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

New Scottish Census

New Scottish census records

Do you have Scottish ancestors?

Perhaps you do and you just didn't know! Search our brand new Scottish census records today and discover if you have Scottish roots.

Search Scottish Census

Icons

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

Should I include indirect ancestors?

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

JohnDoe

JohnDoe Report 17 Dec 2013 20:16

I am adding my ancestors from many different lineages, go far back and quite frankly, it takes up WAY to much time just to add the details of one family and to apply the sources in that project. Do you think I should just add the direct great-grandfathers (going back over 30 generations), I only add indirect ancestors to my British ancestors, but since my other European ancestors go way back, it gets annoying to add so many!

Elizabeth2469049

Elizabeth2469049 Report 17 Dec 2013 21:38

I try to keep to my direct bloodlines. When it comes to the marry-ins I do add a generation either way, as details of their dates, places and occupations do help in confirming identifications. I do try to resist the offerings from An----ry - who as soon as you add a wife and perhaps her parents from the marriage certificate come up with generations more of parents, sisters and brothers - and once you enter those all their families!

Jonesey

Jonesey Report 17 Dec 2013 22:54

As it is your tree you are at liberty to include or exclude whom so ever you wish.

The important thing to remember is that if your tree is to be meaningful it should be 100% accurate and be substantiated by records related to those individuals named within it. This is doubly important if the tree is in the public domain where its contents can be seen and copied by others.

You mention direct ancestors going back over 30 generations. As a rough guide there is about 25 years between each generation so you are in effect talking about some individuals who probably would have lived between 1250 AD and 1400 AD. Have you really got indisputable proof of the descendant trail of those individuals leading forward to yourself some 700+ years later?

mgnv

mgnv Report 18 Dec 2013 03:56

Jonesey - FYI: There is one European country with fairly complete, accurate, and accessible records going back 750+ years, namely Iceland.

I'ld go along with your basic advice - as it's Daniel's tree, it's entirely up to him who he puts in it.

Margee

Margee Report 18 Dec 2013 10:38

Surely there's no such thing as an "indirect ancestor"? Ancestor by its very definition is someone from whom you descend. By "indirect ancestors" you must be refering to siblings of your ancestor?

Reggie

Reggie Report 18 Dec 2013 11:30

Your tree...your choice, but I agree with Margee......the term you use doesn't actually make sense

Look up the word Ancestor in any dictionary

KenSE

KenSE Report 23 Dec 2013 18:28

If you can trace your ancestors back for 30 generations then you have a billion slots to fill. That should occupy most of your time without resorting to adding uncles, aunts and cousins as well.

I would suggest working back through the all male line, then your mother's male ancestors, then your grandparent;'s male ancestors and so on until you have had enough. You could alternatively do the female lines which are more likely to be true ancestors.

JohnDoe

JohnDoe Report 31 Jan 2014 17:41

That is the point, I have decided not to include distant cousins. The closest I would go to add cousins would be 3rd or 4th cousins. 'KenSE' is right as it would be way to much to add and most of it will be unnessary.

And, I notice, whenever I talk about how far I have managed to find, I get a lot of this 'need to be accurate', 'unless you have a large amount of proof' etc.

I understand that, and I consider that always. I am lucky in this situation because my 2nd great grandfather was Belgian. And, many Belgian families go back to royal families. I have not only gone as far as the 1200s but now, thanks to the research of professional (and I mean proper professional) researchers in family history, I have managed go back to the Caesar family as many of the Romans obviously intermarried with the Celts, Saxons, Franks etc - which I am related to. A direct descendant of the famous Charlemagne. Henceforth why I had an advantage.

jax

jax Report 31 Jan 2014 18:10

So what proof do you have which you have obviously taken from other peoples trees?

I saw a short while ago someone post on ancestry.com facebook page that she was related to dozens of very famous singers and actor/actresses from all over the world what are the chances of that happening?

DazedConfused

DazedConfused Report 1 Feb 2014 11:42

I stick to immediate family/decendants and their siblings. But I do look into the whole family and may add notes/comments to my Ancestry tree.

But if it gets interesting then they will be added, ie Bigamy, Murder, Suicide...

My father always said my Fowler family cupboards rattled with scandal and boy have I found some great things. Rags to Riches and back to Rags. Desertion. And so many illegitimate children we could have started our own foundling hositpal!!!!!

As said it is YOUR tree to do with as you like and if you add people you can just as easily remove them later if you want. That is part of the fun.

Margee

Margee Report 1 Feb 2014 11:57

It is said that if you are of European descent you are probably a descendant of Charlemagne so you're not alone, Daniel. Actually 19 US presidents are confirmed to be descendants.

jax

jax Report 1 Feb 2014 13:29

When I first started out about 4 years ago, there was something on ancestry where you could find out what famous people you were related to ...One world tree I think

There was one name that stood out.....Laura Ingalls Wilder.......yep of course I believe that I love Little House on the Prairie :-D

I have one line back to 1600 but it is a more unusual name....but even that I could not guarantee that it is 100% correct

KenSE

KenSE Report 1 Feb 2014 15:54

That's right Jax, it was a button available on all trees but the results came from One World Tree if your tree connected to that. Unfortunately OWT, which still exists, contains so many errors and there didn't seem to be any way of correcting obvious ones.

In my case I was related to Nixon and Dubya but fortunately it involved time travel, as one of my supposed ancestors fathered someone born over a hundred years before.

DazedConfused

DazedConfused Report 4 Feb 2014 12:50

And remember President Obama has ancestors in Ireland

nameslessone

nameslessone Report 4 Feb 2014 14:57

OOHHHH! One World Tree!!!!!!!!!!

The more an error is copied the more 'correct' it becomes on One World Tree.