On Monday, Apr 11, 2005, at 20:53 Europe/London, Shelagh Garside wrote: > I'm interested to know how much detail people research for individuals > who marry into their family tree? I find that if the data is > available about the wider family, eg, on the IGI or census data, I > can't resist adding it in however I'm finding that my tree is getting > very cluttered with people who are nothing to do with me. What do you > all do? Trouble is if one ignores too many of the "married into" lines, one could miss out on the interesting fact of inter-marriage of families. This may only be relevant for lines which originate or remain in small villages, but it could be a mistake not to follow things up. On the other hand you might need to have several versions of the family tree on the computer program - providing you show where they are linked it should be possible to keep each separate (say) grandparent's lines under control, if only for the sake of one's own mind, memory and sanity! Jay

Hi List and other interested parties... I have been following the thread re how far to spread one's family tree. A few thoughts from my own research. (may or may not be useful). If I had not followed ancillary lines, I wouldn't have found (as Jay mentions) that our trees go round in circles. GASP... The family tree is not linear. I was speaking about this to a doctor not long ago, and he maintains that marriage of cousins, 1st, 2nd and 3rd etc, was exceedingly common at least up to 1900's, both in England (especially Yorkshire for some reason) and across Europe. The reasons being that a) the family wanted to keep any assets it had within the family. b) it was a very small gene pool within a given area, if one considers the numbers regarding population in Sheffield and surrounding area say from 1615 it showed just over 2,207 persons in Hallamshire, c) social position excluded certain marriages, so little option... food for thought. Therefore unless someone went out of the area to marry it is inevitable that there will be recurrences of marriage between families. I can of course only speak for my own family, but I have found one progenitor who was the grandfather, ggrandfather etc for many Sheffield families...I have been amazed at the convoluted twists and turns that this family has taken. In one generation at least three sisters married three brothers from another family... When I first started to research I thought that there would be one of each family name etc. branching off the main line I couldn't have been more wrong. The same names crop up through many generations, with permutations. (could explain the congenital stubborness in my family). Of course there were many other names besides which only occur once, thank God, no doubt this thins out the blood a little. Now I inevitably look for the same names right through the tree. I thought one particular family only entered the main tree in the 1900's, came to find out that even as far back as 1600 the family had been intermarried with our main branch. When I found evidence of re-marriage in the 1700's, I was mind boggled. Add to that the eldest son usually set the tone for the marriage of siblings. Of course the eldest son (usually being the Heir) married the Heiress of another family, (or Heiress the Heir... not very democratic) the younger siblings of an Heir or Heiress often married the lesser siblings of the same family to quite an extent. Of course I suppose my family could be an exception to the rule but as the intermarriage pertains to the attendant families as well, and there are many intermarriages there as well; not just in our main line, I believe not. There is also to be considered (as I'm sure everyone well knows) when adding to the Trees, that the additions are proved, ie while the IGI is a great research tool, only extractions are valid not submittals (they are conjecture for the most part) even then the facts must be substantiated by other means if possible, ie finding the entry in a Parish record etc... Hearsay is not enough. This can of course limit the size of the Trees. I see nothing wrong with adding as many people as possible to the various trees and my personal thought is that I shall stop adding them when 1) I can get no more information or 2) I have passed on. At that point I shall leave all information in the hands of those best able to use it. I wish my sons well with trying to keep all the names straight... it's certainly given me fits from time to time, although I love every minute of the chase. Kindest regards, Josephine, Ontario. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gen Mail" <genmail@btinternet.com> To: <ENG-SHEFFIELD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:42 AM Subject: Re: [SHEFF] How Far To Spread The Tree? > > On Monday, Apr 11, 2005, at 20:53 Europe/London, Shelagh Garside wrote: > > > I'm interested to know how much detail people research for individuals > > who marry into their family tree? I find that if the data is > > available about the wider family, eg, on the IGI or census data, I > > can't resist adding it in however I'm finding that my tree is getting > > very cluttered with people who are nothing to do with me. What do you > > all do? > > > Trouble is if one ignores too many of the "married into" lines, one > could miss out on the interesting fact of inter-marriage of families. > This may only be relevant for lines which originate or remain in small > villages, but it could be a mistake not to follow things up. > > On the other hand you might need to have several versions of the family > tree on the computer program - providing you show where they are linked > it should be possible to keep each separate (say) grandparent's lines > under control, if only for the sake of one's own mind, memory and > sanity! > > Jay > > > ==== ENG-SHEFFIELD Mailing List ==== > Personal details of living or probable living persons are not to be posted onlist. If such details are requested then please use common sense before responsding offlist with a personal email. > > ============================== > 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 > >