nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off topic: chat

pinkypinky

I know there's not much going on the genealogy world but there's no reason we can't chat.

So this is a first for our board: an off topic chat thread. Please be nice!

So where's everyone gone these days? Are you all on summer holidays?

I'm not but I did just sit outside on freshly cut grass enjoying my lunch and my book (Ready Player One by Ernie Cline - love it!)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

L1011

pinkypinky wrote: »

My tree is private on Ancestry but I have shared it with a few people, and they've put up the same info.

I also don't understand why people are so keen to add in unrelated families. Like they put in someone who married in, and then they add that person's entire family tree. Those people aren't in your family! One of them is related by marriage, that's all. I might research someone's parents if I'm looking for potential kids' names but that's it usually.

Occasionally, if there are less common name combos, I've found it increases the potential of finding a match with some info.

I've also found that as further resources become available and I improve my information digging techniques; I usually have the only accurate source for any info anyway. Haven't got a single useful lead on Ancestry in years but have had to convince a few people to fix terrible inaccuracies.

Jellybaby1

I've also wrung Ancestry dry and there's nothing new coming out of it for me. Not sure what to do now, either try FMP again next year or give it a rest. I'd love to find some live descendants of a particular line as I'd like to have clarity on where my granny went!

pinkypinky

Well, an hour ago I would have agreed but it suggested a hint for a marriage of my ggg grandparents in Quebec tonight. I knew the groom's parents names already so it's definitely right! I've no idea why 2 people from Limerick married in Quebec but I'm bloody chuffed. The bride's parents names were new to me and hello new gggg grandparents! I've added about 15 people to my tree in the last hour. Should be in bed.

KildareFan

Ancestry & FMP keep adding new databases, so it's worth going back to the well.

FMP recently uploaded Betham's genealogical abstracts which gave me leads on one particular branch of the family - he summarises genealogical information from selected wills from which I was able to identify a sister of my 4xgreat grandfather, and her husband.

pedroeibar1

pinkypinky wrote: »

Well, an hour ago I would have agreed but it suggested a hint for a marriage of my ggg grandparents in Quebec tonight. I knew the groom's parents names already so it's definitely right! I've no idea why 2 people from Limerick married in Quebec but I'm bloody chuffed. The bride's parents names were new to me and hello new gggg grandparents! I've added about 15 people to my tree in the last hour. Should be in bed.

Nice find!
I wonder were thet Famine immigrants who made a return journey? Quebec was an important port in that era.

pedroeibar1

KildareFan wrote: »

.... he summarises genealogical information from selected wills from which I was able to identify a sister of my 4xgreat grandfather, and her husband.

Yoy probably know this lready, but it is worthwhile having a peek at Nick Reddan's Deeds project site - I was able to crossreference a Betham with Reg. of Deeds entries to clarify/confirm some relationships.

Hermy

KildareFan wrote: »

FMP recently uploaded Betham's genealogical abstracts...

I was going to ask had anyone had any luck with the new Betham, Crossle or Thrift uploads to FMP? I've found one or two entries which will help me with my Moore research. However, these images appear to be just 'the notes' as Fr. Ted once said, and I'm wondering is there more to it than what's been presented by FMP?

Reading John Grenham's recent article on the Betham uploads the answer would appear to be yes. And in the case of deeds, there's lots of further research that can be done. But does anyone know of other surviving work that was done as a follow on from all of the above?

pinkypinky

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nice find!
I wonder were thet Famine immigrants who made a return journey? Quebec was an important port in that era.

Yes, it's certainly a possibility but the marriage was 1846, so maybe a bit early. The husband was born in Limerick and was a river pilot. The wife's father was from Bruff but she was born in Dublin.

pinkypinky

Just to say I'm without my regular computer for a couple of weeks so my replies may be less fulsome than usual.

DunnoKidz

Hi all, am finding family history interesting and often stunning! .............I mean at some points, I just gotta wonder 'what were my ancestors thinking!'

Anyone else find strange twists in your family's back histories?

tabbey

DunnoKidz wrote: »

Hi all, am finding family history interesting and often stunning! .............I mean at some points, I just gotta wonder 'what were my ancestors thinking!'

Anyone else find strange twists in your family's back histories?

Every family researcher finds amazing / strange / bizarre discoveries.

