ESSEX-UK-L ArchivesArchiver > ESSEX-UK > 2005-11 > 1132821279
From: "Helen & Bill Bultitude" <>
Subject: Re: A Pandora's box
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:34:39 +1100
During my research into families in a Sussex parish I discovered some
mistakes in the actual parish records. Two brothers William and Joseph were
having children around the same time - or at least their wives were.
William and Mary had 7 children baptised at the one parish between 1808 and
1819. Joseph and Elizabeth apparently had 17 children baptised at 3
parishes between 1817 and 1838. Poor Elizabeth!
Subsequent research of census returns plus some marriage certificates showed
that 6 of the children attributed to Joseph and Elizabeth actually belonged
to William and Mary.
Yes Sylvia, there are too many people around these days happy to run into a
parish, grab "an ancestor" born in "about" the right time and "about" the
right place - and then sprint off again searching for the next name and
bunch of dates to add to the family tree. These "sprinters" give little
thought to double checking the information and, in the case of the above
family, would no doubt be happy to boast to all and sundry that their
ancestor had 17 children.
We old hands sometimes seem to be the only ones who think to politely ask
someone for their source of information. Or to doublecheck that there
aren't alternative candidates around that could equally be one's relative.
Having said all that, I'm the first to admit that during my 15 years of
research I've made whopping mistakes and started climbing the wrong tree on
more than one occasion. One was due to two cousins with the same names born
within a year of one another in the 1790s who married wives who were second
I too feel frustrated that so many people think that because information is
on the internet or published by someone in a book or on their website, that
it must be true. Unfortunately that isn't always the case these days.
But, as others have said, it's a terrific hobby and I've made so many new
friends and found so many new relatives over the past years.
Helen, NSW, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sylvia" <>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: [Ess] Genesreunited + A Pandora's box
> I've been doing family history for some 20 years now (dating back to the
> "film only" era) and was the first to be thrilled to see these records
> start coming on line. I've patiently sat thru people bemoaning all the
> incorrect LDS records on familysearch, the mistranscriptions of the 1881
> and 1901 census, Ancestry finally getting the bulk of UK census reports on
> line (yea!) and then Genesreunited....... However, I've come to feel this
> info has all become a veritable Pandora's box. I've come across more
> people who do absolutely no research other than to pick their surname from
> a general area and claim it as their own. I've been struggling with one
> gal who literally pulled every person with a certain surname on the 1861
> census, born within a 10 year period in a certain village and claimed they
> were all the children of one couple! She neither researched or ordered in
> not one certificate or baptism record, not even the marriage record of the
> parents or any prior census report!
> s to verify her information. Worse, three other people followed her word
> and tagged on their relatives to her research, also failing to verify
> anything she said! This amazes me. I no longer freely "open" my
> familytree on genesreunited to just anyone curious unless they can prove
> to me they are connected or how they feel they are connected with a real
> piece of paper and not just someone's word. It's very disappointing to
> find that just having a family tree with a bunch of names and dates is far
> more important to some people than having it be correct (at least to the
> very best of one's ability). Am I the only one completely disillusioned
> by all this? Sylvia
|Re: A Pandora's box by "Helen & Bill Bultitude" <>|