* Merging 2 people currently on different branches of a tree

[Deirdre784]

Hi, before i do anything which confuses my tree, I’d appreciate some advice please.

Over the last few days i’ve become fairly convinced that one of my husband’s 3* great grandfathers married one of his 3* great grandmothers (both widowed, both on the maternal side of his tree, but not a ‘pair’). Not spotted originally as he is using a different name!

Samuel Brooks’ son Joseph married Sarah Ann Dewson (Hall/Barnes/Heath)’s daughter Louisa Barnes (my husband’s 2* great grandparents). The previous year, a Sarah Ann Heath had married a William Brooks, who is in my tree simply as her 4th husband.

Further research has found both occasionally used the other Christian name, and both parties were at the same address on their marriages which is what has convinced me that Samuel and William are the same man. Age for both is around 1840, place of birth varies, but occupation is broadly similar.

My worry is what will happen if i now merge the 2 men together. It sounds like it will make a mess of any ‘trees’ produced, but presumably i do need to merge them.

Sorry if that’s a bit confusing but this is all a puzzle.

[LornaCraig]

Yes, as you are satisfied that they are the same person you do need to merge them. As 'William' Brooks is in your tree simply as a 4th husband of Sarah Ann you probably don't have much other information attached to him so the merge should be fairly straightforward.

An alternative, which would avoid the merge process, would be to delete 'William' completely and then record Sarah Ann's 4th marriage again using the 'Link to existing record' option and select Samuel as the husband.

In either case you will find that in some diagrams (depending on the type of diagram and choice of diagram root) there will be a coloured ribbon linking the two occurrences of William/Samuel. If you don't want the ribbon to be displayed you can turn it off using Diagram Options>Genreal tab and untick 'Check for duplicates'.

[tatewise]

Deirdre, before doing anything ensure you have a Project Backup to revert to, although there will also be automatic GEDCOM Snapshots taken by FH.

As well as merging William and Simon you will also need to merge their Family records to avoid them appearing twice.

I don't understand why Lorna mentions coloured ribbon linking the two occurrences of William/Samuel.
If they have been merged there will only be one occurrence.

May I probe your statements a little deeper?
You have William as 4th husband, but where is Samual? Is he the 3rd husband?
You talk about the same addresses and marriages, which suggest you have two sets of evidence of a marriage?
Since they were married after 1837 the GRO Marriage details should be very specific, so not sure how there can be two.
Have you recorded a Marriage event for both Samuel and for William on the same Date at the same Place?
Similarly, if born after 1837 then the GRO Birth evidence should be specific.
You should be able to be sure that Samuel and William are the same person with only one evidence of birth.
Have you any Census records of the families that consolidate your findings?

[LornaCraig]

I don't understand why Lorna mentions coloured ribbon linking the two occurrences of William/Samuel.
If they have been merged there will only be one occurrence.

Because he will appear in two different places in the tree: once as Sarah Ann's 4th husband ('William') and once as Samuel, father of Joseph.

tree.JPG (48.59 KiB) Viewed 3143 times

[Deirdre784]

Thanks both, (yes Lorna, that’s correct). It is very confusing and i hoped to just give the bare bones of the mystery to illustrate the query.

I have all the available / found certificates.

Sadly i know nothing about Samuel or William pre the children’s baptisms on the isle of Man (1865-1875) nor can a marriage be found to his first wife Elizabeth (on the IOM), so Samuel’s father not known. Marriage of William to Sarah Ann says father Samuel! Birth ranges of both range from 1838 to 1845, and place from England (!), to London to 2 different places in Oxfordshire.

Sarah Ann never married Samuel Brooks, just William. She had 2 previous marriages and lived with another chap (they had 5 children) who strangely used Simon or Samuel as his first name - but only the 1 man.

The 2 marriages i mentioned are ‘William’s’ to Sarah Ann, and ‘Samuel’s’ son Joseph’s to Sarah Ann’s daughter Louisa. All 4 people living at the same address on the marriage certificates in 1895 and 1896.

All records belonging to William and Samuel are currently unique as i believed them to be 2 different men. So merging shouldn’t be a problem (or deleting William as he has few records).

My puzzle was how they would fit into a tree as William / Samuel will then be on 2 branches, one as the father of Joseph (my husband’s 2* great grandfather) and as the 4th husband / partner of Sarah Ann, mother of Joseph’s wife Louisa (my husband’s 2* great grandmother).

