Genealogy Chat

I don't understand how trees that I have been allowed to view have 15,000 or more names on them. How is this?

Through recording all marriages and births of all in your families, and all their relations, and all their in-laws, and all their relations, and all their parents, etc etc you can reach the entire population of England, Scotland and Wales if you want.
It is up to you where you draw the line.
Some do.
Some do not.

Not that unusual. I have access to around 640 trees, of which:-

170 contacts have over 1,000 names and of those 35 have more than 10,000 names and 3 more than 40,000

At the other end of the spectrum around 145 contacts have fewer than 100 names Which leaves the rest, just over half the total, with between 100 and 1,000 names.

It takes all sorts.

When you view large trees - or any tree for that matter - only take them as a guide. Its best to do your own research as well. With the best will in the world, people do make mistakes.
And with large trees, it is unlikely that they have found Birth or Baps, marriages and deaths for every single person. It would cost a fortune, if nothing else!

and I find that some of the largest trees are packed with living people, babies and so on. That's their choice of course, but I wouldn't want my children and grandchild on someone else's tree.

If you start with yourself and go back 6 generations you have:

2 parents
4 grandparents
8 great grandparents
16 2x Great grandparents
32 3x Great grandparents
64 4x Great grandparents

That totals 126 direct ancestors

If you have a spouse/partner and include them in your family that figure should double.

If you and your spouse/partner have siblings and possibly children then the number will increase but only by a few in most cases.

People who have many hundreds or many thousands of people in their family tree have obviously extended the net extremely widely to incorporate so many people. That of course is their prerogative but it does concern me slightly. I wonder just how much checking the tree owner has done to ensure that the facts relating to all of those people who appear in their family tree are indeed accurate.

Unfortunately there are some individuals who think that having a great number of individuals in their family tree is more important than having first confirmed that the individuals actually belong there.

I have a tendency to be suspicious of those with very large numbers of people within their family tree and view anything I see with caution.

However each to his own I suppose.

I don't agree, necessarily. 15,000 seems extraordinarly large, and has likely not been fully researched. My own tree has about 5,000 cos it isn't just my own tree, but that of several cousins and their spouses families. All properly researched (well, I'm prepared to admit to 90% researched properly). I suppose if I'd been doing this for about 15 years, I could have a tree of 15,000. I ain't got on to any of the siblings of ancestors as yet - another decade!

A small tree of a few hundred can have just as many inaccuracies as those large trees, proportionately of course. I have one contact (a close relative) with only 40 people in her tree, and have already proved 10 of them to be wrong. She hasn't bought a single certificate, has no intention of doing so (cos her father in law gave her the info so it must be right), and when I have presented her with evidence that she is wrong, resolutely refuses to amend her tree.

So basically, any information gleaned from anyone elses tree is only a hint. Nothing more. Research it yourself and gain the evidence.

Then you will have confidence in what you are doing.

Meg

My tree is thoroughly reseached with the co-operation of others and swoping certs and docs photos etc..

I started with my own direct family then cousins asked about there own branches. I found by doing this I have located many missing relations who went to live with other distant relations.

Some examples - my mums 83 year old cousin asked if I could fiind a missing cousin. Nobody in the family knew he existed. I found him in Cyprus and then for him I found his 3 children by different mothers one he had never even seen. A 60 year old man telling me that so say the word dad on the phone made him cry. It touched my heart.They have all now been to Cyprus to meet him.

I found an adopted daughter's real family - bit of a shock that was how one child could be adopted out. Then to top it all I found the missing half brother who had been looking for his siblings for 40years.

Just 3 weeks ago I was contacted by a lady in NZ who asked who I was connected to in her family. For 27 years she has been looking for the family link (name change) and shock of shocks in 1800's her relation took a family album to NZ and nobody in her family knew who they were. Then a will. From my tree I could identify all the people (branches) over 2 generations who were listed in the docs. Now I have photos of my own maternal grandparents x 7 and all those down the line.