Anyone who hasn't, did not try very hard.

pedroeibar1

Over on the History Forum I mentioned that I would post a ‘find’ on the ‘chat’ thread as I thought it a more suitable place.
Some years ago my genealogy work developed another side - a sort of ‘one name study’, a collection of oddments / people of my infrequent surname, recorded because ‘stray’ mentions often provided clues to help identify ‘orphan’ families and when satisfied an ability to link them to different branches. The links to the old NY newspaper archives posted by Hermy and Kildarefan a few weeks ago prompted me to revisit those sites during the ‘snow days’. I discovered a person (described as a bachelor) with my surname living in 1860’s New York who was the victim of a murder / manslaughter by his brother-in-law. More searches showed the surname was spelled very differently in several newspaper reports, many of which gave good detail on the crime.

I started to work through census and marriage records to correctly identify the surname and obtain support info. The child birth records matched ‘my’ spelling, as did the parent’s marriage. The names and address entries in the 1860 Federal census matched the crime details. This brought up an interesting find – the marriage certificate of the murderer showed his wife to be a daughter of a missing distant relative. It is an exaggeration to describe him as a minor landlord in Ireland, he was a ‘middling’ farmer with a hundred or so heavily encumbered acres, who had a few tenants on variously sized lots. He had married ‘well’ but the agrarian unrest in the 1820 - 30’s caused him hardship as rents went unpaid and he could not obtain vacant possession of his land or put paying tenants on it. He was a reasonably innocuous individual, trying to survive, the odds stacked against him. He had death warnings, hay stacks and buildings burned, employees attacked and a son-in-law beaten to near death, etc. The Famine finally ruined him financially. I sometimes wondered what had happened to him and his issue after his eventual bankruptcy.

Now I know what happened – he emigrated with his wife and children to NYC, worked as a clerk and died there aged 57 in 1863. His NY Herald death notice even named the village of his birth in Ireland.

The murdered son was unmarried, the crime was deemed to be manslaughter, the brother-in-law was released by the State Governor after serving 10 years and went back to his wife.

FWIW curiosity provoked me to contact two tree owners on Ancestry whose online trees contained the victim’s sister and her ex-con husband. Both trees had what I considered to be an incorrect name for the paternal grandmother and incorrect places/dates of death. Only one replied, “Can't help you much on this one…... Ancestry is telling me that she is: the wife of 1st cousin 1x removed of wife of 2nd cousin 4x removed and the 'Ancestry Hint' says she died in New York City and the husband died in Australia."

Factually, she died in NYC as did her husband. So much for the accuracy of online trees, but it shows the usefulness of newspaper archives.

sheepintheback

Hey guys!
So i am just curious of what age group the majority of people interested in geneology are?

I ask this because while in contact with someone from a geneology reasearch centre through email, the man was taken by surprise when he learned i was only an 18 year old boy!!!

Also, all people, distant familiy members or otherwise (who also had interest in geneology) which i was in contact with troughout the years were either retired people in there 60s or people in there 30s/40s.

Are people here surprised to read that i am only 18 qnd have a big online family tree...and that my main hobby is reasearch..i dont know of anyone else around my age group who does the same !
I got my interest when i was only 11...my uncle died and it came up in conversation how many 1st cousins i had on my dad's side, so we went about counting them ALL and when i realised we had 56 first cousins on my dad's side (and i always knew my total of 4 first cousins on my mam's side!) I just had to put it into a tree format...and from there it grew!

pinkypinky

I'm in my thirties but started at a similar age to you. Anecdotally, many people become interested in genealogy after the death of a parent, so usually in their 50s/60s. I do know a couple of people who got the bug in their teens. The 3 year course I did in UCD (now defunct) had 2 people in their 20s (me and one other), one thirtysomething, some 40s and the majority above 50.

There's a great benefit to starting young: more older people are still around and have their marbles so they can tell you what they know, and are available for followup questions.

sheepintheback

Thanks! Is nice to know there are actually others who start in there teens...even if it is very few! It is a great advantage, i agree, I would not be where i am in my tree if it wasnt for my eldest Aunt!

Alicat

I’d say I must have been about 20/21, I think around the time the 1911 census came online. Took a few years to get going though. Definitely helped to be starting as things were becoming digitised. I’m not sure how well I would have stuck to it if I’d had to spend all of my weekends in libraries and archives!

Jellybaby1

sheepintheback wrote: »

Hey guys!
So i am just curious of what age group the majority of people interested in geneology are?

I ask this because while in contact with someone from a geneology reasearch centre through email, the man was taken by surprise when he learned i was only an 18 year old boy!!!............

