Family Historian User Group

Hello,
Some time ago I contacted a gentleman who had my gggrandfather in his tree. This week he got back and told me to look at his tree to answer my questions. I looked. The birth, 1841, 1851, marriage 1860, 1861 census and birth of my ggrandmother, Mary, were the same. All well and good. All his research after that only cites other Ancestry trees only as sources for his information. However, after the birth of Mary I cannot find my gggrandfather. I have his wife, Sarah, with her illegitimate son in 1871, listed as married but working as a cook. Mary is with Sarah's brother. I have her re marriage in 1874, listed as widow. She dies in 1913 with the son, using her maiden name, as informant.
On Ancestry there are several trees who say they have my gggrandfather but they cite a death in Shifnall in 1883. I have the certificate for this and the age is out by 6 years. His burial is in Shifnall and I have traced this man through the censuses and marriage, actually in the same year as my George. Also the re marriage of his widow with correct father. There are no children to this marriage. There are newspaper reports putting this George in Shifnall during the period when my George was in Crewe.
The weakness of my side is that I do not know what happened to my George after 1865 but I am as certain as I can be, because of all the variety of sources I have that the man who died in 1883 is not the George Woodvine who married Sarah Powell.
I hope that in the future my son will take up the baton of our family history so I would be grateful for member's thoughts on the following. Should I enter my research, which shows that the man who died in 1883 is not our George, in FH so that my son can evaluate both my idea of our line and the one which those on Ancestry have. If I do enter it should I just put it as a note on my research tab in the property box, or should I risk confusing the two Georges and enter him and all the sources using AS into the body of the program as an unrelated individual.
I don't look often at on line trees but in this case I wondered if anyone had found George. I do feel a bit intimidated by the number of trees which seem so authoritative and say the same but I feel they have taken a convenient death and not taken into account his wife and daughter, my ggrand mother.
Sorry if I'm in the wrong category Mike.
Regards Ann

Ann

If you are certain of your research, which you certainly seem to be, I would NOT include the erroneous George in your tree in any way.

One way to approach this may be to create a second project called something like 'Not Our Family' and include in that the erroneous George and in the notes document precisely why he is not your George. This way you don't muddy your research but you leave a record for your descendants as to why the research done by others is incorrect.

Another approach would be to add a note to 'your George' narrating the facts as you have found them about 'Not George' and explaining why this makes it impossible that they're the same person. That way your descendants only have to look in one place (Family Historian project) to see what they need to know. This is an approach I've often taken.

The only circumstances in which I've included a 'Not George' in my own tree is when 'Not George' turned out to be a cousin of 'My George' as they connected further up the line.

gwilym'smum wrote: I do feel a bit intimidated by the number of trees which seem so authoritative and say the same

Don't feel intimidated by the number of 'wrong' trees. If you look closely you will probably find most of them have cited another online tree as a source. The trail probably leads back to one tree with the original mistake. All the copies can be discounted because they don't reflect independent research. They may have checked the information superficially but have not picked up the inconsistencies. This is one of the perils of online trees: it only takes one researcher to make a mistake and it is copied and spreads like a virus. Once the mistake is 'out there' it cannot be removed, and the only possible course is to upload a tree of your own with the rival 'correct' information. Even that doesn't help much: I have seen cases of a 'correct' tree simply welded onto an 'incorrect' one!

Thank you all for your thoughts.
I think I will just make a note about the "wrong" George, enough that my son, Gwilym, can follow my reasoning.
Lorna I did once think of putting my tree on line but it takes time to keep it up to date and correct and in the end I decided that I would rather spend time keeping my Family Historian up to date. I'm not very technical and after having the program since it first came out I still have a lot to learn and this forum is a great aid to that end.
Ann

I had a similar problem years ago in terms of trying to connect a relative with a fairly unusual surname to his ancestors and siblings. Although I had notes to rule some people out I found, as I researched somebody else of interest around the same time, that I'd end up with one of the dead ends previously researched. I must have spent days over the years unknowingly going over the same ground.

Eventually, like others in this post, I started a separate mini project that has every significant avenue I researched that either I had disproved or could not prove. Its a series of mini trees, each with its own short note of why I discarded the line or what I need to try to get a definite link to my tree. Its no more than 50 people so very manageable in terms of a 10,000 person main tree

Interestingly, as more records have come on line one of my 'still to prove' mini trees was invaluable. I had picked up what seemed to be a well sourced ancestor line off the internet and used that for my live project. It transpired, with newly available baptism records, that it had an error and my tree was the correct one. All of a sudden I had a whole ancestor line that was wrong but with the mini tree available it was easy just to import it into my main FH project

So, its mini trees for me together with notes and maybe one day I'll solve my original puzzle .

Dear rfj1001,
Thank you for that. It is one way to go as there are actually more George Woodvines, not least a couple with criminal records!. I have proved a couple are not mine by newspaper reports which give his age, but there are a couple who might fit the bill.
Thank you Ann

Ann

Have you considered doing a surname study on the Woodvine surname? It may help you to break down your brick wall.

I do have quite a few different Woodvines. I have a file with the different families. It might be an idea. Thank you Ann

This is precicely the reason I am gradually putting my trees on Ancestry and going through every person to make sure I am as satisfied as I can be with my research. If there is conflict with other trees I leave a note on mine to say so and explain my findings. If I can't find the answer I say so and why.
If I get really annoyed by 'wrong' trees I leave a message on them too! This has had good results in a few cases where people have contacted me and made alterations to their tree. Mostly the messages go ignored though! Ho hum!

I plan to make these trees public soon (before pop my clogs!) in the hope that a different perspective may make at least some people think about their research. I'm sure there must be errors in my trees too but at least they will be food for thought for those like you who do actually want to think and not just copy. I'm not in the least bothered that people will copy (steal??) my trees. At least they will be available.

Anne

Hi Anne, I have been in touch with a few people when I discover a discrepancy. Sadly like you I am ignored or have had a rebuff. Like you I am quite happy to share my research. I have found a couple of like minded people and with one lady in particular we have been working together with messages flying to and fro as we discovered new information. This was the positive side of trees on line, especially for me as I am working alone and I haven't found many people researching my lines. Regards Ann