U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2013, 12:56 AM
 
1 posts, read 797 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

I've read through many of the comments concerning problems(discrepancies) with family trees. I have almost 1100 people in mine, but, I have not put it online. People calling me out on mistakes is only one reason. I have seen many on line that don't always match with mine, & I am am almost certain they are wrong.
I started mine, a few years after I got a computer. About the same time, I found out I have two relatives(from different areas), by the same name(father's side). They both have written info(small notebooks) , & almost all of the info matches. I got a lot of my info on my mother's side from books(2 large handwritten notebooks) from 2 of my aunts, which have now past. I didn't even know they had done this, until I mentioned something to my cousin about it. She doesn't seem to care much. I copied the pages into my computer, & I would like to expand on it. (When I started, I didn't realize the importance of sources). I numbered the pages & I noted the pages for sources.
I have not had much time the past couple of years to get back into it. (O.K. enough of my B.S.)
My main problem is, when I get back so far, I find names that match, but, a couple of other distant relatives I have contacted tell me, "They have the same names, but they are not the right ones." Everything I have found, leads me right back to this couple. Including children's names.
It does get interesting when I come across a name that I cannot find anything about. It is like they just suddenly appeared!
just wanted to say Hello! & I will check back later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2013, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Humble, Texas
8 posts, read 7,999 times
Reputation: 10
The trouble with spelling first, middle & last names is that every record you find might have a different spelling. Depending on if you go by the logic of family should "know" how grandma's name was spelled, it can get you into all kinds of trouble.

My own grandmother was named Sallie Mae. I have listed her by that name on everything. Recently I was "chewed out" by my aunt (grandma's youngest daughter) who told me grandma despised the name Sallie due to some song about a "loose" woman and was always called Mae. Now, I only met my grandmother twice and we did not have a warm relationship, so I would not have known about this. My mom never mentioned it and she told me tons of things about her family. So do I go and change the name on the tree? Grandma was been gone since 1968 - I doubt she still cares. If you want to look her up in records, the name Sallie (or Sally) or Mae will locate her on census records & etc.

The other grandmother was named Lillie Mamie, but hated the name Lillie and told me about it in secret. I have put in the tree, but have not found her as anything but Mamie on any records. Still it seems fair to put the name her parents gave her, they must have thought it was pretty - I do.

My grandfather was born Robert Lee, but went by an assortment of names - he also liked to spread himself around if you know what I mean. I am not sure how many aunts & uncles I may have in the world. And his grandfather was named Allen M. Morrow. Every thing I find makes me thing M. was his middle initial and who knows how his first name was really supposed to be spelled: Allen or Alan? Census records are notoriously wrong, I would go by some of his descents who actually knew his sons & daughters, but they try to convince me his middle initial was E. So there again, it seems like one of those arguments you hope will resolve itself.

As I say - your ancestry is only as accurate as your female ancestors were honest anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Humble, Texas
8 posts, read 7,999 times
Reputation: 10
Default Adam and Eve

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh View Post
Oh, yeah, years ago I found a tree for some of our CT family that eventually linked back to Odin and Freya.

I once knew someone who claimed she'd found her family tree online back to Adam and Eve.
Me too! One of the ladies working on my Womack family years & years ago got them all the way back to Adam & Eve. At the time I figured it was the craziest thing I'd ever seen - still do, but I saved it for laughs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,039,435 times
Reputation: 5779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Lynn Paulson Arank View Post
The trouble with spelling first, middle & last names is that every record you find might have a different spelling. Depending on if you go by the logic of family should "know" how grandma's name was spelled, it can get you into all kinds of trouble.

My own grandmother was named Sallie Mae. I have listed her by that name on everything. Recently I was "chewed out" by my aunt (grandma's youngest daughter) who told me grandma despised the name Sallie due to some song about a "loose" woman and was always called Mae. Now, I only met my grandmother twice and we did not have a warm relationship, so I would not have known about this. My mom never mentioned it and she told me tons of things about her family. So do I go and change the name on the tree? Grandma was been gone since 1968 - I doubt she still cares. If you want to look her up in records, the name Sallie (or Sally) or Mae will locate her on census records & etc.

The other grandmother was named Lillie Mamie, but hated the name Lillie and told me about it in secret. I have put in the tree, but have not found her as anything but Mamie on any records. Still it seems fair to put the name her parents gave her, they must have thought it was pretty - I do.

My grandfather was born Robert Lee, but went by an assortment of names - he also liked to spread himself around if you know what I mean. I am not sure how many aunts & uncles I may have in the world. And his grandfather was named Allen M. Morrow. Every thing I find makes me thing M. was his middle initial and who knows how his first name was really supposed to be spelled: Allen or Alan? Census records are notoriously wrong, I would go by some of his descents who actually knew his sons & daughters, but they try to convince me his middle initial was E. So there again, it seems like one of those arguments you hope will resolve itself.

As I say - your ancestry is only as accurate as your female ancestors were honest anyway.
You seem hung up on names and accuracy. Because someone preferred one name over another doesn't change the fact of who they were. People are called many things by many people through many years. That doesn't change who they are as a person. And an accurate genealogy will reflect and note all those names.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Humble, Texas
8 posts, read 7,999 times
Reputation: 10
Default Name Hang Ups

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoV View Post
You seem hung up on names and accuracy. Because someone preferred one name over another doesn't change the fact of who they were. People are called many things by many people through many years. That doesn't change who they are as a person. And an accurate genealogy will reflect and note all those names.
I know I am overly picky! I used to go to genealogy classes and seminars and belonged to several organizations, so I learned years ago that depending on census records for spelling and correct ages is pretty useless. Even the best of records are sometimes inaccurate.

