Where do you draw the line?

[Somerset Sal]

I'm trying to decide where my family tree stops: of course I include my direct ancestors' siblings, and quite often the siblings' spouses. But I usually stop short of adding the spouses' families. I've seen some family trees, where it looks as though the owner has collected anyone who might be considered a relative by marriage, no matter how distant. I don't have any problem with that, I just know that I'd find it confusing if I did it myself.

So, where do YOU stop??

[Guy]

The only answer to that is you stop where you want to stop.
Some people simply follow a single surname.
I consider all branches of a family contribute to the family history and research ancillary lines of the the children and spouses.
I even research the localities my ancestors lived in as it all has a bearing on the family history.

It is totally an individual choice.
Cheers
Guy

[Guest]

I find myself adding the siblings spouses parents , and siblings, as I like to see the families as a whole , and also it often helps with contacts as they may know more than I can find out about mine.
Does that make sense.

[Uncle John]

It does get a bit confusing when I get an enquiry through Ancestry or GR about a distant link, unrelated by blood to my direct line. But when I find a "married-in" on a census it seems sensible to note down the whole family at the same time. And I found a whole family that went off to be ranchers in Argentina - much for romantic than most of my direct line or my Northumberland shepherds. And I found a cluster of 3 or 4 families who intermarried in the late 1800s as young marrieds died off.

[Darksecretz]

I'm trying to decide where my family tree stops: of course I include my direct ancestors' siblings, and quite often the siblings' spouses. But I usually stop short of adding the spouses' families. I've seen some family trees, where it looks as though the owner has collected anyone who might be considered a relative by marriage, no matter how distant. I don't have any problem with that, I just know that I'd find it confusing if I did it myself.

So, where do YOU stop??

Hi Sal,

I do look into all side branches and married ins, as I like to see where and when and why for.. What I have found interesting is that some members on this site have family members that did reside in the same villages as my relatives at the same time, so more than likely knew each other, and here we are 100yrs later conversing together on THIS site.. I find that truly amazing.

[Anne in Carlisle]

Personally, I stick to those who are related by blood - however remote it may be.

Of course, you still need to include spouses who are only related to you by marriage, although their children will be blood relations. I draw the line at the families of the 'non-blood' spouses - even though they might be temptingly interesting!!

Anne

[Jill on the A272]

Some of my married ins turned out to be distant cousins of their spouses anyway (self and husband included) so I sometimes explore if they are from the same area.


I've also included foster children on my OH's tree, he would dearly like to know what happened to the baby he thought was his sister -nobody explained the concept of fostering - the baby was brought into the household when he was 5 and then she just disappeared a few months later. (Of course I have never put her name on an online tree, she's just on my computer and in his head)

[RNM]

I record inlaws as I find them but only add them and theirs to The Tree if I have some "flesh on the bones" . I've never seen the benefit of just producing a list of names and dates - the interesting bit is the stories and social history; so I've inlaws added who were in shipping because it was such an enormous part of Liverpool's history and inlaws who lost all but one of 5 sons in the 1st WW because it tells of the devastation caused by that War...................... Thinking about it, it seems a bit elitist - "you're only worth including if you're interesting enough" !!! Still you've got to limit the spread a little I can't print it out any more as it is !

Roger

[Olde Crone Holden]

Draw the line? What line?

I include all blood relatives and all married-ins. Pre-1900, most of those married-ins are connected to the family previously in lots of complicated ways, so yes, I include the relatives of married-ins, who in turn link back say 200 years when they all lived in a little village.

I am by nature a hoarder and if I find in passing some information about the third wife of a half cousin of my 7 x GGF, it seems wasteful to just ignore it, so into the tree it goes.

I am also doing a casual one name study and two village studies, so that all goes in the pot too, but I do keep the four trees separately otherwise "my" family tree would have 20,000 names in it and be very confusing for me, let alone anyone else.

OC

[Dubonnet lady]

I initially told myself I'd only research my immediate family maternal and paternal lines - but decided you can't really do that. I'm still struggling with finding out about my father's siblings - all 7 or 8 of them! They all scattered all over the place and tracking them down is a big problem, but I do get contacted by current descendants of one or the other, so am tracking them.

Early on I was contacted by someone who had traced my paternal grandmother's line back to 15-something and found one of them buried in the churchyard of William Shakespeare - it fascinates me to think he may have known the great man, and the ensuing descendants are fascinating to follow.

So No - I don't think one can draw a line...... and one of the blokes who owns Liverpool FC has the same family name as my Dad, so I'm trying to track him too :D

[Fi & Lilly]

So far I am doing the direct lines and their spouses direct lines, However I recently found a WW1 service record for a great grandfather's sisters husband. Yesterday I found that man's brother's service record.

[Jac]

Like OC I am a hoarder and just gather the info. When I get stuck on one line I can drift off to another.I do keep the trees separate but it is such fun when the unexpected turns up.

[Rusty]

My husband's fathers family are centred in what used to be a small village in Somerset with lots of inter-marrying so I tend to follow all the lines that I can, resulting in some interesting relationships. My own family is much wider spread and I thought that this hadn't happened but again by following in-law lines I've found a bit of inter-marrying which again has resulted in various degrees of cousinship.

I have found this aspect of my research really interesting.

Margaret

[Janet]

As many of my English ancestors are from small villages in Northants I do find that village/hamlet families are very interesting, so I tend to follow those all over the place even where they are not actually my line, but this is all kept apart from my main tree, where I generally follow siblings into marriage and their children but tend to stop at that point, otherwise my tree would become unmangeable, but if I find an intetesting chatacter on the way, then I look at his/her history, even if there is no connection, simply because I love history. There are no hard and fast rules on this.

At present I have found that a Great Great Uncle married 1857. A daughter Florence was born 1858. No big deal, as Florence became a popular name after Florence Nightingale and the Crimea War. However, my G Great Uncle fought in the Crimea and I have only just found out that he was badly wounded at the Battle of Inkerman, and ended up with a wooden leg, so did he have first hand knowledge of Florence Nightingale? This is just the sort of sideways interest that people may wish to find out by not just sticking to the main line.

Janet

[kylejustin]

i tend to only follow siblings through the census. i will make note of their kids, but not put effort into tracing them unless i think it will help. there comes a certian point in tracing cousins were they arnt really family anymore, because the common family is so far back. like all descendants of your great grandparents dont feel like family, unless youve known some of them.

other times, there are tough families to sort, so i trace them as far as i can, so i can go backwards. my mothers family just appears in london around 1800. there is a plausible baptism for my ancestor, and his parents would have married in 1800. but i cant say 100% this baptism is mine, even though i have traced both possible siblings. neither had kids. this particular ancestor only had 7 kids, 3 lived to adulthood, only 2 had kids. ive just traced the family of one brother, he had kids late, and they are marrying around 1920, same time as their first cousins children. so ia am tracing my mothers paternal line, because they come from london via yorkshire, and there are so few descendants from further back.

[wulliam]

I tend to research the siblings of direct ancestors...their wives and children...and go no further. I do that mainly so I have more chance of having cousins get in touch with me rather than because I'm interested in the twigs of the tree. However, if I come across an interesting story I'll pursue it as far as I can.

However, each to their own - it's an individual choice!

[oakes63]

I tend to put them all in and see where it leads. By doing this I have discovered that brothers, cousins etc of the in laws often married back into my direct family, especially if they all lived in the same place! It also adds to the interest. I can now boast that I have a relationship, albeit distance to the family who started the first brewery in Adelaide! And OH likes that!! Have also made connections through these distant links and made some good friends with a common interest.