One-name studies

[jpkc]

This question was prompted by reading the "next phase" article in the latest newsletter.

I am researching a one-name study for a name (Hulbert) different from my own (Clifford). One of my great grandmothers was descended from one of the largest branches of Hulberts so I have included all her cousins in my own ancestors on LostCousins.

But I am wondering how to handle all the other Hulberts, and their relatives, in my study. Should I treat all of them as my ancestors as this makes it easy for me to deal with any matches that occur? Or I should I open a separate account at LostCousins and, if so, do I add duplicate entries for all the Hulberts in my own family?

 

[Bryman]

I am wondering how to handle all the other Hulberts, and their relatives, in my study. Should I treat all of them as my ancestors as this makes it easy for me to deal with any matches that occur? Or I should I open a separate account at LostCousins and, if so, do I add duplicate entries for all the Hulberts in my own family?

Both of your alternatives would probably incur the displeasure of Peter. That is why I started the discussion "How wide should one search?" to find out what the views are of other members. Unrelated individuals, or at least those indicated as related by marriage only, will not lead to living cousins directly and hence Peter would prefer that they not be entered at LostCousins. He believes that some members will be discouraged if they get 'too many' matches for non-blood related people.

I would much prefer to receive a non-blood match than no match at all so have generally included members of the birth family of an individual that marries one of my blood relatives, in order to increase the chance of finding someone who is researching in that general area. It may not identify a living cousin directly but anyone responsible for the match may be able to help identify such living cousins, who are most likely to not be LC members.

However, LC is Peter's project and we should mostly try to abide by his wishes even if those do not make things easiest for us individually. No doubt Peter will reply with his own advice for your questions in due course.

 

[Pauline]

You can find all you need to know about Lost Cousins and One Name Studies here - https://www.lostcousins.com/pdf/ONE_NAME_STUDIES.pdf

 

[jpkc]

My apologies Pauline for a senior moment.

I had forgotten that I had already registered my study with Peter last June.

The pdf you referred me to answers some of Bryman's points as well.

 

[Pauline]

My apologies Pauline for a senior moment.

It happens to us all!

I take it yours is the GOONS registered Hulbert ONS?

 

[peter]

This question was prompted by reading the "next phase" article in the latest newsletter.

I am researching a one-name study for a name (Hulbert) different from my own (Clifford). One of my great grandmothers was descended from one of the largest branches of Hulberts so I have included all her cousins in my own ancestors on LostCousins.

But I am wondering how to handle all the other Hulberts, and their relatives, in my study. Should I treat all of them as my ancestors as this makes it easy for me to deal with any matches that occur? Or I should I open a separate account at LostCousins and, if so, do I add duplicate entries for all the Hulberts in my own family?

One-Name Studies will not directly help with Phase 2 of the LostCousins project, the objective of which is to connect individuals recorded on the 1881 Census to their living relatives.

Entering your great-grandmother's cousins is excellent - anyone who is a cousin of a direct ancestor of yours is also a cousin of yours. If you proceed with the Hulbert ONS at LostCousins then it is entirely up to you whether you use a separate account or not, but if you do you shouldn't duplicate entries for your own relatives as this will confuse other members by connecting you with them twice.