Off topic: chat

pedroeibar1 · 17-04-2019 12:04am

JDERIC2017 wrote: »

Thanks will do. Hitting a wall in my search in the late 1700s.

To get back to the late 1700’s in Ireland is an achievement. Most hit brick walls much later! As Pinky says the burial could have been anywhere. Before Catholic Emancipation Roman Catholics did not have the right to burial according to their own rites. That is why Glasnevin was created (main mover was Daniel O'Connell). I have several RC ancestors buried in rural CoI churchyards. If you contact Glasnevin Trust they might be able to give you a pointer - there were three (?) other big cems in Dublin before Glasnevin opened

shar01 · 24-04-2019 12:00pm

Hi all,

By and large my genealogy journey has been fun. It's a hobby and I enjoy it. I am careful and always check records.

This is a message I received this morning. This person's Tree is private so I haven't been guided by it. When she messaged me last year, I explained the connection was by marriage so we wouldn't have a DNA connection.

"I remain outraged how you have taken MY family information and woven it into your tree. I've also looked at other information you've added and thought, huh???

You indicate you're a beginner and, with that, I suggest you start checking your facts. You and I have NO DNA IN COMMON in fact, we have nothing in common."

So so tempted to tell her to go and take a running jump

Has anyone else had similar encounters?

pinkypinky · 24-04-2019 1:43pm

Wowzers! That's really over the top. Personally, I wouldn't be able to resist replying along the lines of "your tree is private so I haven't seen or used your research, but if by using public records, I've come up with the same info, tough bananas".

I am always surprised when people add in the ancestry of married in connections. I found close family added to a tree on my heritage and when I queried how we were connected was told that my great-grandmother's sister's husband's sister was his ancestor. So in other words, we are not remotely related.

shar01 · 24-04-2019 1:58pm

Since I started looking at my maternal grandmother's side, I've found so many interconnected families - Stillorgan / Blackrock / Dun Laoghaire areas. It's a wee bit scary.

BowWow · 24-04-2019 5:47pm

I'd be tempted to write back and say you have absolute proof of the DNA connection, it was needed in court to claim the inheritance, and that you would now respect their wishes and would be ceasing correspondence...

BowWow · 24-04-2019 5:55pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

I am always surprised when people add in the ancestry of married in connections.

When I started Genealogy a couple of years ago I went off on several tangents with the families of those who "married in".

My rule now is to put in full details of just the parents of those who married in. I look at this as a link for others to see what happened to a member of their family.

srmf5 · 24-04-2019 6:04pm

BowWow wrote: »

When I started Genealogy a couple of years ago I went off on several tangents with the families of those who "married in".

My rule now is to put in full details of just the parents of those who married in. I look at this as a link for others to see what happened to a member of their family.

I also restrict myself to just giving the parents' names of unrelated spouses. I like to include parents to give a bit of context for the spouse in terms of age and where they were born.

pinkypinky · 24-04-2019 6:37pm

I stick those details or maybe a census link on the notes for the person but I don't include them in online versions of my tree, which is never the most complete or sourced version.

shar01 · 24-04-2019 6:52pm

BowWow wrote: »

I'd be tempted to write back and say you have absolute proof of the DNA connection, it was needed in court to claim the inheritance, and that you would now respect their wishes and would be ceasing correspondence...

I like it but I just went with a "please tell me where I've entered incorrect information and don't be so rude".

kildarejohn · 25-04-2019 6:44pm

BowWow wrote: »

When I started Genealogy a couple of years ago I went off on several tangents with the families of those who "married in".

My rule now is to put in full details of just the parents of those who married in. I look at this as a link for others to see what happened to a member of their family.

I agree with Bowwow generally, but among my ancestors was a brother of a "married in", who although no relation was regarded by all as an uncle and referred to in old letters etc as "uncle". So I include him.
Similarly I would include step-children of ancestors and the step-childrens' birth parent.

Hermy · 25-04-2019 9:52pm

While the main focus of my work is well defined I place no limits on where my research should stop.
Anyone who is related by blood or marriage is eligible for inclusion.
I have trees for countless in-laws though they're not so extensively researched as the main branches.
It's a lot of work but you meet some interesting people along the way and you sometimes end up back where you started.

