>From time to time I look at the Ancestry family trees, in the hope that some one has found some of my antecedants that I've missed. A week or so ago I found one, so it seemed. I had a mini tree of Frederick and his wife Clara and family, 9 Children between 1870 and 1885 but an ancestry tree had a further child, Henrietta, born 1888 Bethnal Green. This seemed odd, Frederick had died in 1885 and as frozen embryos were unusual in the 1880,s, had Clara had a child after? The Ancestry tree showed a date of birth, and address 16 Weaver St. the same address shown on the baptism entry of Ann Elizabeth in 1885. All the other children have baptism entries, but cannot find any entry for Henrietta. She is not with Clara in the 1891, and doesn't show anywhere else Her marriage in 1908 doesn't appear in church marriages, seems to be register office, or possibly synagogue, either is out of line with the rest of the family. So I had a look at the house numbering of Weaver St to see who was living at Number 16. On the 1881 census the house numbers of Weaver St in Bethnal Green run from 1 to 30. They also run, 1 to 8, 12 to 25 and another 4. In the 1891 census the numbering has been changed, it looks like odd side and even side numbering, 1 to 53 and 2 to 66 with a few blanks, and a misplaced No.9 Comparing the electoral lists over that period it looks as though the change came between 1885 and 1888. The last four children baptised were living at:- 1879, No.5 Weaver St, 1880 No.25, 1882 No.25, 1885, No.16 Weaver St. The first of these was most certainly an error for 25 and the last is an error for No.36, the address of the family in 1891. My conclusion is that this entry is false, but there is more than one entry in public family trees, so some people are just copying without doing their research. By the way, in case any of the tree owners is reading this, Clara Elizabeth was ATHERTON, she signed the marriage register in rather spidery hand, with a name that has extra letters between the H and the T and a bit of cross checking showed it should be Atherton and because the entry read Atheton somebody has written under her signature, Clara Elizabeth Atheton her mark X Her father has a bit of a mix up as well, the marriage entry reads Etherton, this has been over written Ellerton,and has been transcribed Robert Elle Etherton so we may never know what his name really was. Alec Lefevre

A. Lefevre wrote: > My conclusion is that this entry is false, but there is more than one > entry in public family trees, so some people are just copying without > doing their research. > That happens all the time. I used to believe that if a large number of trees had the same info, it must be factual. Not any more. Worse, that incorrect info gets into Ancestry.com's Hints database, and becomes inescapable.