Twins puzzle

[peter]

Does the relevant baptism appear in any online trees?

In the case of my ancestor James Freer, he appears in over 30 public trees on Ancestry.

It's Thomas Freer who appears in the baptism register, so you need to know whether anyone else has him in their tree.

 

[peter]

I think we may be going round in circles here so perhaps this would be a good time to end this discussion

I agree - three days ago at #59 you wrote:

after weighing up all the available evidence, we may make a decision about whether something is, say, pretty certain, probable, possible or very unlikely

Then we seemed to be talking about the same thing.

 

[Helen7]

It's Thomas Freer who appears in the baptism register, so you need to know whether anyone else has him in their tree.

Yes, there are a handful of trees referring to the baptism of Thomas Freer in 1805, parents Thomas and Mary. However, these say he married Alice Broughton in Glapthorne, Northants in 1824. But there are far more trees (and seemingly better researched ones) reporting Alice Broughton's husband as the Thomas Freer baptised in 1799 in Great Easton to parents Robert and Sarah, so a different Thomas (who is also in my tree, incidentally, as a 1st cousin of James).

So there's nothing in the on-line trees featuring the 1805 baptism of Thomas, parents Thomas and Mary, to convince me that this child retained the name Thomas.

 

[Pauline]

OK, so maybe once again I didn't pick the best example as illustration

On second thoughts, other than providing an opening for diversion, it was OK as an illustration.

 

[Heather]

Thomas and James can look quite similar at a quick glance, so maybe the vicar misread his rough notes.

Or misplaced his glasses

 

[Bob Spiers]

More seriously, though, this seems to me to highlight a fundamental difference in approach - is our focus more on "getting on" in our research or "getting it right". For those whose focus leans more towards "getting on" then I can see that weighing up probabilities might be more important than for those of us whose focus is on "getting it right".

Your comments about 'getting on' and 'getting it right' overlook people like myself who try to achieve both, even if owning to being a 'getting on' person first and foremost. So it has to be down to definition of how right is right and individual time codes.

In genealogical research we follow (whether we know it or not) 'Parkinson's Law', "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion". Those familiar with Cyril Northcote Parkinson's somewhat satirical book (which I read over 60 years ago just after it was published) and, from memory, recall him offering two alternatives about writing and posting a letter:

#1 A little old lady writing to her niece (looking for a writing pad, then her pen, and where did she put the ink (before biros), the same with stamps(in a drawer somewhere). Then taking time to compose and write her letter in neat handwriting. Finally putting on her hat, coat and gloves to go to the post box). The whole thing filling her day.

#2 A busy clerk/typist (before computers) in an office accomplishing the same thing and likely more in under an hour.

So it is for each of us. We spend whatever time we can allot to research using whatever resources are available (and often affordable) and do so to the best of our abilities. As long as the end result passes muster in our own minds, that is all that matters. If it falls short, we must leave and return to it later. 'Getting it right' and 'Getting on' are just individual matters of degree.

 

[Pauline]

Your comments about 'getting on' and 'getting it right' overlook people like myself who try to achieve both

Bob, rest assured it was not my intention to suggest that either approach was more 'right' or 'wrong', or to try and compartmentalise anyone. As you say, most of us will seek an appropriate balance between the two as works best for us as individuals.

The point I was responding to was about making effective use of our time which, because I see family history purely as a hobby, I tend not to worry about very much. I'm very happy to spend time checking out something that to others may seem unnecessary because I enjoy doing it, and find it can reveal all kinds of interesting things in the process. So to me it doesn't really matter that much if time thus spent doesn't result in any immediate advancement of my tree, what matters is that I enjoyed doing it.

One way or another, my tree has been growing steadily over the last 30+ years and researching has given me a lot of pleasure over that time.