... that we're on the right lines?
This isn't a plea for look-ups, more an attempt to start a discussion about how we decide who to include in our tree and where to hesitate.
For instance:
I have a Joseph, b. 1791 and d. 1874 in the same small north Warwickshire village where he was baptised. Info confirmed by census, baptism and burial records. His parents (from the baptism) are James and Elizabeth. There are no other James/Elizabeth partnerships baptising children in that village around that time, so it would seem that Joseph's siblings are Sarah, Ambrose, John, Elizabeth, Mary, Ann and Samuel (and from census info, confirmed via nieces/nephews etc).
In that same small north Warwickshire village, there's a burial in 1829 of a 75yo James, which would make him b. abt 1754 and so the correct age to be having those children, and 4-5 miles away in another village is a marriage to an Elizabeth in 1878, a year before Sarah was born.
Then trying to find info about James (b. 1754), there's no baptism in the village register and nothing obvious comes up on Ancestry from the Warwickshire PRs. However, having looked on Ancestry, FS, FreeReg and anywhere else I can think of, I see that there's a baptism 20 miles away across the border in Staffordshire that seems to match, showing him as the son of another James. On further investigation, it seems that James senior was the son of an Ambrose.
On similar lines, Elizabeth seems to be the daughter of a Joseph, who in turn was the son of a Samuel.
So, it's all a bit circumstantial, but is that enough to put them on my tree as my direct ancestors? Or, if all PRs in the UK had been indexed and available on-line, might there be another family of the same name somewhere else in the country entirely who might be the "real" ancestors? Do I just have to wait for that day to find out?
This must be a situation that we all find ourselves in, so how do you decide whether or not you're on the right track, rather than chasing shadows?
STG
This isn't a plea for look-ups, more an attempt to start a discussion about how we decide who to include in our tree and where to hesitate.
For instance:
I have a Joseph, b. 1791 and d. 1874 in the same small north Warwickshire village where he was baptised. Info confirmed by census, baptism and burial records. His parents (from the baptism) are James and Elizabeth. There are no other James/Elizabeth partnerships baptising children in that village around that time, so it would seem that Joseph's siblings are Sarah, Ambrose, John, Elizabeth, Mary, Ann and Samuel (and from census info, confirmed via nieces/nephews etc).
In that same small north Warwickshire village, there's a burial in 1829 of a 75yo James, which would make him b. abt 1754 and so the correct age to be having those children, and 4-5 miles away in another village is a marriage to an Elizabeth in 1878, a year before Sarah was born.
Then trying to find info about James (b. 1754), there's no baptism in the village register and nothing obvious comes up on Ancestry from the Warwickshire PRs. However, having looked on Ancestry, FS, FreeReg and anywhere else I can think of, I see that there's a baptism 20 miles away across the border in Staffordshire that seems to match, showing him as the son of another James. On further investigation, it seems that James senior was the son of an Ambrose.
On similar lines, Elizabeth seems to be the daughter of a Joseph, who in turn was the son of a Samuel.
So, it's all a bit circumstantial, but is that enough to put them on my tree as my direct ancestors? Or, if all PRs in the UK had been indexed and available on-line, might there be another family of the same name somewhere else in the country entirely who might be the "real" ancestors? Do I just have to wait for that day to find out?
This must be a situation that we all find ourselves in, so how do you decide whether or not you're on the right track, rather than chasing shadows?
STG
Comment