had to be modified to comply with the 'KISS' principle -Keep it simple stupid. Works for me.

 

[PhilGee]

A good attempt, Bob, but twig and leaf below the root? Not that I could do better

 

[Bob Spiers]

A good attempt, Bob, but twig and leaf below the root? Not that I could do better

Yes, it is daft to a degree, but if ROOT(S) convey origins resulting in growth sprouting BRANCH(ES) then TWIG & LEAF does follow on. Its all a bit chicken and egg and which comes first?

 

[peter]

A good attempt, Bob, but twig and leaf below the root?

Surely everything is below the roots? As conventionally drawn family trees grow downwards.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Surely everything is below the roots? As conventionally drawn family trees grow downwards.

And try telling that to the Marines...as my mother would say (along with 'what's that got to do with the price of Jam') when she thought I was not making sense. As 'everything is below the roots' is a complete reversal of known fact - roots go down and the tree goes up - small wonder people mix up root and branch.

However I agree in the Genealogical world we do progress back to our roots from various branches within our Tree, so that does indeed stand convention on its head. Wouldn't be so bad if visual images of a 'Family Tree' -shown as symbols or icons - did not depict a conventional Tree such as this example taken from Tribal Pages.

 

[PhilGee]

Typically misleading - I said nothing about "the roots/our roots". The root is the (?)most important person in the "tree" - Ahnentafel 1 - the usual starting point for building a tree; which means the tree grows upwards through direct ancestors (until "nourishment"** is not able to reach further) and outwards through blood relatives. There are no numbers for descendants of the root, nor a spouse, and some would probably argue that, strictly, they should not be included in a tree.

The problem with "progressing back to our roots" is that we never get there. ** At some point there are no records to make further progress, though those with Jewish ancestry may fare better than most. However some Ancestry users seem able to trace back to Ethelred the Unready (or someone similar)!

 

[peter]

The problem with "progressing back to our roots" is that we never get there.

Surely our roots begin with our parents?

 

[PhilGee]

How do you reconcile

Surely everything is below the roots? As conventionally drawn family trees grow downwards.

with

Surely our roots begin with our parents?

 

[Bob Spiers]

The root is the (?)most important person in the "tree" - Ahnentafel 1 - the usual starting point for building a tree; which means the tree grows upwards through direct ancestors (until "nourishment"** is not able to reach further) and outwards through blood relatives. There are no numbers for descendants of the root, nor a spouse, and some would probably argue that, strictly, they should not be included in a tree.

Well said - and more important for me given I have not always followed your very individual line of reasoning - well understood. Indeed your Ahnentafel 1 comment about it being the root position always seemed the most logical interpretation of things. So, unless one wants to delve in 'negative' arithmetic (-1, -2 etc) descendants of A1 have no place in the scheme of things*. With WDYTYA Trees the 'celebrity' is at foot (the root) and his/her Tree develops upwards following the paternal or maternal route.

*Of course in our own Trees (where often we are Ahnentafel 1) our siblings, spouses and descendants are part and parcel of the Tree and need to be shown. So, it is just a matter of coming to terms with how we define 'root' and 'branch' ?

 

[Bob Spiers]

However some Ancestry users seem able to trace back to Ethelred the Unready (or someone similar)!

MyHeritage Trees have such practices down to a 't' and several (mostly American) members claim everyone from Judas Iscariot to Genghis Kahn (and all shades between) as family connected. Should you try to challenge this you will find they cannot be gainsayed on the matter. And that has nothing to do with Peter reminding such may be determined by mathematical umpteen Great Grand parentage certainty.

 

[Bryman]

At risk of jumping in with both feet first into a topic that I am not fully conversant with due to house move preparations, can we not blame this whole misunderstanding on the various censuses? Records show the HEAD of household followed by other members, typically spouse and children. When this gets drawn out in a family tree, the parents are shown connected with the children below, ie the wrong way round for a tree representation. Although rather late to change now but perhaps trees should have been created with children above the parents. Then the ROOTS, BRANCHES, TWIGS and LEAVES would match the conventional tree shape.

Sorry if in my haste I have missed that someone else has already said similar.

 

[At home in NZ]

Sorry if in my haste I have missed that someone else has already said similar.

I have been half heartedly watching this discussion and wonder 'does it really matter'.
Because
I have a program for drawing charts which used to get frequent updates.
One of the updates a few years ago was because there had been a request for the descendant chart to be displayed with the 'root' person at the bottom.

