I nearly did in that I knew that James Smith was son of James Henry & Caroline Smith nee Stokes & on the 1881 census there was 2 families both parents were James & Caroline Smith son James & both father's occupation were shoemakers only difference apart from different places of birth given for the father was one also had a younger son Thomas so I took a chance & ordered the birth of Thomas & it came back the same as my James so this was his brother & therefore knew which of the 2 on the census it was. But sometimes with common names like Smith I have had to order a certificate on gut feeling which is not always the correct one so have had a few certificates that have been wrong I think the way the GRO does it now it even worst as before you could say father's name or something & if it didn't match up you paid just a smaller amount of the fee & got the rest returned now it just send it out right or wrong Regards Janice -----Original Message----- > Some years ago I stumbled upon some very interesting and exciting > details in census' re. my Bennett/Hanson relations and thought this > was all fine. There was my Robert William Hanson marrying a Marion > c.1873 and having three bountiful children up to 1878. All fits. > Almost perfect. Except it wasn't. The Robert William Hanson who > married this Marion was not the same Robert William Hanson, father > Robert dairyman, as I presumed him to be. The surname was limited in > MDX, all seemed to fit and I should have learnt my earlier lesson from > other counties that there may well have been two of them born in close > years and in the same county. So, blissfully I followed 'my' > Robert William in his travels in the census as a cement agent and > considered I was home and hosed with this family. Disaster loomed in > the fact of one marriage certificate of 1919 which showed Robert > William Hanson, father Robert dairyman, to be a bachelor. Yes, big > drama. A bachelor at the age of 47 of Fulham, fits..... unless there > is some skullduggery at work and he was really a widow? Must check to > see if a Marion Hanson had died sometime between 1911 and 1919. This > could have all the mystery of Midsommer! Anyway, Robert's new wife (or > first wife) in 1919 was shown to be Millicent Harriet Denby 39 widow, > father John Eves. Hmmn, still of child bearing age no doubt at 39! > Could be some little toddlers from that liaison! > > Anyway, just thought you'd like to see that what you may find on > census data is not always the truth of the matte even if you are > fairly certain. > > Cheers > Graham > Melbourne > Oz

An even bigger danger is when someone else thinks they are part of your family, and because they are so uncritical, and blithely accept whetever they think they've found, that they even refuse to alter the misinformation in the public domain when the correct version is pointed out to them. I had this problem with my Urmson family in Cheshire which was hijacked by someone in America, so if anyone is connected to Cheshire Urmsons, or Lancashire Oldhams, you have been warned. What is out there is incorrect!   Regards   John --- On Tue, 27/7/10, Janice12 <janice.aitkens12@ntlworld.com> wrote: From: Janice12 <janice.aitkens12@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [MDX] Warning: Finding that research is incorrect. To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, 27 July, 2010, 13:14 I nearly did in that I knew that James Smith was son of James Henry & Caroline Smith nee Stokes & on the 1881 census there was 2 families both parents were James & Caroline Smith son James & both father's occupation were shoemakers only difference apart from different places of birth given for the father was one also had a younger son Thomas so I took a chance & ordered the birth of Thomas & it came back the same as my James so this was his brother & therefore knew which of the 2 on the census it was. But sometimes with common names like Smith I have had to order a certificate on gut feeling which is not always the correct one so have had a few certificates that have been wrong I think the way the GRO does it now it even worst as before you could say father's name or something & if it didn't match up you paid just a smaller amount of the fee & got the rest returned now it just send it out right or wrong Regards Janice -----Original Message----- > Some years ago I stumbled upon some very interesting and exciting > details in census' re. my Bennett/Hanson relations and thought this > was all fine. There was my Robert William Hanson marrying a Marion > c.1873 and having three bountiful children up to 1878. All fits. > Almost perfect. Except it wasn't. The Robert William Hanson who > married this Marion was not the same Robert William Hanson, father > Robert dairyman, as I presumed him to be. The surname was limited in > MDX, all seemed to fit and I should have learnt my earlier lesson from > other counties that there may well have been two of them born in close > years and in the same county. So, blissfully I followed 'my' > Robert William in his travels in the census as a cement agent and > considered I was home and hosed with this family. Disaster loomed in > the fact of one marriage certificate of 1919 which showed Robert > William Hanson, father Robert dairyman, to be a bachelor. Yes, big > drama. A bachelor at the age of 47 of Fulham, fits..... unless there > is some skullduggery at work and he was really a widow? Must check to > see if a Marion Hanson had died sometime between 1911 and 1919. This > could have all the mystery of Midsommer! Anyway, Robert's new wife (or > first wife) in 1919 was shown to be Millicent Harriet Denby 39 widow, > father John Eves. Hmmn, still of child bearing age no doubt at 39!  > Could be some little toddlers from that liaison! > > Anyway, just thought you'd like to see that what you may find on > census data is not always the truth of the matte even if you are > fairly certain. > > Cheers > Graham > Melbourne > Oz ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hear! Hear! to your comments about people not changing their trees. I have tried to get one lot to change their tree when they have a boy of 6 marrying. Alarm bells should have been ringing. Anne John Phillips wrote: > An even bigger danger is when someone else thinks they are part of your family, and because they are so uncritical, and blithely accept whetever they think they've found, that they even refuse to alter the misinformation in the public domain when the correct version is pointed out to them. I had this problem with my Urmson family in Cheshire which was hijacked by someone in America, so if anyone is connected to Cheshire Urmsons, or Lancashire Oldhams, you have been warned. What is out there is incorrect! > > Regards > > John > >

