I have no problem taking a really hard look at all submitted on-line trees. Generally, there is a shortage of documentation. And citing merely the name of an e-mail correspondent doesn't really cut it in that department. Personally, I've been happy that I've never hurriedly posted anything formal on the internet, as many do--a lot of them apparently driven by little more than getting their own name on record . . . and without ever then continuing their "research," let alone going back to correct erroneous "information." Any information I have contributed will be found in queries and replies in various places, such as discussion groups. NewsWatcher was really great for making contacts in some of the Internet's earliest years. While the Internet offers so much more these days, much of it is thoroughly corrupted. Your use of the name Tuthill caught my eye, by the way. I've been working diligently for some time to tie the Tuttle/Toothill line into my own ancestry. Did you know that back in Old England there's even a reputed connection of an early Hugh de Toothill to one of the individuals thought perhaps to have been the Robin Hood of legend? If you ever get bored and are interested in old Tuttles, you can find tons of Robin Hood material via a Google search. This Westall site, incidentally, was a big help to me when I was finishing off my third book of family history about eight years ago. We never found the connection I wanted back to Virginia in the 1700s, but I did pick up some very good material on some allied lines. Regards, Tom > From: "margaret wilkinson" <margaretjanew@hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:28:17 +0100 > To: camfield@olympus.net, WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: One World Family Tree/Westalls of Berkshire and London > > My mail was not intended as a criticism of submitted on-line trees, though > some, as you say, leave a lot to be desired. > More a criticism of Ancestry in taking old submitted trees, where > information has been updated recently, then in trying to match them > inappropriately, with only the flimsiest of connections. > > John Westley/ Margaretha Behm from Berks, Pennsylvania, USA > John Westall/Martha Davies living in Reading, Berks, England > > Not a valid match that I can see! > > Online trees, even if incorrect, can give a starting point for further > research. > Ure Jane Tuthill's daughter, Jane Bigmore Brigden, married Arthur Westall, > my great grandparents. > A recent contact with someone with an online tree with the name of 'Ure' in > it caught my eye. > We found out that out of a dozen or so London female 'Ure's', nearly all > were connected to either my 'Ure' or his 'Ure', chances were that there was > a connection. > Between the 2 of us we have worked hard and found the probable connection, > though lacking the final proof. > I have found out a lot more about my family, not from Jim's tree > specifically, but by the 2 of us working together. > So, inaccuracies there may be, but a starting point, especially where there > is a contact name/number given > Margaret > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Tom Camfield <camfield@olympus.net> > To: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: One World Family Tree/Westalls of Berkshire and London > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:27:06 -0800 > > It's sad, but so many rootsweb and other Internet sources just get worse and > worse, year after year. The problem comes from so many ill-informed (and > semi-literate, in some cases) stature-seeking individuals are overly anxious > to leap onto the genealogy bandwagon and post the first unverified rumor > they hear about Grandma's roots. And they hasten to create personal web > pages also, often featuring photos of themselves and their pets. The > misinformation, largely undocumented, is eagerly grasped all sorts of > impatient, over-eager "researchers", who in turn record it, post it, etc. > > The family information contributed to LDS is equally unreliable. > > Likewise, many early histories (late 1800s and early 1900s) that are sworn > to as gospel contain erroneous relationships. Some of those presumptuous old > authors can really lead one down an incorrect garden path. > > I have completed and printed three large hard-bound books of family history > and have learned the hard way over many years. I have settled in pretty much > at regular ongoing e-mail discussions of documented information with other > family researchers as my major sources. > > Meanwhile, I've never been able to connect my particular Thomas Westall, who > arrived in North Carolina shortly after 1800, back to his Virginia roots. > Too many records lost in the war, for one thing. > > Regards, > Tom > -- > Tom Camfield > 538 Calhoun St. > Port Townsend WA 98368 > >> From: "margaret wilkinson" <margaretjanew@hotmail.com> >> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:00:24 +0100 >> To: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: One World Family Tree/Westalls of Berkshire and London >> Resent-From: WESTALL-L@rootsweb.com >> Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:36 -0600 >> >> The only thing is, on those records where I have found a match, the >> information is several years out of date, or they have matched the wrong >> people together! > >