Family Trees

[sherrardk]

I've got a query about family trees but suspect it's not serious enough to put in genealogy- anyone know anything about them?

[Buenchico]

Wouldn't it be easier just to ask your question, so that we don't have to guess about whether we'll know enough to answer it?

[Old_Geezer]

Genealogy is fun, not serious.
I'd risk it if I were you.

[sherrardk]

Fair point - I've come across a web page where someone has put up a family tree. The bits I know about are correct except for the names of one of the women (her husband's name is correct, the children, the husband's subsequent second marriage and child's name). Could the family tree have been compiled correctly even with one wrong wife's name?

[Buenchico]

>>> Genealogy is fun, not serious

I hope that a certain Garth Brooks fan doesn't read that!

[Buenchico]

>>> Could the family tree have been compiled correctly even with one wrong wife's name?

If it was done manually (without the aid of any software) then it could be nothing more than a simple typing error. If it was done via a computer program (either at home or online) then the software might query an apparent inconsistency but it would depend upon how that software was written and what other information was available to it.

[albaqwerty]

would it be possible that the wife's name might be her birth name but was known by another?

Sort of along the lines of Birth Name : Mary but known as Ray?

(I know that's a tad silly, but I hope you understand what I mean)

[tonyav]

I hope that a certain Garth Brooks fan doesn't read that!

Omg, head for the hills pdq.

[sherrardk]

According to the page it was done using ScionPC.

[sherrardk]

Hi Alba, the first name is the same but the middle initial and surname are different, otherwise the details tally but the marriage date looks fishy too.

[Old_Geezer]

It's not uncommon. I used to find folk who had trees overlapping my own and some details weren't the same. Gave one cause to double check etc..

[Captain2]

I would say most family trees are just compiled manually, without much cross referencing, so it is quite easy to put a wrongly researched piece of information in, albeit in good faith.
I'm almost sure I've a dodgy couple of names in my tree which are 'might be' or 'might not be' 100% confirmable.

[sherrardk]

Thanks OG - this relates to someone born in 1946 and married in the late 60's, remarried in the 70's. I can't find a way to contact the owner of the site.

[Captain2]

Yes, you can add on O_G's post to the bottom of mine as well.

[sherrardk]

Thanks Captain.

[albaqwerty]

as Captain says, if done manually and then transferred to a pc (for example) then might be possible that the typist has misread the initials?

I found out a lot after that lovely Garth Brooks Fan answered a query I had.

[sherrardk]

Hi Alba, the website says it was done using some programme. I'm curious because the info is nearly correct and the children and subsequent remarriage are correct (also have had the feeling since 2001 that something has been kept from me that could be connected with this).

[Captain2]

Is it a genealogy website sherrardk? Can you name it?
The reason I ask is that 'my' family tree is on Genes Reunited and I could if I wanted put any name I wanted as my fahter/mother/brother/sister, etc., someone may challenge it one day but it can be done.

[Buenchico]

If it's bothering you that much (and for that long), it might be worth paying £9.25 for a copy of the marriage certificate:
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certificate

[sherrardk]

Hi both, it's just some bloke's family tree that I stumbled across. Not sure if it's worth spending money on as one of the people is dead and the other one may as well be, just curiosity now.

[albaqwerty]

cor Sher !
(hiya xx)

No-one in the family you could ask - doh, strike that, cos if there was, you would have.
oooh, hang on, there was a Q asked earlier about getting a birth cert and folk kindly posted a link - I'll go get it and hope it's of some help to you.
Back in 2 shakes xxx