From them, I sent a relation photos of his great gran growing up and her 2 husbands. He is gob smacked as they say and now found him two great aunts he didn't know existed who had been sent to live with the family who went to NZ.

A lot of my difficult cases have been solve with the help of members in the community. I personally get great joy in helping family no matter how distant as long as they reciprocate with information and docs.

Susanne

Susanne,

Perhaps I am misreading your post but something within it caught my eye. It was in the section relating to the lady from NZ. You say that her relation took a family album to NZ in 1800. Did you mean a family bible or is the date given wrong? The reason that I ask is that it is widely accepted that the first ever photograph of a person was one taken by Louis Daguerre in Paris in 1839.

Within the same paragraph you mention that you now have photos of your maternal grandparents x 7. I read this to mean that you are talking about your 6x Great Grandparents. Bearing in mind that the conventional norm between generations is accepted to be about 25 years those individuals would have been born about the mid 1700's at the latest, possibly even earlier. If that is correct then even if they lived to over 100 years old it is unlikely that they would have survived long enough to have their photograph taken.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify the situation.

Many thanks

Jonesay thanks for spotting it - the 's was missing. Have now corrected it. The oldest relation was born in 1812 & 1814 ( wife older than husband). The family seem to haved loved taking photos. Some of the adresses of the photographers are there. Very near to where I now live in London.

Since wrting this post I have been sent a second album of more modern photos. The connecting relation was a sailor who died in the shipwreck Penguin Wellington 12/2/1909. from his work shedule sent to me from NZ he returned to UK 1899. His uncle likewise the orignal sailor from 16 returned to get married to his sister-in-law 1871. They all lived in the same 2 houses. His 2 sisters were on the stage and so was their aunt. What has surprised me is the number of photos as various children were growing up. The most touching photo is that of my relation born 1814 in later life with a cameo of her son in sailor uniform around her neck. The same photo I have in large form .
Sombody must have carefully taken the second album back to NZ.

Susanne

Susanne
Amazing the things you have discovered.
My tree is accurate and completely restricted to Lancashire, except for a Great Grandmother dying in pregnancy in Chester. This was a 6 month , 2nd marriage to a doctor (his 3rd). My cousin and I still think it is extremley suspicious.

Angela

Who is to say what is extraordinarly large? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000, 50,000? Who knows?

A large tree does not necessarily mean that the info has not been researched correctly. Quite often a large (sic) tree is the result of the collaboration of a number of very diligent researchers who have put their info together

Any one heard of team work? The collective sum of the individuals can be far better that of the individuals alone?

How do you know your tree is accurate? How do you know that is is not, or indeed anyone else's tree is accurate? I don't care one iota if someone else has got it wrong. and is not prepared to listen to what I have to say. That is their problem.

If someone tells me I have got it wrong, then I check it out and, if necessary, change it.

If the boot is on the other foot and the person is not prepared to take my opinion then their loss, not mine.
.

And how accurate is accurate? Certificates of course are pretty reliable, but what about census returns, do you use those as reliable info? and what happens when you get back before 1800 and have to rely on parish or other handwritten records? They don't always have dates of birth on baptism registers, so you have to guess a bit.
I have a mixture on my tree, 'certified' rellies, plus anyone else with them on the census uncertified. Similar info given by family members researching different names on the tree.

A lot depends where and when you are looking for.

Having been there, worn the tee shirt, and having it ripped off several times, these days I look for at least two pieces of corroborating information

Not always possible, I know, but in the 1800's you look at census and BMD records to confirm or deny your research.

The, 1900 / 2000's is to some extent even easier, with more searchable info available on the indices, tracing marriage then births then marriage then birth etc, both forwards and backward,

I have discovered the hard way that a certificate is only as good as the person giving the information.

If the informant tells the wrong information then that's exactly what is entered on the certificate no questions asked.