Sunday, 6 January 2013

Who belongs on the Family Tree?

Over the last few years I’ve been making an effort to sort out my genealogy files, make sure every statement has a proper source citation and to fill in the gaps in my family tree. As with much in my life, this is a project characterised by lengthy periods of inactivity, punctuated by the occasional bout of intense industry. At times the sheer size of the task can seem overwhelming and, needless to say, it’s nowhere near completion. 

The recent Christmas break has given me the opportunity to do a little more work on my family research and I’ve been concentrating on the ancestors of my paternal grandfather. 

One result of taking (or at least trying to take) a logical, methodical approach to researching and documenting your family history is that it raises questions you may not consider when skipping merrily from branch to branch as the fancy takes you. For me, one of these questions is, “Just who should I be researching?” Or, to put it another way, “Who belongs on the family tree?” 

A gathering of the Sykes family. Only two people in this photograph are actually my ancestors. Do I need to research the rest?
This might seem a simple enough question, but one thing I’ve realised from chatting with other genealogists is that our concept of family can differ greatly. Perhaps because I began my research with very little information and having had few family stories passed down to me, my definition of who belongs on my family tree has generally been quite narrow: direct ancestors and their children only. Until I’ve tied down the people I’m actually descended from (some of whom are pretty elusive), I don’t feel I should be spending time on tracing aunties, uncles, cousins, second-cousins, step-children etc. etc. 

Conversely, some family historians seem to have a much broader view of what constitutes ‘their family’. Perhaps having grown up surrounded by a big family or hearing stories about many of their relatives, they are keen to trace the lives of great-aunts and -uncles, cousins and even more distant relations. 

Of course, I realise that it may be helpful to research collateral lines in order to identify your ancestors and to trace earlier generations. I have a few ‘problem’ ancestors for whom tracing the births, marriages and deaths of all children has been the only way to figure out who they were. This approach can even be extended to researching your ancestors “FANs” - that is, their Friends, Associates and Neighbours (e.g. identifying the witnesses to your ancestors’ marriage, who may turn out to be relatives). 

But problem ancestors aside, where do you draw the line? The abundance of information, especially digitised records, now available online makes this an increasingly pressing question. Once upon a time, finding a marriage record for my English ancestors meant visiting a large reference library and searching through the GRO fiche quarter by quarter, comparing volume and page numbers, then sending off for the certificate and hoping I’d identified the right one. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to do the same thing for each of their brothers and sisters. 

Recently, thanks largely to the fact that both the Church of England parish registers and baptist chapel registers for where my ancestors lived are now available on www.ancestry.co.uk, I was able to locate marriage and death information for all seven children born to one of my ancestral couples in a few hours spent at my computer. 

If time and money were no object, I think most family history enthusiasts would want to trace not only their own ancestors but also the wider families of which they were a part. However, few of us have that luxury and, with limited resources, there is the argument that the more people you have in your genealogy files, the less time you have to research each one, so that your family history risks becoming little more than a collection of names and dates. 

With the start of another year, many genealogy bloggers have been posting their genealogy goals for 2013. Organising the information already collected and focussing efforts on a particular family line or problem are common aims. 

Deciding who to research is the first step in any genealogy plan, so I’m interested to hear from other researchers, how do you decide who belongs on your family tree?

33 comments:

  1. It is so easy to get carried away when building family trees, and to start following all the connections. I did this myself when first building my own family trees at Ancestry, but soon realised I was spending precious time on people very far removed from my family. The large number of trees I see on Ancestry containing many thousands of individuals suggests that there are more than a few people out there who really don't know where to draw the line, and I often wonder about the accuracy of their trees. At the end of the day though I guess it's a case of each unto their own. These days most of my own genealogy research focusses on my Atcherley ancestors and cousins, and their descendants. Even so, I do 'stray from the plot' from time to time and add in what I call 'allied families' where I know, or suspect, two or more intermarriages between them and/or that a marrying couple may have a common ancestor. I have been amazed at the extent of the familial inter-relationships I have found in this way!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree that everyone will have a different approach depending on their priorities and the time available and there's certainly no right or wrong answer. However clearly focussed your goals are, I think a bit of 'straying from the plot' is inevitable (not to mention fun) and may well lead to unexpected discoveries.

