Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
A little ‘amuse bouche’ explaining how easy it is to follow a false trail when researching.
To set the scene, I was carrying out additional research for a friend. He had been born in the Midlands like me, a generation younger but from north Warwickshire and not knowingly related in any way.
I had set out his basic Tree some time ago and handed it over so he could augment same with his own research. Unable to afford subscriptions I pointed him in the direction of free sites, and he had been reporting good success.
To my surprise last week, he sent me something that really aroused my interest. He said he had found a connection to (what he believed to be) my paternal line with a Mary Spires (sic) -mother in law – to one of his own direct line relatives. What is more from the same rural areas of Warwickshire where many of my Spiers families had been born. I couldn’t wait to investigate same.
The Mary Spires in question purported to be the mother of the spouse of his relative. But I found that beyond doubt she had been a Mary French. She had died shortly after the daughter was born. So presumably the father had remarried a Mary Spires.
Research led me to a Mary Pearson marrying a Spires in 1817. Her husband had died in the 1840’s so clearing the way for her to remarry. But -try as I might – I could find no such marriage which was a shame as otherwise the pieces of the jigsaw seemed to fit…and we know she existed.
I was able to show there was no certain tie in to my own Spiers line (and not because of the variation spelling), but conceded a kinship probably existed. However, events were about to knock even this on the head.
My friend asked me to send a copy of a transcription record of the 1851 Census and in so doing came across an Ancestry ‘Corrective Note’ left by another Researcher. This is what it said: “Mary Spiers did not live at 35 as shown, but next door at 36 and she was in fact the mother in law of the Head of that household.
This stopped me in my tracks and of course I examined the original again and saw Mary Spiers had been added as a late insert between the two households. It had been taken by the transcribers of both Ancestry & FMP as applying to the household at 35 as a footnote. But, equally and more likely, as a header insert for the house next door!
To cut the story short I was able to establish that there was no Mary Spires associated with the 35 household. The true mother in law was long deceased as was the father in law.
I broke the news that he had been chasing a red herring, as indeed had I, and provided him with image originals to show how it had happened. In fact, had it not been for the kind Ancestry Researcher leaving the note, I may well have been puzzling the whole thing still.
It just shows how useful it is to leave corrective notes in Ancestry as I do regularly. One needs to be certain of facts of course and be sure to check those left by others.
To set the scene, I was carrying out additional research for a friend. He had been born in the Midlands like me, a generation younger but from north Warwickshire and not knowingly related in any way.
I had set out his basic Tree some time ago and handed it over so he could augment same with his own research. Unable to afford subscriptions I pointed him in the direction of free sites, and he had been reporting good success.
To my surprise last week, he sent me something that really aroused my interest. He said he had found a connection to (what he believed to be) my paternal line with a Mary Spires (sic) -mother in law – to one of his own direct line relatives. What is more from the same rural areas of Warwickshire where many of my Spiers families had been born. I couldn’t wait to investigate same.
The Mary Spires in question purported to be the mother of the spouse of his relative. But I found that beyond doubt she had been a Mary French. She had died shortly after the daughter was born. So presumably the father had remarried a Mary Spires.
Research led me to a Mary Pearson marrying a Spires in 1817. Her husband had died in the 1840’s so clearing the way for her to remarry. But -try as I might – I could find no such marriage which was a shame as otherwise the pieces of the jigsaw seemed to fit…and we know she existed.
I was able to show there was no certain tie in to my own Spiers line (and not because of the variation spelling), but conceded a kinship probably existed. However, events were about to knock even this on the head.
My friend asked me to send a copy of a transcription record of the 1851 Census and in so doing came across an Ancestry ‘Corrective Note’ left by another Researcher. This is what it said: “Mary Spiers did not live at 35 as shown, but next door at 36 and she was in fact the mother in law of the Head of that household.
This stopped me in my tracks and of course I examined the original again and saw Mary Spiers had been added as a late insert between the two households. It had been taken by the transcribers of both Ancestry & FMP as applying to the household at 35 as a footnote. But, equally and more likely, as a header insert for the house next door!
To cut the story short I was able to establish that there was no Mary Spires associated with the 35 household. The true mother in law was long deceased as was the father in law.
I broke the news that he had been chasing a red herring, as indeed had I, and provided him with image originals to show how it had happened. In fact, had it not been for the kind Ancestry Researcher leaving the note, I may well have been puzzling the whole thing still.
It just shows how useful it is to leave corrective notes in Ancestry as I do regularly. One needs to be certain of facts of course and be sure to check those left by others.
