Genealogy Chat

Can some kind soul please tell me if a child b about 1725 in Ireland would be given the first name of Tui? There are some people on ancestry who are disputing my suggestion that Tui Mary Bettany was NOT b in the 18th century, and that my sister would not have been the only one to have ever been given that name. (True, but not 18th century)
I have spent about 10 hours today contacting all the people who have her b in Ireland and married to John Downing b 1723. There were a lot of people who had it, some even had her father's correct y.o.b. of 1899 but still they did not see how ridiculous that was.
Huia.

I am not sure where you are getting your details from on an Irish birth of 1725 in Ireland.

Few real records are available for Ireland for this date.

A few questions.

Where in Ireland is this birth recorded?

What barony and Townland?

Was the person RC or Cof E/Church of Ireland?

The name Tui does exist as I have come across this in relation to the name Twohey/Tui/Touhi/Touey and all other ways of spelling this name. This name is a surname, but like any other surname could be used as a chrisian or first name, particularly if the mother wanted to retain her family name.

Back to 1725 anywhere is baptisms mainly rather than births and if you look on any Irish website you will find that very few if any Irish Catholic Baps are recorded before 1730, most are not recorded before 1800. Although Church of Ireland/Cof E births were recorded from 1600 many of these were destroyed in the Four Courts fire in Dublin in 1922 Civil War. Those that remain are in Dublin National Archives. All RC baps remain with the churches all over Ireland but there is a move to get these on line and they are coming on slowly. The RC baps are also on microfilm at Dublin National Library.

Very few Irish records for births and baps are on the IGI and out of about 400 of my own Irish ancsstors I have only ever found 10 on the IGI! Those that are on the IGI are often submitted by other people and are open to mistakes, such as you have mentioned. Ask them where they are getting their information from.

I have nudged up my other thread on "Irish Parish Records Online October 2007" for you, as the website there may be of interest to you.

Janet North London Borders

I dont know where or when in Ireland she is alleged to have been born. I just know that they have Tui Mary Bettany b,,,Ireland and they have her spouse John Downing b USA 1723 and various children b from 1747 to 1756 in USA. The only thing wrong with this is that some of the people with all this info have Tui's father Arnold Crompton Bettany b 1899 and they have not noticed how ridiculous that is. Others dont have her parents but with the same spouse and children they have obviously got the name from the same source and I am trying to convince them that they are wrong.

Tui Mary Bettany b,,,Ireland and they have her spouse John Downing b USA 1723 and >>>various children b from 1847 to 1856 in USA<<<

That seems a little outragious too

One of the people I contacted told me that there were 9 other people with the information on OneWorldTree, therefore it must be right! I replied that 9 wrongs dont make a right. Another told me to educate myself in the whole process of genealogy research. I should have asked him to educate me, since he seems to be such an expert (not).

Last week I found some glaring mistakes on a tree posted on Ancestry but when contacted the owner changed things straight away.
Like your case, dates were ridiculous.
My great grandmother was said to have died in 1885 and yet managed to marry in 1892 and go on to bear a child in 1910....when she would have been 64.

Unchecked information can be shared so easily nowadays and someone receiving messages from say Australia, USA and England seem to think that if the same information is from all parts of the world...well then it must be correct, whereas one person could be the source of so many incorrect and illogical 'facts'.

Gwyn

One World Tree has many glaring mistakes which probably includes many of mine, where people have hijacked parts of my tree and erroneously tacked it on to theirs. It's not worth bothering about. If you know you have the correct tree then the incorrect one that others have is their loss. I think OWT is going to get a lot worse before people MAY one day revert back to true genealogical ideas, which to me seems a long way off.

Janet North London Borders

One reply I have just received says that she/he attaches them until they can be proved right or wrong! Talk about the cart before the donkey.
I found I am on OWT as Living Bettany with my spouse as Living (correct surname) and our children likewise. I know it is me as they have my parents and grandparents, all correct, but one gt grandmother has been given the wrong surname and her husband has been given the wrong mother. Another gt grandfather has been given 3 wives, and since several people have been researching him and his tree and have only ever come up with 2 wives I dont know where this person found another wife.

Having looked once more at OWT I have just found a glaring Irish mistake where a daughter has been reputed to have married her mother's first husband!!! The daughter was born 1874 while the "husband" was born 1824 and died 1870!!! The mother had one child by him before he died. She then married again 1871 and had 2 children in Ireland, 1872 and 1874, before she left for the USA. The son she had by her previous marriage in 1868 is down as a son of her daughter instead of showing as her stepbrother!!!!

There are at least six trees on OWT with the same mistake, and nobody seems to have had the gumption to seek the truth, which is available through the GRO at Dublin, Roscommon and Belfast. I seem to be the only one with the extra info on the fact that this person was a member of the RIC and I have his details. I no longer understand what people want from Genealogy these days.

I have the correct marriage details of both marriages, to include Certs and the first husband's death Cert as well as his details of being in the RIC. I also have the birth certs of the children and have tried to correct the information, but half the time there are defunct E mail addresses and nobody wants to know. Their loss, not mine!!

It really does make a complete nonsense of some of these trees on OWT. I treat them with great sceptism.

The big golden rule about Genealogy is that you prove FIRST before you get into a tree. Assumptions are fine, and we all have to make them, BUT they should be just that, assumptions only, which get put to one side until proven. I have two trees, one totally proven as far as you can with Certs, and we all know that certs can be incorrect, but we have to start there. Another tree is of many might be, possible assumptions. These assumptions have often been proved correct over time, but it does need time to break down a brick wall.

If only people would realise that Genealogy/Family history, like most hobbies, has certain rules which should be adhered to. If the rules were strictly kept we would not have so many silly trees flying around.

Moan over!

Janet North London Borders

Yes Janet there are so many ridiculous trees on Ancestry, they could do with a very good pruning. Dont people want to know their roots? They are certainly not finding their own. But if they are happy with their spurious trees, well more fool them. I just wish they wouldnt take my family names in vain.
Huia.