      Delete
  2. Just one more thing, as Columbo used to say. If building a tree at Ancestry, Genes Reunited, Geni etc (or if adding ancestors and cousins at Lost Cousins), adding people a little more distantly related from your direct ancestors increases the chances of making contact with living relatives - who may just have information relevant to your own research.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to admit that I tend to error on the side of adding people rather than not. For instance my mother's stepmother is the person my mother grew up with and the person who was my grandmother on that side of the family. More than that, her whole family contains people that my mother was raised with as aunts, uncles and cousins. I have them all - and they are certainly an interesting group.

    I also have all three of my Eickelberg great-grandmother's husbands. It's her 3rd husband, and not my ancestor, who my mother remembers as her grandfather.

    The interesting part of that is that it is through that connection that I found a man, totally unrelated to me, who is a grandson of that 3rd husband. It was through him that I obtained the only picture I have of my mom's biological mother as a young woman. (long story, and I'm not telling it well here in comments - but basically agreeing with Steve that you have increased chances of making contact)

    Bottom line - I don't always have time to fully research them all, but they ARE there...just waiting until some day when I might have the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment, Diana. Step-parents are an interesting case. I have some on my family tree who feel like 'part of the family', for example those who brought up an ancestor and maintained a life-long connection with them, and others who seem less important (perhaps when the marriage occurred late in life and only lasted a few years).

      I can understand that if your step-relatives were people you (and your mother) knew well that you would want to include them. Wonderful that you managed to get a photograph of your grandmother through a distant relation in this way!

      Delete
  4. Like Kirsty I have a very limited family circle but that has sent me in the other direction, I research anyone who appears to have an interesting history. Sometimes that leasds to an investigation of someone who isn't even a blood relative!
    I agree with the point made by Diane and Steve, the more people in a public tree the more people one is likely to find with connections, and therefore information.
    I had an experience very similar to Diane's when I put on a tree people who were very distant from the family in which my mother was raised. That led to some hugely exciting finds: a one place study which included some deatials and photographs of my mother: the first photograph I have ever seen of the lady who raised my mother and connection with an adoptive cousin who I believed was long dead and who has given me some revealing information about both my mother and (real) grandmother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment, Chris. Having read about your research into your mother's family through your website, I can certainly see that casting your net widely was an essential approach to learning more about that branch of your family. It's wonderful that you were able to make such exciting discoveries!

      Delete
    2. But not of course the answer I'm still looking for! A case in point was that if I hadn't reserached the life of my grandmother's brother I wouldn't have found his will and where she was working when he made it, or indeed that she had worked in that place at all. Also the will indicated the fact that he seemed not to know of my mother's existence and she was a well kept secret to some family members.

      Delete
  5. Interesting question. I've spent a lot of time on some of the wider family in the past, partly because some had very interesting stories and partly to work out connections with others whom my late father would have described as "some way connected", ie more distant or complicated than 2nd or 3rd cousins. Benefits included linking up with two more distant relatives who had complementary and well researched information (quite unusual!).
    Now I am focusing on direct lines, with basics only on siblings. The depth of information to look at is often more satisfying and, as someone said earlier, it's good to get beyond dates. Now I'm really looking forward to a couple of newspapers going on the BNA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment, Jane. I think there is definitely an urge to learn more about people who were known to your (or your parents) personally, as several of the previous comments demonstrate. I suppose focusing on direct lines becomes more necessary the further back in time you go. Good luck with the British Newspaper Archive, hope you make some interesting discoveries!

      Delete
  6. Those 2nd and 3rd cousins I've found through my extended family lines, have been the most rewarding! Photos, stories, details, all adding to my understanding of my family. Like you, I knew next to nothing about both sides of my family, and then I found out that my maternal grandmother told (gasp!) LIES! Made research interesting to say the least. Then I've found multiple generations with the same name, with first cousins with same name, all living in the same area - doing extended family research was absolutely necessary to be certain I had the correct person as my direct ancestor. Great post, Kirsty - thanks for writing about this common issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Celia. You raise an important point about the 'two people - same name' problem and how researching the wider family may be the only way to sort everyone out.

