Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > DNA Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-07-19, 22:06
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default 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!
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-07-19, 22:30
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,271
Default

Ah, shame.
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 29th Feb
Findmypast 1871 census update
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-07-19, 22:30
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-07-19, 23:14
HarrysMum's Avatar
HarrysMum HarrysMum is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,180
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-07-19, 03:39
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

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.
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-07-19, 03:44
Kit's Avatar
Kit Kit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,716
Default

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?
__________________
Toni
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-07-19, 09:31
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

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.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-07-19, 10:12
Olde Crone Olde Crone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,768
Default

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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:34.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.