Genealogy Chat

I was looking at the IGI fiche in the library at the marriage of one of my ancestors, Matthew Coats, who married Mary Jones in Barnstaple in 1791. In the entry it mentioned a relative, Frederick William Jones. I thought I'd have a look to see if I could find other sources for Mary and Frederick, and to my surprise I found entries for births, christenings and marriages for Mary Jones with relative Frederick William Jones going back every couple of decades to 1598.

I know that names are passed between generatioins, but this looks really odd! can anyone explain?

Paul

All I know is that I have a Richard G going back to that time. All the first borns were called Richard from 1300 right up till 1864.. You are lucky if you have the mothers as well because often they just named the fathers. I think it is possible but couldn´t really say without checking it out. Perhaps someone else who is better informed could advise you.

If they are submitted records then they could be wrong. On the other hand, Mary and Fred William Jones are extremely common names and it is quite common for generations of a family to all be named the same.

Sam x

I'm not quite clear on what it is you've found -- but yes, if they're submitted records, watch out.

I have an ancestor named Berry Rushland whose father (and on back) was also Berry Rushland.

Some moron (apparently a very distant cousin in California) has submitted BR Jr. as having married his mother.

Another moron has a tree at Ancestry showing one of my ancestors in Cheshire as being the grandson of someone born 200 years later -- later -- in the US.

(Actually, that particular moronicity is repeated in more than one tree, apparently because Ancestry offers that prompt and people go Oooh! and adopt it.)

Trust nothing and no one. ;)

Shelly -- you want to contact whoever has that nonsense in their tree and tell them firmly that you want it removed!

For one thing, these are living people and no one has any business putting their details in a public tree.

For another, they're at least entitled to have their details correct if someone puts them in a tree where they're private.


I found another stupidity affecting my family -- a Sibley from Cornwall with a bunch of kids born in Cornwall supposedly had a son Richard Shipley born in the US.

Again, Ancestry had come up with this idea, and three people thought Oooh! I think I'll put that in my tree! It wasn't *their* grx4 grandfather being given the stupid wrong son.

I contacted them all and asked, cordially, wherever they had got this idea. They all turned out to be related to the Shipley born in the US. They all agreed it was silly, and took my Sibleys out of their trees.

Kathryn - I think what Shelly means is those entries are on the BMD births index, not on the submitted family trees.

Shelly - those indexes are not created by Ancestry but are provided by the GRO. You will find multiple entries or "late" entries in these indexes when births have been re-registered at a later date. This can happen when the parents marry after the child was born, or if the child's names are later changed for any reason. Likewise, if your daughter is not married to her children's father then the births will be registered in her surname.

For example, I see that your R Hol* was first registered in the 4th quarter of 1983, under the surname Hod*. If you look at this entry, you will see a handwritten note "F7965" alongside it, which indicates to the registrar where to find the corrected entry (which was in April 1989, re-registered under surname Hol*).

Richard

Oh! On checking, yes indeed. As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say: Never mind then!

It ain't Ancestry, it's the General Register Office.

Looks like some of those old baptismal records -- my gr-grfather and 3 sibs were all baptized in a batch in 1857, even though they were born over an 8-year period before that. ;)

I don't know for sure how the IGI works but I thought that if you see a marriage, then a relative's name, eg. Frederick William JONES, then he, FWJ had perhaps submitted a tree with the married couple somewhere on it.
The marrying couple might be many generations back, ..or just one or two.
The relative's name just links to the source information, ....as submitted.

Gwyn

A child born before the marriage could be registered in the fathers name but until 2002 if they married at a later date they had to be re-registered because a father could not be classed as next of kin in a medical emergency. Hope that makes sense.

One of my nephews was re-registered after his parents wedding, the other post born post 2002 didn't need to be.