Like you, I found a distant cousin there and I am in no doubt about their claiming to be so because she is just one generation below mine. She has been able to advance my paternal tree greatly. I don't wish to put a damp squid amongst the genealogy tree. I hope the 16th century information is capable of being verified when records were not kept. How do we know in the 16th century? Maybe we might if we have Royal blood or we are landed gentry. We might need proof about that. Its well known that now we are facing those who are gathering up information just for the sheer hell of it to pass on to serious genealogists. In the IGI there are so many who are passing on information they *think* is theirs. Its not worth accepting it unless there is a formal record of it. After 1855 nothing is very certain it seems. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chapman" <paul.chapman286@ntlworld.com> >I got started on genes reunited a couple of months ago. I have not only > found some new cousins but have traced a previously unknown branch of my > family back to the 16th century !! Not bad I would say. > > Paul >

It is true that I have not checked it all out myself but there is little doubt about the authenticity. It really helps to have an unusual name. I started with my great grandmother's death certificate - all that I knew was that her name was Margaret Chapman and she died in 1932. However, I was able to track her back through the census returns to 1881 when she had her mother living with her - by the name of Hannah Wildgoose, which had to be her maiden name. The cousins I contacted put me on to a website devoted entirely to that family (they all come from Derbyshire) check it out for yourself on :http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~willgooseweb/. Best of luck with your search Paul -----Original Message----- From: Janet [mailto:wightway@tiscali.co.uk] Sent: 26 March 2006 22:41 To: ENG-MERSEYSIDE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ENG-MERSEY] 1901 and Genes Reunited Like you, I found a distant cousin there and I am in no doubt about their claiming to be so because she is just one generation below mine. She has been able to advance my paternal tree greatly. I don't wish to put a damp squid amongst the genealogy tree. I hope the 16th century information is capable of being verified when records were not kept. How do we know in the 16th century? Maybe we might if we have Royal blood or we are landed gentry. We might need proof about that. Its well known that now we are facing those who are gathering up information just for the sheer hell of it to pass on to serious genealogists. In the IGI there are so many who are passing on information they *think* is theirs. Its not worth accepting it unless there is a formal record of it. After 1855 nothing is very certain it seems. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chapman" <paul.chapman286@ntlworld.com> >I got started on genes reunited a couple of months ago. I have not only >found some new cousins but have traced a previously unknown branch of >my family back to the 16th century !! Not bad I would say. > > Paul > ==== ENG-MERSEYSIDE Mailing List ==== You can search or browse the archives of this list and also change membership - move from digest to normal mail mode, or vice versa and sub and unsub at this link http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/intl/ENG/ENG-MERSEYSIDE.html ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx