Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Electoral Rolls

Looking for living relatives?

Search our UK Electoral Rolls (2002-2013) and find your living relatives today.

Search Electoral Rolls

New electoral roll records

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Tip of the day...Fact or fiction?

Page 1 + 1 of 2

  1. «
  2. 1
  3. 2
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

SylviaInCanada

SylviaInCanada Report 19 Nov 2009 01:08

I've always believed that one can only be certain of the mother of the child





......... but then of course you do have cases where the grandmother claims to be the mother of the baby ............... thus allowing her daughter to appear to be an "innocent" young girl




I'm not sure that even marriage certificates can always be trusted

what about fathers who don't exist, or don't have the names or occupations claimed for them

wrong ages of bride and/or groom


etc etc




sylvia

GranOfOzRubySlippers

GranOfOzRubySlippers Report 19 Nov 2009 01:44

I have been pulled up by people following the same lines as me, I love it when they say I am wrong. WHY? Usually I have not yet purchased the cert, and the information is slightly off, they have saved me money by not purchasing the wrong certificate. I have gone down many wrong tracks and have many useless certificates. My money is better spent on the correct information.

Gail

Ozibird

Ozibird Report 19 Nov 2009 08:11

I also believe in 3 pieces of evidence. I was told to do that in my very early years of researching. The further you go back the harder it is, but oh, the satisfaction!

Ozi

Madmeg

Madmeg Report 20 Nov 2009 21:39

Well, we have to have a sense of reason about collecting evidence. I assume that my mother is my mother cos I have a birth certificate, and she and the family confirm that she gave birth to a child on my birthday, and was ill for about a month afterwards. I assume also that my father was the lovely man I lived with till I married and if anyone dares suggest otherwise they will regret it for the rest of their lives!

But when you get further back into the unknown, then you must take more care. At the very least you want certificates. Birth and marriage, and possibly death. Census records. And Parish Records.

NEVER assume that anything that someone else has found for you is true. Use it as a starting point only. And a great starting point.

But when you get to putting your tree together for posterity, remember that triangulation rule. You want at least:

- a birth record, preferably the certificate
- a marriage record, preferably the certificate or even better perhaps an entry in a church register
- a death certificate
- evidence on census records to tie it all up.

If you are looking at people born slightly before registration, you need at least:

- census records
- marriage and death records
- IGI records
- original parish registers

If they are older than that, try:

- IGI records
- other sources if available
- burial records

Ozibird

Ozibird Report 20 Nov 2009 21:53

And never forget to google! Google their names, their place of birth, place of residence, their parish. It's amazing what comes up.

One of my 3rd pieces of evidence was an insurance document at National Archives that named my ancestor, his address and his occupation. I only had his name and occupation from his daughter's marriage cert and his name from her parish record baptism. The address was the same one as she was at in 1841. He died prior to 1841.

Another 3rd piece was from a court case at the old Bailey that named another ancestor and his address. He was a witness in a trial.

Another ancestor came up in Parish Minutes as being given some money towards his teaching pupils. He was in the 1841 census as a schoolmaster.

All very useful information.

Ozi

AuntySherlock

AuntySherlock Report 20 Nov 2009 22:22

And I was given an old bible which contained several flimsy sheets of paper. I never paid much attention to it. One day I looked at this dusty book which sat on a shelf. It contained a family history written onto the end papers of the bible, and on these pieces of paper. My family history, tracing ancestors back through my grandmother to Bristol 1756.

Since becoming involved in this researching I have cross checked the information and it is all accurate. I still have no idea who actually wrote the information, or how they managed to find out all the details. The bible seems to date from the early 1900s. This will be the third side of my triangle.

Jonesey

Jonesey Report 13 Nov 2012 08:36

3 years on and it is still a very valid question to ask.

Elizabeth2469049

Elizabeth2469049 Report 13 Nov 2012 14:07

Another risk of checking confirming records. I have an inherited family tree which as it goes back to 1450 is a bit short of documentary proof, though where I have been able to check it has been pretty good - the odd hiccup! So when l found many of the same names on an Ancestry tree I wrote asking for sources only to find that his source was me! - the hazards of having a Public Tree. Since then the same names crop up elsewhere on Ancestry, I suspect from my tree. I am reluctant to give up my public tree as I have had some very useful contacts through it.

bob

bob Report 13 Nov 2012 19:54

I went with a friend to register the death of his son-in-law. When we took a copy home his widow informed us that we had got the year wrong. We went back to the Registrar, who told us it couldn't be altered. Bob

bob

bob Report 13 Nov 2012 19:58

Further to my last message, I should have said the year of his birth. Bob