Thanks, Graham, for sharing such a valuable cautionary tale. You are, of course, by no means alone. How many subscribers to this list, I wonder, can put their hands on their hearts and say that they haven't had similar experiences - I certainly did, many years ago, when I claimed a whole clutch of TAYLORs as mine, just because the names, dates and locations fitted. The old rule of thumb always used to be that you needed three separate pieces of documentary evidence to support each genealogical fact before adding a member to your tree. I fear few of us stick to this level of "proof" these days, but corroborating with at least one other reference is always sensible. My FH software allows me to colour code individuals, and I find this very useful as a way of distinguishing between (a) working hypothesis, (b) probable and (c) beyond reasonable doubt. Best wishes Caroline > > 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

Hi... I find your ability to annotate a "possible" ancestor in your program interesting. I think most of us have had the frustrating experience of following a line, convinced we are on the right track, only to find it couldn't be further from the truth. I would also say that another research tip I have begun to use is to try to disprove my hypothesis. Even if no documentation can be found to prove a link, it is worth attempting to find information that will disprove the theory that an individual might be related to one's family. I have to say, I am still interested to learn information about those "mistakes" in my research. Bev W -----Original Message----- From: Caroline Bradford <caroline.bradford@btinternet.com> To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 6:22 am Subject: Re: [MDX] Warning: Finding that research is incorrect. Thanks, Graham, for sharing such a valuable cautionary tale. You are, of course, by no means alone. How many subscribers to this list, I wonder, can put their hands on their hearts and say that they haven't had similar experiences - I certainly did, many years ago, when I claimed a whole clutch of TAYLORs as mine, just because the names, dates and locations fitted. The old rule of thumb always used to be that you needed three separate pieces of documentary evidence to support each genealogical fact before adding a member to your tree. I fear few of us stick to this level of "proof" these days, but corroborating with at least one other reference is always sensible. My FH software allows me to colour code individuals, and I find this very useful as a way of distinguishing between (a) working hypothesis, (b) probable and (c) beyond reasonable doubt. Best wishes Caroline > > 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

That is indeed very good advice, Caroline. Can I ask what software you use to be able to colour code individuals. What a wonderful idea, being able to add bits to your tree, before it has been absolutely proved beyond doubt. Anne Caroline Bradford wrote: > Thanks, Graham, for sharing such a valuable cautionary tale. You are, of > course, by no means alone. How many subscribers to this list, I wonder, can > put their hands on their hearts and say that they haven't had similar > experiences - I certainly did, many years ago, when I claimed a whole clutch > of TAYLORs as mine, just because the names, dates and locations fitted. > > The old rule of thumb always used to be that you needed three separate > pieces of documentary evidence to support each genealogical fact before > adding a member to your tree. I fear few of us stick to this level of > "proof" these days, but corroborating with at least one other reference is > always sensible. My FH software allows me to colour code individuals, and I > find this very useful as a way of distinguishing between (a) working > hypothesis, (b) probable and (c) beyond reasonable doubt. > > Best wishes > > Caroline > > >