Isn't it odd?

[Olde Crone Holden]

I was mooching through Ancestry trees and was VERY surprised to find my grandmother on a tree. No details other than her year of birth so I'm not bothered about her being on a tree - she is long dead and no one has mucked about with fantasies about her life etc.

I investigated the tree and it looks like a firm connection - I have emailed the owner.

But I was musing... HE has details of three baptisms that I have been searching for FOR EVER. I have details of two baptisms which have completely escaped HIM. He has the wrong surname for our mutual 3 x GGM - and I know EXACTLY why he has that, because I made the same mistake many years ago.

He also has full details of a branch for which I could find zilch...and I have full details for a branch which has baffled him!

Isn't it odd that two people researching the same family and presumably using the same resources, can finish up with completely different "holes" in their research.

OC

[Little Nell]

Life is odd, OC.

Lucky you to find someone who can help fill the gaps. I find my contacts generally have exactly the same info from exactly the same sources!

[Vicky the Viking]

I'd love to find someone whose "holes" compliment mine, but I seem to be the only one from the lines that I'm stuck on who has inherited the genealogy gene.

On other lines, I am pleased to know that I've reached the same conclusions as others have.

[Mary from Italy]

Maybe you're not using exactly the same resources, but partly calling on memories of family members from different branches, or family bibles, that kind of thing.

Anyway, you can't complain any more that you're always giving information and nobody has any to give you (assuming his tree turns out to be well researched)

[Olde Crone Holden]

Mary

He hasn't answered me yet, lol!

And he hasn't got back as far as I have, but that's ok, I'll swap that info for an explanation of why Gt Gt Uncle took his family off to SOUTH AFRICA in 1905 - no wonder I couldn't ever find them. I tried USA, Australia etc but never thought of SA.

Just realised he has dates of birth not baps - wonder if he is the one who got the Family Bible?! These children never had their births registered.

OC

[Michael]

I find contacts tend to fall into one of four groups...

- Those who have been researching much longer than me and thus have more information going further back, which is usually thoroughly researched and verified.
- Those who happen to have made contact with one of the above group and copied their entire tree; this is slightly annoying because what appear as six matches on GR are effectively only one, since the others just respond to any enquiries with "Ooh I dunno, ask so-and-so who gave me all the info".
- Those whose link to me is via a remote side branch which they haven't bothered doing much research on, and thus haven't got as far as me.
- The few who are actually researching the same line, and have mostly got stuck at the same point as me.

Don't think I've ever had a case of useful information being passed in both directions.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

Sometimes holes get filled/brick walls fall down because one person is working backwards and the other is working forwards.......

[Olde Crone Holden]

Well I can see how he fits into the tree because the nearer I get to him, the more information he has, lol.

But he has identified the families and siblings by census records - correct - and picked up baptisms, marriages and burials - correct, along with a few certs, also correct.

He has missed one huge clue, because he had the wrong maiden name for our 3 x GGM, and therefore won't have the correct and interesting information for that side of the family.

It is irking me now - those birth dates/baptism records...I have trawled that church register at least a dozen times and still managed to miss three, apparently. I do hope he hasn't just made them up......

There is another tree for a branch of this family - different tree owner. Most irritatingly, all the women are entered by their married names, not their maiden names, oh please don't DO that!

OC

[Elizabeth Herts]

Perhaps he has got information from a Family Bible or a similar document.

With some of my mother's family, the information of dates of birth, even time of birth to the nearest minute and birth weight is known, long before civil registration because of details entered. It was then easy to fill in further details - we could trace all the children because of the information provided and because of the close family ties.

[Uncle John]

Wandering idly through my tree, in the absence of FTF earlier today, I was once more irked by finding zilch on the IGI for one branch, apart from a raft of highly suspect submitted entries.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Well yes, subs can be ok sometimes, dead accurate in fact.

It's the

George Smith married Mrs Smith about 1799 England

that aren't worth the paper they are written on!

OC

[Little Nell]

What "priest" interview? I have only been two two LDS family history centres, but there was no interrogation, just helpfulness and shared pleasure when I found the information I wanted.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Bob

I have been using the LDS family history centre for YEARS and I have NEVER been questioned/interrogated etc.

The LDS members are expressly FORBIDDEN to discuss religion, including their own, and must make not the slightest attempt to convert you. In fact, they may only answer a direct question about their religion.

I can assure you that the LDS church would take an extremely dim view of any helper in one of their centres who questioned you about your religion.

However - there are many NON LDS members who act as volunteers in the centres and I can only think you got one of those. It is absolutely forbidden and you are the only person I have ever heard of who has had this treatment. You really ought to complain.

The LDS gained permission to film church records by making this solemn promise. They would be extremely annoyed if this privilege was withdrawn because an LDS member broke the rules.

OC

[dicole]

I had been seeking high and low and every where in between for family baptisms in Montrose Scotland for several years, when along comes a GR contact whose ancestor, the youngest son, got the family Bible - it gives the dates of all the children born to the COLE family 1805-1827. The time and day of the week is recorded as well as the moon's age.

So, while this contact confirmed and filled in details I did not have, I was able to give her back the broader family tree of all the families of the six Cole children who came to Australia. Some time ago, another Cole family member sent me a handwritten family tree which included a son born in 1805/6 and died in 1842 - no baptisms, deaths or burials have ever been established, but at the last, the family Bible proves his existence.

[Jill on the A272]

One of my contacts has the family bible, and we were both amused to find our gg grandparents had fibbed about the birth date of their eldest son in order to hide the fact he was born only 3 months after their marriage.

On another branch, great grandad was not only accurate in his entries but helpfully put the time of birth in as well.

Further back, an IGI entry for one of my direct ancestors is one year wrong (in order to have him born after his parents' marriage?)