Jellybaby1 · 26-04-2019 1:09am

Hermy wrote: »

.....It's a lot of work but you meet some interesting people along the way and you sometimes end up back where you started.

I agree. My family history is very ordinary and its only when I look further outwards that I find interesting people. Apologies to my own Grandfather who died a very young man and didn't have a chance to do anything.

Deja Boo · 26-04-2019 1:49am

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I agree. My family history is very ordinary and its only when I look further outwards that I find interesting people. Apologies to my own Grandfather who died a very young man and didn't have a chance to do anything.

He created generations of people, that in itself is an impressive feat - not all of us have that chance.

Well done, Jellybaby's grandad!

I have a grandmother who died in her 20's, no record of life or death except one census entry. As if she disappeared off the face of the earth, with no trace.

shar01 · 26-04-2019 5:53am

At least cranky cousins like yerwan are few and far between. I'm in touch with a cousin in America (he's not into genealogy, his daughter is) but he's delighted to be in touch with a real life Irish person in the Ould Sod.

I love finding out more about the ones that left Ireland to make a new life. My 2nd great aunt went to Pittsburgh in 1898/99. It looks like her house was used as the "go to" place for others of her extended family when they arrived. The house is now a brewery and a stout was named after her last year.

Bucket list item #3476 Go to Pittsburgh

Hermy · 26-04-2019 9:37am

My mother and father's trees are mostly Dublin based so the interconnectedness occurs less frequently or the connections are at a considerable remove. Some of you may recall for instance my discovering that my maternal grandmothers twin sisters mother-in-law had two lodgers in 1901 who it turned out were step-children of my g-g-grandfathers nephews sister-in-law.

However, my partners family are from a small village in the midlands and there the interconnectedness is far more frequent so as to make it not just desirable but essential to research the in-laws.

Hermy wrote: »

Anyone who is related by blood or marriage is eligible for inclusion.

Or adoption Hermy!
Shame on me for not including that one.

But perhaps that's why I throw the net so far and wide.

shar01 · 26-04-2019 8:05pm

This is what I love about genealogy. I received an email last night from the States. A lady is trying to unravel her great grandfather's "domestic arrangements"

The surname is Stack from Kerry. Stacks are ten a penny down there.

I'm looking at a Tree this woman is connected to by DNA. While searching through deaths for Edward Stack I came across a cert from 1926. And it led me to the Dromcollogher cinema fire. I had never heard of this disaster.

spurious · 26-04-2019 8:56pm

Likewise for me, the Carrickshock massacre/incident (depending on your point of view) in which one of the dead was (subject to DNA confirmation) my 4x great grandfather.

Hermy · 26-04-2019 9:14pm

Deja Boo wrote: »

How does one handle adoption, from a direct ancestral line?

For myself I trace both my adoptive and my birth parents lines with equal interest, albeit with a big fat blank where my birth father's name should be because in Ireland it's unlawful for me to be told his name!:(

The online family tree builder at Ancestry allows me include both my adoptive and birth parents and any paper charts I create generally start with my parents generation so that removes some awkwardness.

However, if I was creating a pedigree chart for instance that included an adopted individual I'd put an asterisk next to their name and create a separate chart for their 'other' parents.

srmf5 · 26-04-2019 10:43pm

Where overlap occurs in trees, the relatives are naturally recorded. My grandfather's brother married my grandmother's sister (two brothers marrying two sisters). Relatives of my mum and dad have crossed paths in the past due to both families living around the one area. Four examples from from the top of my head being my dad's relative (my 4th great uncle) marrying my mum's relative (my 3rd great aunt), my dad's relative (son of 4th great aunt) marrying my mum's relative (3rd great aunt) and my dad's great uncle was engaged to my mum's relative (daughter of my second great aunt). Even now, I have a second cousin on my dad's side dating a second cousin on my mum's side. It was only recently that they realised they were both related to me at an anniversary mass. So they're not related to each other but I'm related to both spouses.