I started when I was 16, long before we had computers and the internet to make life easier for research. Wrote down as much as I possibly could from chats with my mother which has proved to be invaluable. Am in my 60's now and still refer back to my notes from 50 years ago! Pinky's advice is key.....talk to your relatives now. If they are agreeable its a good idea to video record them. Always get permission first though. Best of luck!

srmf5

I think that I properly started when I was 12. Before that, I'd ask questions and write downs things but I'd just lose it and forget it. When I was 12, I properly started recording information, building a tree and finding new ancestors that my parents didn't know about. I definitely wouldn't have been able to do it without the internet though. I always dreaded being asked by relatives what age I was because I didn't want them to know that they were talking to pretty much a child. It made me feel a bit embarrassed for some reason. In my head, it was a case of why are you wasting your time learning about dead people that won't affect you rather than spending the time to live your own life. Well actually my dad said something similar to that effect before. He has absolutely no interest in it. Even now at 20, I tend to avoid giving my age unless asked. Most do seem surprised when I give my age and even when I was in contact with a man in his 30s, he had never been in contact with anyone younger than him before when researching genealogy.

sheepintheback

srmf5 wrote: »

I always dreaded being asked by relatives what age I was because I didn't want them to know that they were talking to pretty much a child. It made me feel a bit embarrassed for some reason........................................
I tend to avoid giving my age unless asked.

I feel the EXACT same way! I could not have worded it better!!

It does have its drawbacks also, as I am only 18, I can't afford a continued membership on anything!

Jellybaby1

sheepintheback wrote: »

I feel the EXACT same way! I could not have worded it better!!

It does have its drawbacks also, as I am only 18, I can't afford a continued membership on anything!

For some of us, that doesn't change in our 60's either! Best thing to do, get a summer job, and just buy a subscription for Ancestry or FindmyPast for a month. Otherwise, like me, you have to rely on the free sites.

KildareFan

Feeling really disappointed at the guidelines issue by the RCBI for copying/transcribing Church of Ireland parish records and headstone inscriptions - in particular the restrictions on posting photos and headstone transcriptions. A tragedy for family history if these are more widely adopted.
https://www.irishgenealogynews.com/2018/04/rcbl-publishes-new-guidelines-for.html

Jellybaby1

I'm not personally upset by these regulations. The CoI has a duty of care to consider. I can understand the reasons behind it particularly with more recent records. I wouldn't like my parents' gravestone to be published online although I don't mind family members emailing photos within the family. They've never allowed photography or a copying service in RCB anyway. I know others will think differently.

pinkypinky

sheepintheback wrote: »

I feel the EXACT same way! I could not have worded it better!!

It does have its drawbacks also, as I am only 18, I can't afford a continued membership on anything!

I spent years not maintaining my subs and I still don't keep the newspaper one all the time. You'll find there's plenty of friendly people here willing to do a look-up for you.

pedroeibar1

KildareFan wrote: »

Feeling really disappointed at the guidelines issue by the RCBI for copying/transcribing Church of Ireland parish records and headstone inscriptions - in particular the restrictions on posting photos and headstone transcriptions. A tragedy for family history if these are more widely adopted.
https://www.irishgenealogynews.com/2018/04/rcbl-publishes-new-guidelines-for.html

Agreed. While I accept and support any attempt to preserve records, in this instance clearly the RCB's thinking is back in the day of the dippy pen and the wording of the linked notice is tendentious waffle. Have they no idea of what has been happening to copyright - music, books, images, etc - since the Net? Are they going to initiate proceedings against Billiongraves, or others to enforce their position? Is every graveyard going to post a notice about trespass and asserting copyright ownership of gravestone images? What if I publish a photo of a RC ancestor's gravestone taken in a graveyard attached to a CoI church? Who owns the copyright to that image? The CoI? - methinks not!

Hermy

I can understand that the RCBI would claim ownership of their own church records but I wouldn't have thought those same records were subject to copyright.

L1011

How do they think they even own the headstone inscriptions seeing as they wouldn't have written them, or paid for the headstones?

KildareFan

I am mystified about the RCB policy on photographing headstones - I would regard the information on headstones as public information, the same as death notices in the newspapers, or notices on RIP.ie. I am a contributor to Findagrave.com and have found so much genealogical information from headstone transcriptions and photographs.

I worry about the chilling impact of recent developments in data protection on genealogical research.....

pinkypinky

I know Susan Hood, who issued those guidelines, and she's a very sensible person. There must be some legal reason they're doing it.

Hermy

They are only guidelines so I do wonder is there actually anything legal in it or are they just trying to protect their own patch so to speak?

spurious

They mention a cut off of forty years for the headstones, perhaps it's following a similar complaint to that regarding the electoral rolls?