Genealogy Chat

On threads people say their are not related to people though marriage, why? We all have fathers and mothers who had brothers and sisters who in next generation are aunts and uncles, cousins etc, so each generation back you get more and more. So do we forget about them or just follow our own line back. Just like rt know other peoples view on this.

Roger, You are not related to the ancestors of the people who marry into your family, only their descendents, for example: if your grandfather's sister marries, her husband's family are not related to you, but their children and grandchildren are. That is how it works in genealogical terms. Jennifer

I do follow sisiter/brothers etc because as you rightly say, these people are all distant cousins to me or my parents/grandparents etc. What I don't do is trace the family of say my uncle's wife. She would be included in my tree with any children but I am not interested in her parents or siblings as they are no blood relation to me. This is what I take 'not related through marriage' to mean. Sam x

Hi Roger.. and all who have replied to this thread.. I would just like to say.. That having an interest into other family members even wives of brother's.. Aunt's Uncle's.. I would never have found out that 3 of my brother in laws families are related to me in different ways... Roger my bro in law is related via a marriage of his Cousin to a link in my grandmother's tree.. My Sister in Law's husband has a link with my mother's paternal line... and my sister's husband has a link not only to my mother's paternal line but also via my sister-in laws husband's tree.. My two brother in law's would of been 4th Cousins and neither of them knew it.. It was only by looking into the bigger picture that I found out about these connections... My usual way of adding a married in partner would not only be to add her but I also add in the partner's father (or both parents if I know them).. No relation to me... but its only by adding in this information that I found out about the connections that I now know about.. Just a couple of moths ago I added a new marriage to my tree for the father of the bride and I had a feeling that I knew of her Father's name... on checking out this link.. I already had her father in my maternal line...and she was marrying into my paternal line... So it just goes to show that if I did'nt have him in my tree as a descendant of my 2x great grandfather brother.. I would never of known about this link.. But at the end of the day it's personal preference on how far you actually want to take your research.. Mo Update .. Mind you Jennifer.. I like you dont add this info into Genes but I do have the connections on my own family personal file.. as the program I use.. when doing a register of the families it does include the parents names in there.. so it would come up Joe Bloggs son of Richard Bloggs and Mary Tiger..married.. Tina Johnson daughter of Tigris Johnson and Flora Buttercup.... as an example...

I agree with MO, I do investigate the families of in-laws because they sometimes lead to further clues about my own line, however, I do not add them to my tree. I note their parent's details in the notes section of that person, and note where I have stored any other information relating to them. All this is done on my own FH programme on my PC, I would not do it on the small section of my tree I have on this site. Jennifer

I follow the direct line and there children but do not go into the childrens marriages and there children because i think it would go on forever. Hope that makes sense Debbie

I follow a line sideways if it`s interesting.. For example I traced my great aunt`s life , she married my great uncle, because a friend of mine, no relation, lives in the house they built and I did a scrapbook for her and myself, Ros

I have about 3,000 people on my offline tree. We all have to put spouses on for our blood relations so that we can add their children (who are related to us). Generally I do stick to blood relatives; but I will go off and investigate a spouse's family if there is something unusual about them; but otherwise I mainly stick to the blood relatives. If I investigated all the spouses ancestors back to the year dot, my tree woud be ENORMOUS and it's big enough now! ;-) My objective is to study MY family tree and my blood relations but that won't be the same objective for others. I'm glad I've branched off sideways because my direct ancestors have a habit of dying young from bronchitis whereas their siblings do exciting things like become Swing Rioters, get transported, become witnesses in murder trials or die tragically by getting knocked down by traction engines and trains! Cheers, Horatia

Its a personal choice-german genealogists for instance like to trace pure female bloodlines becaus ethey are deemed more reliable....almost the opposite to our one name obsessions which can only be fed by tracing male bloodlines.

I always find it useful to go off at tangents and find details of brothers and sisters of my ancestors. Sometimes I find the missing in-law living with one of them and badly transcribed - sometimes I find nieces and nephews which can give clues to who married who. I also track all Mocock names as well because I'm certain all the London ones are related back there somewhere. No I don't have a One Name Study (yet) but am seriously considering it. Sometimes I end up researching a common ancestor if someone has made contact - just to check connections and help them out if they don't have census access or whatever. I then quite often add some of those to my tree. Also, I do odd bits of research for aunts and cousins etc so they can end up being added too - even if they are a bit 'distant'. The more sideways I make my tree the more likely I am that someone will spot a connection and they may have info on the common ancestors which I don't have. Has to b worth it for that alone. Jill

Thank you to all who have replied to this thread it hs been interesting on hearing how other people go about doing there tree. But if I had just followed my direct line on either side, mam's or dad's instead of doing cousins I would not have found out about one of my second cousins twicw removed was hung in Durham Jail and all the stories and newspaper cuttings about him, and even been to the site where it happened so I went walking with ancestors, lol. The

Here are a few relationship pointers that I hope inexperienced family researchers will find helpful: Direct ancestor - this is the line you are descended from: Mother, Father, Grandfather, Grandmother, Great Grandfather, Great Grandmother etc etc. Blood Relatives: Cousins, Uncles, Aunts, and that includes Second cousins, Third cousins and Great Uncles and Great Great Grand Uncles and Aunts, not to mention cousins once removed or twice removed - these are all blood relatives. Spouses Of Blood Relatives: People who marry your blood relatives don't have a blood relationship with you - but their children do. I put these people on my tree and possibly their parents; but don't go any further back on them because they don't have a blood relationship to me. However, I sometimes break this rule if I discover interesting facts about these folks! Hope this isn't a waste of space! ;-) Just trying to be clear. :-) Cheers, Horatia PS Yes, I too love seeing everyone's input on this thread and even if their methods aren't for me, it all comes down to personal choice and everyone should respect someone's personal choice! :-)

I hope others would put their input on how they go about doing their tree, because if cousins marry it means you have to do the parents of the wife's because there are blood relatives also does it not.

Hi I include uncle and aunts spouses and children, as my family are mostly from country villages i have found they are usually related , cousins often married. lorraine

I do mine by going where it takes me. I have Burleys in Suffolk and Burleys in Surrey and the incidence of similar names enticed me to trawl sideways and it has uncovered all sorts of interesting links. I go a lot on hunches... and then prove the hunch is correct. The trouble is you can't do everything and you have to call a halt when you are travelling too far away from those for whom you were initially searching. M