      Delete
  7. Very interesting discussion... I have found great value in casting my net wide. One case in point is looking for the siblings of my 2x great grandmother, whose name was a very common one (Taylor) I found her sister living with an aunt in the 1871 census, who subsequently I discovered was a great aunt, and this via a convoluted puzzle led me to break down the brickwall of my 4x great grandmother's parentage. As both she and her sister (the aunt) were on to their second marriages by 1871 this was no mean feat and I don't think I would ever have figured it out if I hadn't been researching all the siblings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment, Liz. It sounds like researching the wider family was a very successful technique for your research.

      Delete
  8. I wish I were ever disciplined enough to have a hard and fast rule! I have tended to research, siblings, cousins, in-law.s etc. based on whether or not they appear interesting enough to merit the work. It's hardly the sign of an organized genealogical approach though, I freely admit. But some of the stories I've come across in this way have been marvellous, so I can hardly complain. Also, as I find is common elsewhere, sometimes a more distant branch is simply easier to research; if I can get "more" out of a few hours research on that side, well I'll do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure any hard and fast rule is impossible to stick to as each family brings new challenges and new possibilities. It's also difficult to resist looking into an interesting family, especially if it involves an area or set of records that's new to you, and serendipitous discoveries are a wonderful thing!

      Delete
  9. When carrying out research for other people I agree on the line required and stick to that unless anything of real interest pops up in extended family that would add to the interest of the report.
    Although many years since I started my own family history I still continue to research it and with the increase on online records I am still able to add to it.
    For my own line I lack the professional discipline and tend to wander off into interesting corners finding myself at a 4th cousin and then notice that its 2am!
    On a more serious note I think that its YOUR family tree which means that as long as you are able to provide a citation for members then YOUR family tree can be as large or small as you choose to make it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also find it much easier to stick to the main line of a family when researching professionally than with my own family and have had quite a few 2am experiences when researching them of late!
      Thanks for the comments.

      Delete
  10. I had several legends to work on when I started. Some have been verified, but 15 odd years later, I'm still working on others. I used to follow any line of enquiry, but now I am a bit more disciplined. I find that revisiting some of my early research is a great way to focus.

    Common surnames and illegitimacies need a wider approach.

    I have made fewer but better quality connections through my blog and website than through Ancestry, GenesReunited etc. A high proportion of GenesReunited contacts were no relation at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comments, Sue. I've also found revisiting my early research to be really helpful, now I just need the time to follow up the new leads....

      Delete
  11. Great discussion. My philosophy is that I share a common family story with distant cousins. We might have to go up a few generations to reach our common ancestors and shared story, but these are the generations I'm most curious about at this point. So many of these distant cousin hold a piece of the puzzle or a clue that they might not even know I'm looking for. By reaching out to them, and sharing my tree, I find key collaborators and together we break down walls that I couldn't possibly do myself. For example, I now have a picture of my third great-grandmother. One of my third cousins had it and knew who she was. One other cousin had the picture but had no idea who the woman was. My great-grandfather died before any of his grandchildren were even born, so I knew almost nothing about him, let alone his grandmother. If I hadn't researched his siblings and their descendants, I would have missed out on a huge part of his story. I feel the same about "friends and neighbors". If I have photos of these people who were important to my ancestors than maybe their descendants have photos of my ancestors or stories they can share. I try to seek them out, but I limit my self by remembering that my goal is to get in formation about my ancestors, not theirs.

    What I find frustrating are people who research my family because some distant x-sister-in-law of a cousin of theirs was related to me and then they introduce mistakes into. I've had a discussion with a woman how has some of my great-grandfather's brother's as still living for example. She won't mark them as deceased until she finds documentation, even though she got their names and info from my try and I am 100% they are all dead. I'm in touch with all their descendants, but some graves and death certificates have been elusive.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good topic! I am an "up the tree and down the tree" researcher. Here is my reply:

    http://sallysearches.blogspot.com/2013/01/up-tree-down-tree.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a very interesting topic. Initially I tended to cast my net wide, but as I've progressed, I tend to research more on my direct lines. Quite frankly, there is just not enough time to research everyone. Most contacts through my collateral lines are brief as many of those above have commented. That said, I have made some remarkable discoveries as well. I met an entire side of the family I never knew before.

