Interesting question and discussion. I've felt that I have been rather restrictive because the first interest of most people in their genealogy is ancestors of all surnames. Without limits, there is a lot of "spread". When I first got started in genealogy I, of course, sought all my ancestors (then all my wife's ancestors) but then chose certain surnames of interest to me to develop descendants of the earliest ancestor of that name. I did ALL descendants and parents of spouses, but sometimes a story would lead me in other directions. When my interest became stronger in my own surname, Beezley, I continued with all descendants including spouses and spouse's parents. Then I started working with Beezley's not related to me and finally to full ONS scope... all variations (Beasley, the most prevalent). Now that I've expanded to the point that I have nearly 100 lineage trees, I now stick with only Beasley-named descendants and spouses. HOWEVER... whenever I get a project participant who is not bearing the Beasley surname, I include their full pedigree to their Beasley ancestor so all can see how they connect to the projects. One of my most active participants is connected by her great-grandmother whose maiden name was Beezley. I do find that a somewhat more "liberal" inclusion policy is helpful for finding clues based on autosomal DNA. All my lineage trees or Patriarch Trees are defined, wherever possible, by YDNA Haplotype. But sometimes there are no male descendants and autosomal is the only way to get a window into the past. Doug Beezley Cincinnati OH On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 3:07 PM, <christopher.gray@gray-ons.org> wrote: > It depends <grin>. For 90% (nice round number) of my families I just have > the spouse as "Mary [--?--]" with an approximate data / place of birth - > this is a quick approach to enable me to process people quickly. However, > if I am digging for information on behalf of someone else, then I will try > and find Mary's parents by looking (for example) at the Census prior to her > marriage. Where I am digging in a small community, then I may well follow a > few families as it is likely that they will inter-marry. > > For my own ancestors - then I go off down all branches and do not limit my > work to just the registered name. > > Regards > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: GOONS > [mailto:goons-bounces+christopher.gray=gray-ons.org@rootsweb.com] On Behalf > Of Ken Toll > Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 3:05 PM > To: Goons mailing list > Subject: Re: [G] Scope of an ONS - Spouses families > > I guess mine process is very similar to other responses. > > However, I do very it a bit according to circumstances... > > Where Descendants of people in my ONS volunteer information, I add it to the > Trees (with their permission) and credit them as the source. > This gives a degree of 'buy-in' to my ONS from people who may not hold the > name, but have a strong family link. Always bear in mind that things like > Bibles and photos often disappear down the female line, and having those > names in your Trees can act as bait <grin> > > My other exceptions are in small or sparse communities where: > - Cousins intermarry, and > - Siblings intermarry with the 'children' of a neighboring farm. > Studying the wider family can often help untangle complicated relationships. > > Ken > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > Information and admin page: > http://one-name.org/guild-information-administration/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message