My own relatives have managed to keep me busy and entertained without straying too far away from relatives. There's already over 3,000 in the tree and I'd just feel like an ancestor collector who tries to get a high number in their tree if I added too many unrelated people. I don't consider recording the names of siblings, parents or even grandparents of through marriage relatives that but there are some trees out there that pretty much add someone else's entire tree going back generations when they might only be connected to one line. It's different in cases of adoption of course. I've been helping someone in America who can't access her birth certificate but was supposed to have been born to Irish parents in America. Her tree is just made up of match's trees to determine the connection. She successfully identified the mother but there's no certainty with the father who is the parent that I'm related to. I had much better luck with a second cousin of my dad's who was born and adopted in Ireland. She already knew her mother's surname and based on that it was easy to explain the connection to her.

Boscod · 27-04-2019 8:44am

Talking of overlap, my Great Grandfather and Grandfather married two sisters!

pinkypinky · 27-04-2019 9:07am

In my distant family, there is a case of adoption (though before 1952 so technically a permanent fostering). The adoptive mother was my blood relation and her adopted son asked me to help trace the birth mother. He had some clues and we were able to figure it out. I retained him in my family tree using a different dotted line to show he was adopted and created a totally separate tree for his birth family. Notes in each tree indicating that I had another one to reference if I was checking something in futre.

I agree with Srmf5 - 2300ish in my tree all related to me except 3 or 4 instances of siblings marrying siblings where I've put their parents in to show the link. When I see people with over 5000 (or 10000) individuals, I wonder if they're as well researched or there's a bit of name gathering.

One third cousin did explain to me that she puts people in to see what hints ancestry generates for ideas - I do that too, but not with my main tree. I create a separate one, which might get deleted later.

pedroeibar1 · 29-06-2019 11:27am

The CLDS have issued an invitation to complete a survey to some Dublin-based Familysearch site subscribers. The questions are general genealogy based, e.g. sites used, frequencies, etc. I’ve signed up. The purpose is to create a database from which a focus group can be selected. What the (paid) focus group will do/look at was not made clear, and not all who completed the survey will be called.

pinkypinky · 29-06-2019 1:46pm

Yeah, I got it.

Hermy · 29-06-2019 8:00pm

Me too.

I wonder what will be they be offering those who are picked?

Deja Boo · 29-06-2019 8:14pm

It's a paid focus group? Odd, since LDS are generally volunteer oriented.

tabbey · 29-06-2019 9:38pm

Deja Boo wrote: »

It's a paid focus group? Odd, since LDS are generally volunteer oriented.

I think they mean expenses.

shar01 · 04-07-2019 7:33pm

Here's how sad I am...:D

I've put together a tree based on a shared dna match to try and find the common ancestor. My maternal grandfather was from Loughill, Co Limerick and so far this is where the shared match is leading me to.

One of the surnames I'm checking out is O'Shaughnessy from Loughill. I'm looking up the birth cert of Michael Maurice O'Shaughnessy https://exhibitions.library.nuigalway.ie/s/oshaughnessy/page/welcome
and the captcha is for bridges and the photo is of the Golden Gate Bridge. I did a mental high five.

Like I said, sad.

pinkypinky · 05-07-2019 3:06pm

So I contacted a DNA match for my Dad's cousin yesterday - there's a shared surname in his list and I gave a bit of info about my people with that name. He replied with the same. But swiftly followed a second email saying he'd googled me, knew I was a genealogist and said it would have been better if I'd been upfront about it and my motives!

I suppose he thinks I'm somehow profiting from his info?

Hermy · 05-07-2019 6:23pm

Funny that - I found myself in a similar position recently when I was contacted by one of Ancestry's genealogists looking for information about a DNA match of mine. I almost regret my helpful reply as I got nothing in return.

shar01 · 05-07-2019 6:47pm

I quickly discovered there's nowt so quare as folks. The vast majority of contacts have been positive.

Then there was this message:
"I remain outraged how you have taken MY family information and woven it into your tree. I've also looked at other information you've added and thought, huh???

You indicate you're a beginner and, with that, I suggest you start checking your facts. You and I have NO DNA IN COMMON in fact, we have nothing in common."

Poor woman doesn't appear to understand how marriage works :rolleyes:

Off topic: chat

Comments