    ReplyDelete
  14. When I got serious with my research, I started with a firm goal... the descendants of each of my direct ancestors... As I discovered an ancestor further back, I had a whole class of relatives to research. That is still my priority. It has worked very well, for me. Simple rule. Many relatives. Good discussion. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Initially I vowed not to attempt "descendants of my ancestors" because, well, isn't life too short? I have now changed my perspective, with understanding that the neighborhood was part of my ancestors' lives, and discoveries of ancestors' being documented in the estate records (such as sales of personal property) of distant relatives or just neighbors. With this approach I still hope to discover the whereabouts after 1803 of Mysterious Cousin Sarah, who evidently left the neighborhood of her stepchildren in Kentucky and has not turned up with her mother in Maryland, with her nieces and nephews in (West) Virginia, or with her brother in another part of the same State . . . . Those neighborhood estate inventories and vendue bills are of immense interest regarding my relatives' material culture and how it changed over decades, too!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Comment from Jeff Ford that apparently got lost by Blogger:

    "I work this way. Most trees start with "you" and work their way up. "You", your parents, their parents and so on up the tree. My main research interest is my father's mother's grandfather or my great great grandfather's family. I research from him on down. To research up from him will require divine intervention! But I digress. I research everyone of his descendants including those that marry into the family. But I only research those people that marry into the family. I don't research their family or their family history unless it is "necessary" to document the life of the person that married into the family. About the parents of the person that married into the family, I could care less. That is how I work.

    Thank you,
    Jeff Ford"

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've thought a bit about this too. I've done some prototype work to develop a method that will compute an objective distance between any two people in a tree. I'm still working on refining it to the point where it could be useful in software products, but wanted to solicit some feedback from those on this blog since it's relevant to the topic being discussed. I believe it may provide help for a more "organized genealogical approach" like DanielMT commented about.

    Anyhow, the short version is that distance in 3 "dimensions" is computed for people - generationally, collaterally and through marriages. These three numbers are combined to produce a single distance metric. Weighting factors basically make direct line ancestors, even several generations back, closer than say a 2nd cousin, so if looked at in distance order closer relatives would show up first.

    I'm trying to get some slides together to better explain it all and plan to present at a conference in the future, but thought I'd solicit some feedback as to whether this sounds like an idea that has merit.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm at pretty much the opposite end of the scale (thus proving the point that one size doesn't fit all). While I naturally put more emphasis on my direct line, I'm fascinated by the idea of how we're all related to each other. As a result I work on what I call my "family bush" -- connections up, down, and sideways. I don't put a lot of effort into the side lines and they to consist mostly of names, dates, and places, but on the periphery that's what I'm interested in.

    Dave L

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good article. I had been struggling with the same, especially as I try to clean up my paper and sources. I decided there isn't enough time to try to source every single fact I have from my early work, so I am concentrating on only my direct lines and their siblings. I'm sure my tree will continue to grow, but my focus has got to be on cleanup or it will never get done. I find the hunt far more fun though.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My family came from Ireland so I won't get very far back. I am doing my best to build a accurate data base as Kristy Wilkinson commented.

    "I work this way. Most trees start with "you" and work their way up. "You", your parents, their parents and so on up the tree. My main research interest is my father's mother's grandfather or my great great grandfather's family. I research from him on down. To research up from him will require divine intervention! But I digress. I research everyone of his descendants including those that marry into the family. But I only research those people that marry into the family. I don't research their family or their family history unless it is "necessary" to document the life of the person that married into the family. About the parents of the person that married into the family, I could care less. That is how I work."

    This describes my plan. I'm documenting vital records, census and obituaries. My hope is to encourage my family to continue this hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In both my personal and professional research I have repeatedly found that the best way to overcome dead ends is to thoroughly research the subject's siblings, parents, children, grandparents and extended family. I have obtained copies of letters, photos and precious original documents that belonged to my direct ancestors by tracing descendants of their siblings (some as remote as 3rd & 4th cousins). Free (or almost free) resources that have worked for me include LostCousins, CuriousFox, and postems on FreeBMD (all of which are described in blog posts at UK/Australia Genealogy).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for sharing such a useful info It really helps me research in Irish history.

    ReplyDelete