How Not to Ancestry

Being from the South, there are cases of 1st cousins who married. It makes it difficult when they lied on official documents to hide that fact. I have a death certificate that was filled out about a wife that died. It says the husband didn't know the maiden name of his wife's family.

That would be a pain to sort out! I wouldn't discount first cousin marriage in the north either. It's legal in about half the states today. In something like six of those it's only legal with proof that one or both is unable to reproduce. I do know some first cousins that married in modern times (in a northern state).
 
There needs to be a word for that sinking sensation between thinking, "Oh good, this tree has a lot of sources attached, let's see what they are," and realizing one of them is a Revolutionary War pension attached to a guy who died in 1739.
Or one of my favorites -- pictures of ancestors who died before the 1840s. I had one person claim to have a photo of someone who died in 1799.
 
Photo of a portrait.
In this case it was a tin-type photo circa 1870 they posted to Ancestry thinking it was their ancestor who died in 1799.

This is not unusual on Ancestry's member trees. Just like children older than their parents or born after they died. People see the shaking leaf and don't stop and check the veracity of the record, they just add it in.
 
Years ago when I was just getting into it I used to try and contact people on Ancestry when they'd mistakenly put members of my family in their trees. Rarely did I get a response but when I did they'd argue with me using some bizarre rationalization as to why they were right and I was wrong about my grandparents. I have one great aunt whose first name was Ardor and on one census she was recorded as a male. It's amazing how many people copied "him" into their trees, ignoring all the other censuses where her sex was recorded correctly (and a whole lot of other records) and married "him" off to various women. None of those I contacted corrected their trees. I soon learned to not waste my time trying to help anybody (unless I was asked; only happened once). Based on my experience there I'd guess not more than ten percent of the trees are really researched. I'd even bet that at least fifty percent are just junk, just cobbled together from pieces of junk copied from other people's trees.

It's like a lot of other things: just because anybody has access doesn't mean they know what they're doing. Most people don't understand how to invest their retirement money either and you'd think maybe that would be important enough to maybe at least buy a book but apparently not. Same with the family tree.
 
In this case it was a tin-type photo circa 1870 they posted to Ancestry thinking it was their ancestor who died in 1799.

This is not unusual on Ancestry's member trees. Just like children older than their parents or born after they died. People see the shaking leaf and don't stop and check the veracity of the record, they just add it in.

I can see how that could happen. I have attached a picture of my 3rd g grandfather who was born in 1792. (He died in 1880). Looking at the period clothing, one could imagine it being much older.
Prusia-8.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see how that could happen. I have attached a picture of my 3rd g grandfather who was born in 1792. (He died in 1880). Looking at the period clothing, one could imagine it being much older.
View attachment 101170
I love this, you can see that he was attached to the styles of his youth. That coat fits like something from the 1830s! Thanks for the reminder that elderly people can wear clothes which are decades behind the times.
 
I love this, you can see that he was attached to the styles of his youth. That coat fits like something from the 1830s! Thanks for the reminder that elderly people can wear clothes which are decades behind the times.
I'm not elderly.
But I hate, hate, hate to shop.
I'm watching myself go out of style. ( my clothes. I have been gone, apparently since my oldest son hit 20!)
Idk about generally, but if someone takes my picture today...the clothes might not change over time!
Thankfully, my kids do buy me clothes.
 
In this case it was a tin-type photo circa 1870 they posted to Ancestry thinking it was their ancestor who died in 1799.

This is not unusual on Ancestry's member trees. Just like children older than their parents or born after they died. People see the shaking leaf and don't stop and check the veracity of the record, they just add it in.

How about those who have children when they're nine or ten. Math is hard.
 
How about those who have children when they're nine or ten. Math is hard.

I had one that had a brat that was 4 when mom was born. Or the one that married a man that was about 150 years old. Note to future generations: no Jr's. No one allowed to have the same name in the same generation. I don't care if they are cousins three times removed. Don't you do it!!
 
I had one that had a brat that was 4 when mom was born. Or the one that married a man that was about 150 years old. Note to future generations: no Jr's. No one allowed to have the same name in the same generation. I don't care if they are cousins three times removed. Don't you do it!!

Well stated. I had a great problem with my family. As Pennsylvania Dutch, they had a propensity for giving names from the Bible. So many Samuels, Johns, Jameses, Josephs, Rachels, Elizabeths, Christians etc.,etc., etc.
 
Well stated. I had a great problem with my family. As Pennsylvania Dutch, they had a propensity for giving names from the Bible. So many Samuels, Johns, Jameses, Josephs, Rachels, Elizabeths, Christians etc.,etc., etc.

I'd even be ok with numbers. Single digits for the first generation, teens for the second, etc.
 
I had one that had a brat that was 4 when mom was born. Or the one that married a man that was about 150 years old. Note to future generations: no Jr's. No one allowed to have the same name in the same generation. I don't care if they are cousins three times removed. Don't you do it!!
I just ran into an accepted Sons of the American Revolution application for the service of Zechariah Landrum, son of Samuel Landrum, son of Thomas Landrum and Nancy Bell. Samuel, the supposed father of the Revolutionary war soldier, was born in 1887. Additionally no son Samuel is in Thomas's will - although several trees have him as Thomas's son, I can find no evidence that he was and considerable circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

Zechariah's find a grave is very big on his proven service. Okay, possibly his service happened - but only if literally nothing else on his application did and he was a completely different person. Did anyone even read this thing? And now the application is in the database as a "source" being used by other people to prove things.
 
Back
Top