Genealogy Chat

Thanks for all your thoughts on this. Maybe I didn’t explain properly but you all seem to see what I’m getting at. I will be doing the female line through the ‘trunk’ of my tree but the males I am bringing all siblings up to date too. Basically I will only be recording people who are married to, or are children of someone with the same name as someone in my trunk but not following their line any further.

My tree is only really for me as I haven’t any children and no contact with any close family now so I’m the end of my line.

I can certainly appreciate that gems are always likely to happen but then who knows how many gems lie just beyond our fingertips but out of reach.

Thanks again everyone – I always appreciate your slant on my dilemmas. I like to see where I’m going (or not) and you are all like a torch that lightens my way

We all do it a different way but our tree is actually our childrens tree and may,in time,be our grandchildrens tree.
The females are actually more important than the males as they are definite(no milkmen).
Following the female line as well we have found a close friend and neighbour who is a relative by marriage back in 1880.
We have found a photo, this week,from 1900 who bears a striking resemblance to our daughters,
We have found several marriages between cousins which are not apparent unless you follow the female line as well.

Well, I put almost everyone I find in my tree. I admit I sometimes hesitate to bother, and think what the hell, and the number of occasions that I have been so glad that I did have been unbelievable.

Two days ago I was contacted by a relative on my dad's side who is descended from the same great great grandparents as me, but via a half-sibling of my great grandparent who married in a totally different part of the country. I nearly didn't bother putting him in the tree, but so glad I did. I have had very few contacts on my dad's side of the family, so each one is precious to me.

As everyone says, it is dependant on what you want to achieve. If you just want the direct line, that is fine. But my direct line is all pretty boring stuff. All agricultural labourers and cotton spinners. And my husband's is similar, except there are a few joiners and carpenters in there.

But spread out a bit, and I found a cousin of my husband that he never knew existed. We made contact, and the fella, now 91, is a good friend of my 64-year old hubby. I researched his wife's family, at his request, and found that her great grandfather was the first registrar of burials at a local cemetery.

I researched my cousin's husband's family, at her request, and that was a gem. Her husband's grandfather was descended from a vicar, whose wife was descended from a Baron and MP in the 1600s, and I traced that family back to aristrocracy (and probably royalty somewhere in there) to BEFORE 1066!!!! I found that very exciting to have copies from old books mentioning my cousin's husband's family.

So yes, the females are just as important as the males. Do you really just want to restrict your research to the male line? And if so, why? As you name yourself Beverley, I assume you are female (sorry if not!), so will you be leaving out your sister, or your mum's sister? I don't think so.

There IS a limit, I imagine, for most people, on paying for certificates to prove that Joan Smith married either Fred Bloggs, or Jack Russell or Tom Thumb. Most of us will draw the line at spending money to prove a remote line. But otherwise, I'd say include them all. Whether you reproduce them all in a posh book in a few years is another matter, but you could include a CD of the entire tree and let people decide for themselves how much they want to absorb.

Best wishes

Margaret

As you discover more twigs for your tree, eg from censuses, it seems a shame not to utilise the info, if you have the time and inclination. And also, if you put them on here, you may get a match, I certainly have been in contact with a number of people who whilst not close family, I would count amongst my rellies.

It depends entirely on what you yourself wish. I actually have 2 family trees.

The first being direct ancestors only, stretching back to the 1700's. It is just a tree trunk if you will, no branches. Being realistic I think that it would prove very very difficult to expand this further back in time without guessing rather than knowing who were my earlier ancestors.

The other tree has many branches and twigs, containining both male and female lines. The second tree expands quite regularly as I keep discovering even more descendants of the 18 children that my 3xgreat grandparents had. They turn up quite regularly. Sometimes I find them and sometimes they find me through their research. I find it fascinating how far the family has spread in a little over 200 years. My latest contact was discovered living in Tasmania, quite a distance from Suffolk where the family originated.

As you say it is personal choice. It is your family tree which you compile under your own criteria. There is no right or wrong.

Some people like to keep only to the direct blood line and others, myself included, research all siblings as much as possible. If I had not done this I would never have known that my great great grandfathers nephew, (his sister's son)was a decorated career soldier who fought in the second Boar War and died in August 1914 in the First World War. He turned down his own commision to stay with his regiment or that the nephew of my great great great great grandmother was the Bishop of Perth or that three of her nieces were Nuns and one a Mother Superior.

It also depends on what you want from your tree. Whether it is a compilation of peoples names who belong in your family or in my case a family history. I not only look for names but I research the lives of some of the people like my career soldier. I research the histories of the times they lived in and try and imagine the impact these events would have on their lives.

well they are all family linked although as the generations grow and spread the links get stretched. Its up to you how far you want to spread out . I often find i go off on a tangent when finding marriages for the females but although I will list the parents of the groom i dont explore back on that side. I will list the children too if found What has thrown up sometimes is the families sometimes interlink back when cousins marry etc.

I would appreciate some thoughts regarding the females in my tree. I can't make up my mind whether to continue with the female siblings once they marry. As they change their name and their children are of a different name can I really say they are still part of my tree? I know it's a personal choice but I would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

Beverley