The whole branch is a nightmare. Spent 3 days last week creating a timeline of these 2 or 3 families to try and sort it out. It is what now has me 99% sure William and Samuel are the same man.

I will give it some more thought over the next few days but ultimately I think i will merge / delete and see what happens.

[LornaCraig]

Yes it does sound complicated but I think you have come to the right conclusion. But it's these knotty problems which make family history interesting, and you can enjoy the warm glow of satisfaction having solved the puzzle!

Remember to record, in a note, why you reached the conclusion that William and Samuel are one and the same person. Otherwise another researcher (or yourself, in a couple of years' time) might wonder what's going on.

As you have very little information recorded about 'William' I would recommend deleting him and then linking the existing record for Samuel as the 4th husband, as I suggested in my first reply. If you are not familiar with merging it can be confusing, and as Mike said you would have to remember to merge the family record as well as the individual record.

[tatewise]

The ribbons in Lorna's diagram are the result of not merging the Family records, which can be performed as part of the Individual merge. Even deleting one Individual may leave a Family record with Sarah Ann as a single parent if the Family record contains any details such as a Status or a Marriage event.

[Deirdre784]

Thanks Lorna, will do. Only have the marriage, 1911, death, burial and probate, so easy enough to add back in. When i get to write up my ‘book’ i’ll add a narrative section just on this mystery.

[Deirdre784]

Thanks Mike, i do have a backup saved (several), but will take care. Essentially i guess it’s more important that he is shown as the father of Joseph but i’ll see what happens.

[LornaCraig]

The ribbons in Lorna's diagram are the result of not merging the Family records, which can be performed as part of the Individual merge.

Mike, I'm sorry to contradict you again but when I created that sample set of people to illustrate the situation I did it by simply linking the existing record for 'Samuel aka William' as the 4th husband of Sarah Ann. I had not previously created a separate record for 'William'. I had not done a merge. There was nothing to merge.

I would be interested to know what family records you think need merging!! The whole purpose of the linking ribbons is to handle situations like this, where a couple appears in more than one place in a tree.

As I said in my very first reply, the choice of diagram type and diagram root will determine whether the duplicate ribbons need to appear. The diagram I showed had Joseph and Louisa as joint diagram roots.

[tatewise]

As soon as you link 'Samuel aka William' as the 4th husband of Sarah Ann that creates another Family record.
That is the same scenario as after merging Samuel and William who were 2nd and 4th partners of Sarah Ann.
If you merge the two 'Samuel aka William and Sarah Ann' Family records there will be no ribbons and that is the Family record merging I'm suggesting that Deirdre may have to perform.

[LornaCraig]

No, neither of them was ever the second husband of Sarah Ann. Why do you think that?

Samuel is the father of Joseph. Joesph married Sarah Ann's daughter. Samuel also became Sara Ann's 4th husband. He was never Sarah Ann's second husband. Her first three partners were surnamed Hall, Barnes and Heath. (Although Deirdre says she was not actually married to one of them)

I can assure you there is only ONE family record for 'Samuel aka William' and Sarah Ann:

Families.JPG (35.37 KiB) Viewed 3053 times

[tatewise]

Sorry, you are correct, I got completely confused about how many partnerships and with who.
Too busy with too many things and watching rugby at same time!

[LornaCraig]

Phew!
I'd just like to assure Deirdre that her original post was quite clear, and most of this discussion can be disregarded!

[Deirdre784]

Thanks both, very enlightening.

This is one of two very complicated branches on our tree, though the other is very definitely one man who - for reasons unknown - went by a different surname (along with his family) on the 1881 and 1891 censuses, yet all the births, baptisms etc were recorded correctly.

While the life of Sarah Ann has been ‘interesting’ for some time, with her marriages / partnerships and children, and Mr Barnes alternating between Simon or Samuel, this Brooks mystery has only recently become apparent - both Samuel Brooks and William Brooks have individually been in my tree for close to 10 years - following extra certificates, baptism records and school admissions etc which kept throwing up the same addresses. A detailed timeline has helped me decide that it must be the same man, though i have yet to find anything before the IOM baptisms (of Samuel’s children).

I will ‘take the plunge’ and delete William Brooks when on my laptop later.

Thanks again both, this family history pastime is certainly interesting.

[Deirdre784]

Lorna, amazing to see 73 people have viewed your ‘families’ clip.