Hi, I agree with the comments about people just accepting information. I let somebody view my tree on Genes and they just attached it to their tree even though when I looked at their tree there did not seem to be any relationship to theirs. Best wishes Sue

The moral of the story being: be very careful who you give your information to. You have spent money and huge amounts of (unpaid) time on your research. Why give it away? Cost your time in at even £10 an hour and you will be amazed at how many thousands of pounds you are prepared to give away to a complete stranger. If they asked you for a loan, you wouldn't entertain it. Terrible to be this cynical, but it works for me!   John --- On Wed, 28/7/10, Sue <sue.cartref@virgin.net> wrote: From: Sue <sue.cartref@virgin.net> Subject: Re: [MDX] Warning: Finding that research is incorrect. To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Date: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010, 11:06 Hi, I agree with the comments about people just accepting information.   I let somebody view my tree on Genes and they just attached it to their tree even though when I looked at their tree there did not seem to be any relationship to theirs. Best wishes Sue ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sue wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with the comments about people just accepting information. I let > somebody view my tree on Genes and they just attached it to their tree even > though when I looked at their tree there did not seem to be any relationship > to theirs. It goes the other way as well, sadly. I found someone on Ancestry who had a definite connection to one of my families. She had information that I didn't but there were no sources so I couldn't verify the data. She'd gone back about three generations further than I had. I had information she didn't. I wanted to exchange mails with her so we could work together but she took her tree down and now, after a couple mails, won't answer any more :(( I can only suppose she thinks I'm going to "steal" her family and attach it to mine despite there really being a connection which I can back up with certificates and census data. Nothing gets added to my tree without source information - even if I forget to note that source in my genealogical program!! <G> -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

Janice12 wrote: > I nearly did in that I knew that James Smith was son of James Henry & > Caroline Smith nee Stokes & on the 1881 census there was 2 families both > parents were James & Caroline Smith son James & both father's occupation > were shoemakers only difference apart from different places of birth given > for the father was one also had a younger son Thomas so I took a chance & > ordered the birth of Thomas & it came back the same as my James so this was > his brother & therefore knew which of the 2 on the census it was. > But sometimes with common names like Smith I have had to order a certificate > on gut feeling which is not always the correct one so have had a few > certificates that have been wrong I think the way the GRO does it now it > even worst as before you could say father's name or something & if it didn't > match up you paid just a smaller amount of the fee & got the rest returned > now it just send it out right or wrong The way to check is to mail them first (putting GQ before the subject) or to contact the relevant register office. Adding the details of all your SMITH certificates as Postems to FreeBMD will help others to eliminate some options. I've taken a wrong turn on a very unusual surname where there were two children with the same name and year of birth and the same father's name. It's so much easier to do with the more common names. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk