How do I add my Spouse's family on Lost Cousins?

[peter]

Remember not to enter your spouse's relatives on your own My Ancestors page as the LostCousins system isn't designed for this.

 

[Susan48]

Remember not to enter your spouse's relatives on your own My Ancestors page as the LostCousins system isn't designed for this.

It took me a while to find this instruction on the LostCousins website - among the FAQs - and I must confess to having forgotten it before entering some of my spouse's ancestors. Mea culpa. Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but what harm does it do to enter my spouse's relatives on my own My Ancestors page? My own cousins won't be aware of them - or will they?

 

[Liberty]

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but what harm does it do to enter my spouse's relatives on my own My Ancestors page? My own cousins won't be aware of them - or will they?

I guess it just means that they all get lumped together as related by marriage.

 

[Bryman]

Remember not to enter your spouse's relatives on your own My Ancestors page as the LostCousins system isn't designed for this.

I have not (yet) entered any of my wife's family on to LC but perhaps Peter can give a little more explanation as to why that would be such a bad thing to do. Surely, that would have the same effect as entries made by my son or daughter??

 

[Bryman]

I don't wish to labour this point but neither my wife nor son are always interested in my genealogical findings except at such times as when something unusual comes to light. They may become more involved at some time in the future.

In the meantime, how should I prepare the stage for my son? I can hardly register in his name as that would be misleading. The only other alternative would seem to be to include details of my wife's ancestors under my registration. Alternatively, am I missing something obvious?

 

[Britjan]

As Peter points out LC is not designed for a spouse's entries and may I weigh in with an observation...there must be a number of forum members who are in a similar position.
I did not form a relationship while living in the UK, married someone with no UK heritage and other records are so sparse in comparison for LC purposes I would not want to enter them. However if I had a spouse with a substantial UK heritage I am sure for the sake of my sanity I would want to....with my spouse's permission .... set up a separate LC account for them. It's such a modest investment and keeps his/ her information compact until such time as you discover you are actually distant cousins.
Likewise with a child I'd want to provide them with their joint heritage in their own personal account. It's a bit like taking out life insurance for your children or setting up a trust account, it's your personal 'investment' in their future.

 

[Tim]

Personally the point for not entering your spouses ancestors is because none of them are related to you. They're only related by marriage. No Direct Ancestors, no Ahnentafel Numbers nothing. All this starts with the spouse as the root person. And then calculations can be made as to how people are related.

 

[Liberty]

Personally the point for not entering your spouses ancestors is because none of them are related to you. They're only related by marriage. No Direct Ancestors, no Ahnentafel Numbers nothing. All this starts with the spouse as the root person. And then calculations can be made as to how people are related.

If someone wanted to set up a LC 'account' for a partner is there a means to do it?
Ancestry allows you to set up a number of trees (which is whey they seem to think I'm called Hilda - she was the root person for the first tree I set up). I set up a simplified half-tree on Genes for my mother, using one of my other email accounts from the one I used for myself, so as to have all communication channelled to me rather than her. Does LC allow you to have 2 identities/profiles?
I suppose that if someone really wanted to do it now, they could re-enroll with a second email address (as I did with Genes). It does, however, feel slightly underhand. Perhaps, if Peter is OK with the idea, he could mention the possibility in a newsletter. I don't suppose Susan48 and Bryman are the only LC members who would like to put their children's ancestors on the record as well as their own.

 

[AnneC]

You can have a separate account linked to your own, with a subscription of £12.50 rather than £10 for a single account. My second account is in my husband's name, though I do all the research and entries on LC for both. I wasn't sure if you could use the same email address for both, so I used one of my other addresses for the linked account.

 

[Liberty]

You can have a separate account linked to your own, with a subscription of £12.50 rather than £10 for a single account. My second account is in my husband's name, though I do all the research and entries on LC for both. I wasn't sure if you could use the same email address for both, so I used one of my other addresses for the linked account.

Sounds like the way to go, Anne C. Thanks - I wasn't aware of that (it's not a thing that has concerned me). Perhaps others aren't aware and it merits a mention in a newsletter(?)

 

[AdrienneQ]

I wasn't sure if you could use the same email address for both, so I used one of my other addresses for the linked account.

I have my own account and one in my sons name to add his Paternal Line. Both have my email address, so yes you can use the same email address.

 

[Susan48]

I have my own account and one in my sons name to add his Paternal Line. Both have my email address, so yes you can use the same email address.

Thank you to everyone who has replied to my query about adding my husband's ancestors to my LC account. I shall now follow AdrienneQ's example and open a second account in my son's name using my email address. I do however agree with Liberty that it would be worth raising the topic in a newsletter. There must be many other LC members out there who need reminding of the rules!

 

[Bob Spiers]

Personally the point for not entering your spouses ancestors is because none of them are related to you. They're only related by marriage. No Direct Ancestors, no Ahnentafel Numbers nothing. All this starts with the spouse as the root person. And then calculations can be made as to how people are related.

Correct to the Genealogical letter of course, but I can see how this flies totally in the face as to how families regard each other. You would hardly say your children were not related, so I understand why others ask why not include both sets of grandparents; as Bryman alludes:

... Surely, that would have the same effect as entries made by my son or daughter??

On Ancestry I do have a separate Tree for my second wife to simplify ancestral connections and because their are no blood-line descendants from my second marriage. Both Tree's have me as the root figure and so some degree of overlap is essential. My first marriage my parents and families, our children (grandchildren), grandparents (my in-laws) and family; and second marriage again with my parents and families, my wife's parents and family (my second set of in-laws). At the end of the day they are ALL family.

