Rockborne38 on Family Tree Circles
Journals and Posts
Today we deleted most of our posts which we made over the last few years. We did that because our original intention was to make contact with others in the family of both myself and my husband, who were researching the same families, and in that way, make contact with cousins. We only ever asked questions to which we knew the answer, in the hope that those cousins would contact us, but what we have found is that info we gave to them from our own research over more than 50 years has so often been added to ancestry or similar site of some of those cousins, without any attribution to our research and so often with other incorrect info with no basis in fact and no proof of being correct. That did not worry us, but they usually added the info without adding the citation that we had given them, thus making it difficult for those who found their site to establish the truth of the entries they had made. So we decided, enough is enough, if anybody out there is researching the families of my husband (Vincent, Connolly, Peareth, Davison, Lowman. Boyd, Mowles, Cribb, Mandry) or my family, (Stone, Phillips, Basing, Wise, Fry, Keeling, Myall, Bullock, Shufflebottom, Stevens, Hillman, Harris), or other related families in our ancestry, then please contact us via this site. We have no trees on Ancestry or any similar site as we believe that family history is for family only, but are most happy to share with any family member, provided you give us an undertaking that you will not publish that info on the web.
Many years ago, before the Internet was even a dream for family history researchers, and we all had to rely on library collections and membership of genealogical societies, my daughter and I used to join our local society wherever we lived, and spend hours there every week looking at the microfilm records they held, and our eyes would be sore at the end of a long day from trying to find information we wanted on those microfilm and microfische records held
we were often amused when we would hear a comment, and it was usually from a professional researcher who was being paid to research a family history for somebody, they would be looking for a name, and would say, this is the same name, so that will do, and when people took a break for a cuppa in the tea room at one particular genealogical society to which we belongs, we once asked one of the researchers on a day when she had made a comment similar to that above, and she told us she was looking for the marriage of a person and the birth of the children for that marriage, and could not find the marriage in the county in England in which she had expected to find it, but found a marriage for a person with the same name, but in a different registration district to that which she expected, so added that to the file she was building for a person who was paying her to do the research. I asked how she would explain the differences, and she told me that the person employing her would not know it was not the correct member of her family, and would accept what she gave them. I was flabbergasted, to say the least, and wondered how could she be so dishonest in putting together such a family tree with info she knew was not correct, but she said if she could not make that link by using the record (the wrong record) that she found, then she would not be able to complete the job and could not be paid till she did so.
We found a similar thing recently in a family connected by marriage to one of our families. A researcher to whom we have given info about parts of our family to add to theirs (because a member of their family married a member of one of our families) and we were given a draft of the file by that person, and on it is shown the death of one of the family members some years ago, and that person (who was supposed to have died years ago) recently visited our home and spent the day with us, and the citation given in the draft file we have shows as the evidence for that death just a death notice and a funeral in a newspaper We have checked, and although the person has the same name, the spouse and family members of the person who died have no similarity to the family of the family member who visited us, but when we sent the info to the researcher and mentioned that the person is not dead, visited us recently, and sent a photo of the person with myself, we have heard nothing since. Maybe I was not very diplomatic in pointing out that the "dead person" in the tree they sent to us is very much alive, and that info is not wanted, as it does put a suspicion that other of their research may also be based on false information, but is so disappointing that although we know family history research can be frustrating, short cuts to find info, and facts without proof, should not be taken. - in other words, if it cant be proven with a proper document, then dont add it, or if you do, leave a note with it that it needs more checking.
I hope so much that others do not have this problem that I will now mention
My husband and I have so much info on both of our families, and one of the many things we try to do is to make contact with other family members who are researching the same families that we are researching, those of both our parents and as far back among our ancestors as we are able to find
we recently found a person who had a public member tree on my maternal great great grandfather, and we contacted him, thinking he was related, and offered to share info with him about the family, as he had so many things wrong, some wrong names, incorrect dates, people in families missing all together and so much other info that we have found over our more than 50 years of research
when he did contact us, and we asked how he was related, we were amazed at his relationship, his grand mother was the second cousin of a lady who married a man who was the older brother of a member of the family of my great grandmother, not the great grandmother in that particular family, the great grandmother in the other side of the family, the paternal side of my father, in fact, not related at all except by the marriages that took place.
Go figure, why would somebody want to have a family tree for somebody who was so distantly related by marriage, no blood relationship at all, and we just wonder if the person had spent that time researching his own bloodline, he would not have the errors he also has in his own bloodline, and we only know that as we looked at his public tree, and found from our own knowledge and a couple quick checks on FreeBMD and the England census that he had errors in his own family for his grandparents
what a waste of time, we surely hope others havent found the same problems, if so, we wish you luck in sorting any errors you may have copied from other people.
