Family Historian User Group

Dear All,
I am going to be starting a new tree - I have one I've been working on for 20 years and its reached over 4000 people (not all blood relations). I have added notes in the events for census/Bap/Birth etc for most people, but have only recently started downloading images of census etc and adding with Ancestral Sources. Its all a bit mixed in terms of consistency!
My question is - how far wide do you go in terms of cousins? I have some 5th cousins and 3x removed cousins but am unsure where to stop!
many thanks for any advice

Nita

I never stop (My tree has 55000+ individuals), because you never know when someone marries a very distant relation

Thanks John...55K I have a way to go, then!

Nita, it is a personal preference how far you research your family tree.
There is always another family connection just begging to be investigated, and you never know when it might lead somewhere extremely interesting and establish some famous (or infamous) family connection.
It is certainly worth reviewing what you have to establish consistency, and ensure all the relationships are authenticated, especially as there is so much more available online now than 20 years ago.

I just keep going where my interest and research takes me - up to 10,000. The people are either all connected, however loosely - or are detailed trees that I had to build up, just to (eventually ) rule out that I was following an incorrect line - just as useful though, both to me and others.

I publish a stripped down version online and there is a regular, albeit small flow of people that contact me who can correct/improve some of the sketchier info I have or add/extend a line that I had not known about - and, of course vice versa. I wouldn't get that with a narrow tree.

I also use a fairly extensive set of flagging for BMDs, censuses, etc. (advice from Jane on one of her workshops) that gives me a visual representation of what I already have, hence what is missing. This picks up Mikes point about new records coming on line and what I need to go back to in terms of my core ancestor group.

HTH

Thanks HTH and Mike - its helpful to see what others do -establishing authenticity is the main job now and flagging sounds like something that would be useful.

Instead of using record Flags, many users have switched to using dynamic Expressions that avoid the need to keep manually setting (and clearing) Flags. See how_to:using_flags_and_icons_and_expressions|> Using Flags and Icons and Expressions and possibly how_to:create_work_in_progress_or_research_to_do_lists|> Create Work In Progress or Research To Do Lists. But post any questions about those in the FH General Usage Forum rather than here.

Nita,
When I began my tree, I included everyone linked to my root person however loosely. This included in-laws and in-laws of in-laws etc.

I quickly realised I was wasting my time researching people who had no genetic link my root person, and as genealogy is all about genetics (hence the 'gene' in genealogy), I took the decison to restrict my research to my root's Ancestors and their direct descendants, plus their spouses. This way, everyone in my tree (spouses excepted) has a genetic link to my root person.

Despite this restriction, my tree still contains 12,000+ individuals, and goes back 20+ generations, which still leaves plenty for me to get my teeth into and it is still expanding!

For me one of the joys of family history is following up some of those really unrelated people you come across and seeing where life takes you or them! Often following those peripheral folk has resulted in my wife and I visiting delightful churches and cathedrals in towns and villages we would otherwise never have thought of visiting. I have no direct relatives in the ship-building business, but I got hooked into a fascinating area of history through the line of a brother of a husband who married a third cousin twice removed.

How wide you go is surely up to you and why you do this hobby.

I find the main restriction is on my time; I like my tree to be well researched rather than massive. I used to pencil in bits of tree researched by relatives; but I find I need to treat such branches with caution - I don't necessarily have the time to fully verify them and they sometimes don't stand up.

My (personal) prime interest is my ancestors - although there are also some fascinating stories about "people related to relations".

For more distant contacts Kindred Britain http://kindred.stanford.edu/# can be fun - but I resist entering long convoluted chains of relationships into my tree.
(The brother-in-law of the father of my third cousin once removed (via) adoption had a grandfather whose brother-in-law had a father who had a brother-in-law whose mother was the mother-in-law to the son of Alfred Lord Tennyson. So What! That is way too wide!)

To pursue my prime interest it is also useful to

• research the descendants of my ancestors (my cousins)
• research the more interesting "relatives of relatives"

Doing either of the above often leads you to others (who are researching a common ancestor) or an interesting source (such as a will which names one of your ancestors as an executor or beneficiary) which fills in extra detail of an ancestor.

it is also sometimes useful to maintain some research on unrelated family groups with the same or a similar surname - if only to be able to quickly handle the "are we related" type queries.

But in the end it is surely up to you!

genealogy is all about genetics (hence the 'gene' in genealogy)

This may be why I do family history and not genealogy I'm interested in people who are linked to my family in all sorts of ways, not just by blood (and anyway, who can say for sure there are are no 'faulty links' in their tree -- DNA testing may help, but it gets less helpful the further back you go.)

Hi,
My Mum had a cousin the link was via her cousin's father. I spent much of my childhood mixing with the family of the family of my mother's cousin's mother. They were not blood relatives to me but the families were related by their lives, so it has been interesting to research how these families developed and how they came to know each other. This relates to their lives, not just a list of names.
I also have similar instances of cross relationships in different lines of my families so it is useful to investigate siblings marriages. It links to how people lived, worked and worshiped.
That's how I like to work.
Ann

Whilst I don't usually explore the families of spouses, as I have already stated, I don't neccesarily ignore them either. Whilst researching a distant cousin, I saw her spouse's surname was the same as my first cousin's husband. Out of curiosity I traced his family back, and lo and behold the two families were connected two or three generations back! My cousin WAS distantly related to her husband!
It sometimes pays to be flexible in one's research