A Gen Pro chart shows this well with the root figure and spouses 1 and 2 and both sets of Ancestors' (up to say Great Grandparent) and a Descendant line via my first marriage. I name the Chart 'THE FAMILY' without further qualification.

I accept that as Lost Cousins is about 'Ancestors' stemming from a root figure it does tend to relate only to that persons blood line (Direct Ancestors, Ahnentafel & related by marriage). So in essence it would need separate subscriptions to relate to a different root figure.

A good discussion line!

 

[emjay]

Yes, of course Lost Cousins is not to be regarded as a family tree. As for the complications of trees with 'unrelated' people in it...my wife was brought up by her adoptive parents
so they are her family although not blood related. So I have her adoptive ancestors on the tree, with her biological ancestors stemming from the 'other parents' entry, with her biological father named as "Unknown" paired with her identified biological mother. The tree software is .paf5 , I don't know what facilities to do this exist on other Family Tree software?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Personally the point for not entering your spouses ancestors is because none of them are related to you. They're only related by marriage. No Direct Ancestors, no Ahnentafel Numbers nothing. All this starts with the spouse as the root person. And then calculations can be made as to how people are related.

I think Tim's pretty much nailed it. You really want to see that a match is with a direct ancestor or a blood relative when you make a match. If its a spouse's tree tacked onto yours then everyone in it would be related by marriage (your own marriage).

 

[Bob Spiers]

... If its a spouse's tree tacked onto yours then everyone in it would be related by marriage (your own marriage).

Are you saying as a root person in a Tree you would NOT extend your wife/partner's family and ancestry? That is almost as important to me as extending my own direct lines and is surely what a FAMILY Tree is all about. Before I got round to extending my son's wife's family, he actually asked me to include her family so it would be meaningful to the kids (my grandchildren). Of course I did the same for my daughter's husband's family. As the Tree progressed siblings and cousins families were also included.

I accept there is need sometimes to create a separate Tree to afford deeper research with a 'related by marriage' family (or perhaps an adoptive line). But, this aside, by default I always include root-related-by-marriage families back to Great Grandparents wherever I am able.

LC is a stand alone means of tracing one's own ancestors which is why you really need a separate root base if you wish to pursue an offshoot family line, such as one connected by marriage.

 

[Bryman]

It all depends on what one wants to achieve. LC is an excellent means of discovering previously unknown relatives even if rather slow until more people join in and provide their data.

When my father first started researching our ancestors, he concentrated almost exclusively on the family surname, ie the male line. So much so that he obtained a lot of information about people to whom we are probably not related without tracing back dozens of generations. It may be relevant eventually but not apparently just now. My mother's family line was almost totally ignored.

I have now restored the balance somewhat and even found a connection back to a Chief Rabbi living in Germany during the 16th century. That was totally unexpected on several counts.

Now I am thinking about how all this information might be of interest to the next generation(s). I fully agree with Tim and Alexander as far as my own relationships are concerned but as far as my son and daughter are concerned, family history also involves my wife's ancestors. For either of them to join LC would mean a duplication of half their parentage so perhaps we should be thinking about how best to use what is already identified and augment it with relevant information for them. Should a LC registration be in the name of the latest member of the family so that the maximum number of lines are included? Peter has managed to keep out of this discussion so far but I am sure that he must have some thoughts about how things could/should develop.

I am not sure that these ramblings are going to make a lot of sense to all other forum members but hope that someone may be able to use them as a foundation for taking such thoughts further.

Incidently, this discussion is very interesting but seems to have wandered away from the initial thread. Perhaps one of the moderators might like to consider copying/moving some of these posts to a new thread?

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Are you saying as a root person in a Tree you would NOT extend your wife/partner's family and ancestry? That is almost as important to me as extending my own direct lines and is surely what a FAMILY Tree is all about.

No not at all I fully agree with your definition. For the setup of the Lost Cousins site however in order to maximise likelihood of people contacting you I'd suggest it is better to enter the "relationship" field on the Lost Cousins entry as if it was your wife as the root person preferably on a different account. That way when you get a match the relationship looks better if its "direct ancestor" vs "by marriage" which is how it should appear if you entered with you as root person.

 

[Bob Spiers]

No not at all I fully agree with your definition. For the setup of the Lost Cousins site however in order to maximise likelihood of people contacting you I'd suggest it is better to enter the "relationship" field on the Lost Cousins entry as if it was your wife as the root person preferably on a different account. That way when you get a match the relationship looks better if its "direct ancestor" vs "by marriage" which is how it should appear if you entered with you as root person.

Thanks Alexander glad that is agreed and also what you say about Lost Cousins and the need for a different 'root' person to pursue (say) a wife's family to find their direct ancestor line.

...Should a LC registration be in the name of the latest member of the family so that the maximum number of lines are included?

An interesting idea and perhaps just in the name of a (again say) an eldest child? This would then automatically encompass his/her mother's family line (ie your wife's line). I still think perhaps a separate registration with your wife as the root person -yes even with an extra fee- is a tidier method but await to hear what others think.

 

[Tim]

An interesting idea and perhaps just in the name of a (again say) an eldest child? This would then automatically encompass his/her mother's family line (ie your wife's line).

Can you imagine the amount of work to achieve this? And the chances of getting something wrong?

I have entered names into LC and their relationships to me, including the Direct Ancestors and Ahnentafel numbers.

So if I now took your approach and pretended I was one of my children, then yes I could add the wife's family. But I would have to recalculate all the existing Ahnentafel numbers. And then if they have children, do it all again?

And how would I answer the question if we made a match, How are we related? It's just too confusing and risky.

There is a simple solution provided by Peter, for an extra £2.50 you can register your spouses details. It keeps it clean and simple.