The other thing we have found amazing about the years we have spent researching the history of the families on both of our sides, is the secretive attitude of some family members, they just will not give us info when we ask questions, even about their own branch of the family, and especially about their close family in current generations
we have no trees on any site which is open for view by others, we just keep our family history files on our own computer, back the files up regularly onto an external hard drive, and happy to share all the info we have with any other family member, provided they will give us info about their own branch to fill in holes in our trees
Last year (2012) we wrote a book, all about the family of John James Shufflebottom who came to Australian in 1829 at a convict, we wrote the book in conjunction with a cousin in the family who is also a serious researcher, and it covers the generations as far down as his great grandchildren, and not further, as that would involve details of so many living family members. Because of the cost of printing being so expensive, we only put it on a disk, and then told all the family members with whom we were in contact that it was finished, and would cost them the price of registered postage to send them a copy, so they got more than 50 years of research for a very small cost.
We sent out 156 copies of the disk and refused to send a disk to only two family members, and we would not send them a copy because they would not even tell us the names and details of their own children and grandchildren, told us it was a privacy issue, and that the Privacy Act prevented them from telling us. That is just so much rubbish, the Privacy Act does not cover family members giving family information to other family members. The Privacy Act does cover the release of information to professional researchers who are being paid to do the research, but NOT family members sharing information
Have others had this same thing happen to them, it is the cause of so much frustration to us.
You will note from my profile that I am researching many families, my husband and I are researching both sides of our family, so we have researched the familes of our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, and our great great grandparents, and in some of the families, we have been lucky enough to find information even in earlier generations than those, for example, because the mother of one of my g/g/grandparents had lived in the same village in England for more than 500 years, and all family members had been baptised in the same church, then married there, then their burial service was also held there and they were buried in the church cemetery, we were able to trace that branch back to 1496, we were just lucky that the priest was astute enough to hide the church record books when the King threw all the Catholic priests out and either burned churches or placed ministers there who were receptive to his idea of how churches should obey his rules
the one thing that has struck us in our research is the number of people who place trees on Ancestry and similar sites, and just copy info from other trees without doing any research themselves, and we found some public trees on one site that shows the parents of a family member being born about 25 or more years before their son, another where they show a man married at the age of 4, another where a man is shown married in NSW in the mid 1800s, yet they then show him as being present at the 1851 census in England even though he had been transported for life to Australia and died here in the mid 1800s. We have found so many errors like that, and we commend to all researchers, if you cant find a document that proves your information is correct, then dont add it to your tree, as chances are, it may not be correct, and dont just accept info from trees of others unless they can provide a citation to prove the information is correct. Our own family history files have now grown to just in excess of 40Gb, backed up weekly to two external hard drives.
good luck with your research, and if you are researching any of the same families that we are, then we are happy to share info with any family member.
We have been very lucky over our more than 50 years of research into the families of both myself and my husband, and we have so many family members who send us a message, phone us or write to us, as soon as there is a new birth, marriage or death in the family, with all the details needed to add to our family history files, and in return for their trust, we never publish the names or any details of any family member on any website, for fear of the horrid identity theft taking place
But of course, just as other family history researchers have found, there are those family members who believe in the old adage that "Knowledge is Power" and think that by keeping information to themselves, it makes them powerful. For anybody who thinks that, in relation to family history, you do need to think again, because if you have the info and wont give it to other family researchers, they will find the info in some other way in any case, but you may find that you will not benefit from all the other info they also find, as by being secretive about family history issues, you will just find that the serious researchers will not bother to keep contact with you. We have a few in our family who fit this description exactly, and they really do lose by their attitude, so to all family history researchers out there, family history should be for all family members, share what you have, and believe instead that the other adage of "What goes around comes around" is just as true, and share your knowledge of your family generously with other members of your family, write a book about them, add the history to a disk or USB stick and send a copy to other family members, arrange Family Reunions, visit family members who you have never personally met before, it is so much fun and so rewarding.
This is probably in the wrong place, but we have just read the article by ngairedith, about the value of family photos, and it reminded us of a man who served in the army with my husband. Most of us lived a great distance from our own families, and when our children went to the local school, it was only the "Army kids" who did not have grandparents to attend their school sports, fetes and similar things, but most of us, at some time, had our parents come to visit us, and thus the kids had their grandparents with them at least on some occasion when they visited and stayed with us in the many far flung places at which we were posted over the years. A friend of ours, another solider, had been brought up in an orphanage, he had no idea of who his parents were, and stayed in the orphanage till he was 17 then enlisted in the Army, and his children used to ask him when they would have their grandparents visit, and he told them that his parent were dead. One day he noticed two big picture frames in a second hand shop, the old fashioned semi circular ones, with a photo of a distinguished gentleman in one, and a well dressed lady in the other, so he purchased them, they were about two pounds each (this happened in 1962) and took them home, cleaned them, and hung them on the wall in the hallway of the family home, and when the children asked who they were, he told them they were his parents, and his children were so excited, and when their friends came to visit, they used to say to the friends, "Look, Dad got us some photos of my grandpa and grandma" and as far as we can recall, those photos took pride of place in their home wherever they lived. It was a fib he told them, but it made those three children so happy to know that they did have grandparents, even though they could not meet them, and we have no idea if he told them the truth when they grew older, but it certainly made three young children (aged in 1962 at 6, 8 and almost 10) so happy that they had "roots" and a set of grandparents they could see, even if only in a picture frame.
- Displaying 1-7 of 7 Journals