A quick check using paper and pencil

[peter]

Trying to figure out who you haven't entered on your My Ancestors page? I use a paper and pencil approach to help and advise members, but it's even better if you follow these simple instructions and do it yourself......

1. First print a copy of these instructions so that you've got them in front of you the whole time.
2. Now print out a copy of the blank Ancestor Chart (you'll find a link on the LostCousins home page - it's a PDF file).
3. Log-in to your LostCousins account (if you haven't already done so) then go to your My Ancestors page; make sure that you've selected the Household sort (top right corner), and only then click Show more detail (just below) to display a more detailed version of the page.
4. Scroll down until you find your entries from the 1881 Census, and locate the first of your direct ancestors. Using CAPITALS write the surname (or maiden name if different) of the ancestor in the appropriate box on the Ancestor Chart.
5. Repeat for every direct ancestor recorded in the 1881 Census. When you reach the end of your 1881 entries the Ancestor Chart should have an entry for each of your direct ancestors who was alive in 1881.
6. Now work your way back up the list, looking only at households from the 1881 Census where there was at least one blood relative, but no direct ancestor. Make a mental note of the surname (or maiden name), then locate it on the chart - if it appears more than once pick the entry that is from the most recent generation.
7. Place a tick on the left side of the surname.
8. Repeat for every household from 1881 that meets the criteria, ie no direct ancestors, but at least one blood relative.
9. Now look at the results - there will probably be some surnames that have lots of ticks, some that have a few ticks, and perhaps some that have no ticks at all.
10. Where there are no ticks (or only a few) this suggests either that there are relatives on your tree that you haven't entered, or that you need to do some more research on that particular line.

Notes:

• You may encounter a surname that doesn't appear on the Ancestor Chart - because the most recent direct ancestor bearing that name all died before 1881. If so, then using lower case letters, write the surname in the relevant box on the Ancestor Chart
• During this process you may have noticed that there are maiden names that you haven't entered - if so this is a good time to enter them. To amend an existing entry simply click on the person's name (on your My Ancestors page).
• If you haven't already entered the Ancestor Numbers for your direct ancestors, do it now - they're shown in the corner of each box on the Ancestor Chart, so it really couldn't be easier.

 

[Carla]

Brilliant Peter. Thank you for that information....am off to do this all now (as i have said in another post just now )

 

[Jacqueline]

Peter, I have done your pencil and paper test for 1881 (and made the odd correction of blood relative to direct ancestor - whoops!) and I really don't think I have missed much at all because everyone was entered from the FTM family group reports and individual reports with all male children and married daughters followed up where possible, but it would be much easier to check if the families were in alphabetical order, rather than the order in which I entered them. Have I missed that? it's a long time since I looked at the My Ancestors page properly because mainly I ran out of 1881 ancestors to enter a good couple of years ago. Or is is not possible?
Is there any point in doing the same for all family members in the 1841 census in case I've missed some of them? eg I notice I have no Oranges in amongst my Ancestors. How many of my potential matches can be eliminated if I don't know the parents of either my no 10 or no 11?
I've tried no 11 on a professional researcher just in case I was believing my own propaganda; he said I'd covered all the bases, so if I find her at all it'll be by luck, rather than judgement, I think.
But I did get my first new cousin in 2 years yesterday and I think it is one I haven't found before. (We'll be 1st cousins 4 x removed, I think with a common ancestor born c 1758)

 

[Alexander Bisset]

it's a long time since I looked at the My Ancestors page properly because mainly I ran out of 1881 ancestors to enter a good couple of years ago. Or is is not possible?

In theory it is possible you'd run out of people to enter but in practice it is unlikely. This is because for every generation you go back you could possibly come right the way forward again to 1881 or 1911 on every possible descendant.

So for instance you have entered all your directs alive in 1881 and all their brothers and sisters and all their children etc. Now go back 1 generation to your direct's parents and their siblings. Have you brought all their lines forward so you know every possible line every possible person alive in 1881? Quite possibly. Now go back 2 generations from your 1881 directs and look at their siblings, ie: your 1881 direct's great aunts and uncles. Have you brought the lines of all of their children forward to 1881 and found all of them on a census?

I'm not suggesting you have to do this, just that this is a demo with just a couple of generations of how easy it is to find a whole lot more blood cousins that you haven't found on a census let alone added to Lost Cousins. In theory you could run out but for every generation you go back there are possibly numerous lines forward again. So in practice you should never run out of possible lines to trace.

 

[AnneC]

but it would be much easier to check if the families were in alphabetical order, rather than the order in which I entered them.

There is an option to sort by name, type or household in the top right hand corner of the "My ancestors" page.

 

[Carla]

Well i have been checking out my information all afternoon and this evening using Peter's pencil and paper method, which really helped. In fact i ended up looking at brothers and sisters of my direct ancestors. It took me on a journey that i would never have gone on if i hadnt made a determined effort to add some more 'lost cousins'. In fact i did get a match and hope to hear back from that connection soon. I also realised i hadnt renewed my membership (no idea why not!!) and so did that straight away. Fortunately i have a few days off work during which i must rest on the sofa...an ideal time for me to do all this. I do have wrist ache and have just poured myself a (large) glass of red wine but it's deserved! I have so much more to research and it's made me realise that i need to do a little every week instead of leaving it like i have done............

 

[peter]

Is there any point in doing the same for all family members in the 1841 census in case I've missed some of them?

Yes, certainly - and in the process you may discover some collateral lines that you haven't previously traced through to 1881.

But I did get my first new cousin in 2 years yesterday and I think it is one I haven't found before. (We'll be 1st cousins 4 x removed, I think with a common ancestor born c 1758)

Well done! But I think you must have meant 4th cousin once removed???

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Well done! But I think you must have meant 4th cousin once removed???

Not necessarily. If the common ancestor had two children and Jacqueline is off one branch and the match is off the other branch then they would indeed be 1st cousins, although 4 generations removed suggests one branch was down early births and the other was down late births. Although again not impossible if one branch is all first borns and the other is all youngest child.

I'd concur that 4th cousin once removed is perhaps more likely as 4 times removed is 4 generations apart which for two living individuals would be unusual in such a short time frame from 1881. However since the common ancestor is 1758 then 4 generations different in that time frame is far more plausible.

 

[peter]

Not necessarily. If the common ancestor had two children and Jacqueline is off one branch and the match is off the other branch then they would indeed be 1st cousins, although 4 generations removed suggests one branch was down early births and the other was down late births. Although again not impossible if one branch is all first borns and the other is all youngest child.

For someone to be a 1st cousin the most recent common ancestor must be the grandparent of at least one of them. I can't imagine there are many people alive today (if any) who have a grandfather (it couldn't be a grandmother) who was born in 1758.

 

[Jacqueline]

I don't yet know my new cousin's descent through how many generations but my 3 x great grandmother (H)anna(h) Maria Pilbeam who married Henry Cox was born in 1783. Her brother George Pilbeam is the ancestor of my new cousin, born in 1803 and my 3x great grand uncle. Their father Edward would be our common ancestor. I'll subject her to an inquisition.