I try to make my research as accurate as possible and love to have someone contact me with questions or new information or pictures. Sometimes they are way off track and sometimes they give me something I had overlooked before. But I agree with you, an accurate genealogy should have everything good or bad that you turn up - unless the information may upset someone who is still living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Canada
3,676 posts, read 2,485,292 times
Reputation: 4737
When I started looking at records for my ancestors in the late 19th century and early 20th century, I quickly realized that there was often no "correct" name. There were birth names (but spelling of surname was often different than the spelling of the surname on the father's birth record) and there were alternate spellings used on different records. I think I have about 7 or 8 different spellings of my great grandfather's surname on different records.

On sites such as Ancestry, I use the name most likely to illicit further records via Ancestry hints as I gather Ancestry ignores the alternate name fields when doing searches. So, if someone used the nickname Bob Smith throughout their life, I would enter their name as Robert "Bob" Smith. On the Family Search Tree I would use Robert Smith and then show Bob Smith as an alternate name as Family Seach does consider these alternate names when a search for potential duplicate profiles is done.

Last edited by cdnirene; 07-07-2013 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 12:09 PM
 
9 posts, read 7,258 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Lynn Paulson Arank View Post
Census records are notoriously wrong....
I wouldn't say "wrong," more like very informal.

When I see a "Sally" in a census record, I'll make a mental note to also look for "Sarah." Margaret might also be called "Peggy," Mary could be "Polly." And then there are the abbreviations: "Chas" for Charles, "Wm" for William. And, as you pointed out, people call themselves by different names because they hate the one foisted on them at birth. My grandmother was Maude Frances; she hated Maude and swore to come back and haunt anyone who ever referred to her as anything but Frances. Sorry Grandma, you are listed as Maude Frances in the family tree.


I'm all for accuracy. If there is a birth record, christening record or any proof of name given at birth, I'll go by that. Using Ancestry, I'll often put the nickname or preferred name in quotes after the legal given name or add notes to the record indicating that, in their life, this person preferred to go by "X" name. I think that aspect is important as well, since it indicates the person's dislike or preference over their given name.

Silverwing (who can't find her password at this moment )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 12:33 PM
 
9 posts, read 7,258 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Lynn Paulson Arank View Post
But I agree with you, an accurate genealogy should have everything good or bad that you turn up - unless the information may upset someone who is still living.
Yeah ... well, sometimes even then ....

I don't let family squabbles interfer with the accurate creation of my family tree. Some of the only known pictures of ancestors I possess have their faces scribbled out because someone in the family disliked them so much. They don't go on my tree, but I keep them to be passed down, attaching a note explaining why they were defaced. If a rancorous divorce occurred because a spouse cheated, or a parent dislikes their son- or daughter-in-law, I don't consider those to be strong enough reasons to bowdlerize my tree.

Now, I try to be sensitive when truly heinous acts take place. One branch of my tree has a patriarch who was a convicted child molestor. His guilt was confirmed by victims who were his own kids. That was a very hard call. The family wanted to wipe that man out of existence. At their request, I labelled him as "Father (Lastname)" rather than "First Name - Lastname" and included no other information about him. I didn't add the names of his parents or his siblings to the tree. His kids still carried his surname, but wanted to be disassociated from the man. If anyone wants to know more about him, they'll have to do their own digging.

Getting into genealogy, I never realized that sometimes there are moral dilemmas attached to one's research.

Silverwing (who can't find her password at this moment )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 09:51 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,134 posts, read 22,790,774 times
Reputation: 119716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Lynn Paulson Arank View Post
Me too! One of the ladies working on my Womack family years & years ago got them all the way back to Adam & Eve. At the time I figured it was the craziest thing I'd ever seen - still do, but I saved it for laughs.
Genealogy came up in conversation earlier today with someone I barely know. ( I swear I didn't bring it up. ) Anyway he said he'd done some genealogy, but thought once he got back to Adam and Eve, then what? I couldn't tell if he was joking or not. But this is someone who should know better.

But he was saying, what's the point? For me: the thrill of the hunt, the fun of the logic puzzle and the amazing stories you learn, both good and bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2013, 09:59 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,134 posts, read 22,790,774 times
Reputation: 119716
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
When I started looking at records for my ancestors in the late 19th century and early 20th century, I quickly realized that there was often no "correct" name. There were birth names (but spelling of surname was often different than the spelling of the surname on the father's birth record) and there were alternate spellings used on different records. I think I have about 7 or 8 different spellings of my great grandfather's surname on different records.

....
And for some reason people who are not genealogists can get really stuck on spelling. Not sure why, just a black and white, concrete thinking naivete maybe. Possibly deepened by names these days being more consistently recorded due to computer databases versus a census taker on horseback who had a few too many beers with his lunch at the local tavern.

Case in point - I did some genealogical research for an acquaintance a few years ago. Found his family in the census, there they are, definitely them, forenames, ages and locations matched what he knew. Funny thing was that he regarded it as a revelation that this was the correct family because the surname had been recorded ending in one L instead of two, the way his family currently spells it. Really? Just ending the name with -L vs -LL can throw ya? Of course, I didn't say that to him, and he did ultimately realize it was his family. Too many details matched for it not to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top