Using that program I can choose to have the descendants displayed
from left to right,
top down with options for where spouse should display
bottom up.

 

[PhilGee]

I have been half heartedly watching this discussion and wonder 'does it really matter'.

Only for avoiding confusion; a case of "singing from the same hymn sheet".

I have a program for drawing charts which used to get frequent updates.
One of the updates a few years ago was because there had been a request for the descendant chart to be displayed with the 'root' person at the bottom.

"Charts" are a personal choice and "anything goes". When exchanging information with others there is a need for both parties to "see" the same picture, otherwise we get confusion (see above! ).

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have been half heartedly watching this discussion and wonder 'does it really matter'.

I often say this about many Forum topics, but in truth, yes it does matter, if not to me; then to others in one degree or another. We should not get our proverbial 'k's' in a twist however, and this 'root and branch' query is merely to draw out opinion and that is always of interest.

As for Chart Drawing Programs I can accomplish this from within Tribal Pages which offers many variations, but tend to go for 'IrfanView' which affords scope for manually setting up any Chart any which way. (Unlike Peter and I believe Bryman, I do not use it as a Data Base, but that is just my choice). So charts are not a problem.

can we not blame this whole misunderstanding on the various censuses?

I take the point about blaming the set out order of people within households on Censuses, but in truth the 'Head' at the top and Spouse/children below is the natural order of things, outside of the 'Woke' brigade at least. The problems comes when my daughter asks me to explain why if she is the 'Root' to her children, and I her Root, as was Grandad for me, why are (Family) Trees upside down? A fact alluded to by Peter...and roughly what this posting is about.

As I said before a sort of 'chicken and egg' situation.

 

[Pauline]

As Phil points out above, there is a difference between the root (or root person) of a tree, and an individual's roots. I am the root [person] of my tree while my ultimate roots are in the dim and distant past but, as Peter says, begin with my parents.

I disagree, though, with the idea that conventionally drawn trees grow downwards. Of course, it depends on how you choose to draw them, but trees are commonly drawn with the root person at the bottom with earlier generations spreading upwards and outwards. Or sometimes the root person may be on the left. But however we choose to draw our trees, we have to start with the root person and work backwards in time. Only when we have identified ancestors (roots) can we start working down the side shoots (if we choose to do so).

 

[PhilGee]

I was about to post a reply, but Pauline has covered the point (much more) clearly.

 

[peter]

How do you reconcile

Surely everything is below the roots? As conventionally drawn family trees grow downwards.

with

Surely our roots begin with our parents?

What I meant with the first post is that when we add a branch to our tree it is drawn below the root that it branches off.

As others point out, there are many ways of drawing a family tree - my own tree doesn't exist as a single tree with roots and branches because I utilise hyperlinks for some of the larger branches.

 

[peter]

I disagree, though, with the idea that conventionally drawn trees grow downwards

Generally the branches grow downwards and the roots grow upwards, though because knocking down 'brick walls' is a rare occurrence, whereas finding new branches and twigs is a common occurrence, most of the growth is downwards.

But all that really matters is that we mean the same thing when we talk roots and branches - how we draw our trees is a matter of personal preference (within the confines of program we use).

 

[Bob Spiers]

I was about to post a reply, but Pauline has covered the point (much more) clearly.

Then it must be my turn to find Pauline's post confusing which is rare but occurred this time...

...trees are commonly drawn with the root person at the bottom with earlier generations spreading upwards and outwards...we have to start with the root person and work backwards in time. Only when we have identified ancestors (roots) can we start working down the side shoots (if we choose to do so).

I could drive a bus through trying to decipher those words. I agree starting with a 'root' person and working backwards in time, but the confusion starts when we refer to ancestors also as roots? In the vernacular it is all 'a about f' (sorry).

Peter overcame this earlier by asserting..." conventionally drawn family trees grow downwards". But following this up adds a confusing non sequitur comment about 'brick walls?

Generally the branches grow downwards and the roots grow upwards, though because knocking down 'brick walls' is a rare occurrence...

The only thing that makes sense in all this is his later comment:

... what really matters is that we mean the same thing when we talk roots and branches

Yes, but how we convey this beyond the Forum walls is another matter as I recall my own problems convincing my daughter. (Reminds me of the way we remember Stalactite from Stalagmites...The mites go up and the 'tites come down)