Weep with me...
 

This morning I knocked down a thirty year brickwall, and acquired a lot of new ancestors. I also found lots of new common ancestors.

Unfortunately, I made sure my tree was correct. This evening, I have lost all those common ancestors!

Ah, shame.

I know the feeling, Phoenix!

200 years of detailed research involving about 800 names, gone in a flash when I decided to get a marriage cert just to round it all off. Wrong marriage, parallel families.

OC

I think we’ve all done similar at some time.

I just have to stop worrying about all those incorrect, copied trees out there. If the owners want my great grandfather to be the William Kettley who died aged nine months, let them.

So devastating Phoenix. That wall will come down one day.

Libby when I stop being lazy and can be bothered searching the newly released Kent records I am going to do a thread here and prove my 4g grandfather does not have James and Frances as parents as their son was not a convict, was not transported to Australia, did not marry and die here and that their son married in Kent and died there.

I know the person who I think started that myth no longer believes it but every other online tree does believe it. I'm wondering if I can ever dispel it.

If there is some DNA backing to all of this could the more recent relatives still be correct but have the wrong names on their tree?

Well, actually, my new tree is correct: I've gone back two generations more. Everyone else on Ancestry has gone down the wrong rabbit hole and shown an uncle as the father. I agree with their choice of grandfather.

But because Ancestry goes by majority, rather than reasoned, choices all these cousins no longer appear to share common ancestors.

Yes, I have a four year old mother in my tree. I no longer care, have given up correcting other people or trying to make them see reason or even provide me with the proof that this four year old was miraculously a mother, because, as Phoenix says, the majority rules on Ancestry.

OC