Family Tree Layout

hblock21 · 10-07-2011 10:51pm #1

I'm wondering what layout / style do people here think is best suited to present a branch of a family. I have a few versions, but I'm not happy. I want something that is easily readable for a third party. I find my current versions are very confusing.

P. Breathnach · 10-07-2011 11:25pm

This is something that I have been struggling with.

For me, the real issue is that a chart showing names and relationships doesn't actually tell much of a story. Knowing the name of one g-g-g-grandfather (which is the furthest I can reach) is not that exciting; knowing something about him would be.

So I am experimenting with writing mini-biographies of couples, telling what I can of their shared history and their family. I'm finding that quite difficult, especially being clear about what I can actually prove, and what components of my account are my best judgement, but not actually proven.

hblock21 · 10-07-2011 11:52pm

Most of my branches spread 3 or 4 generations. I would start at the top say with my g.g.g grandparents and name the children say six; plus write up anything I know about the parents, story's, land, etc.

The problem is if these six children married and had families then those children had families.

My g.g. grandfather might be the third child. i.e. the most interesting from my current relations perspective. So they are trying to take in all this info, then trying to understand who child number 4 is and who it's parents were, etc. It's very confusing. I know who's connected to who, but no-one else does!

I've scanned the net for templates, but I just can't seam to come across anything that gives me the right balance i.e. between easiness of understanding
whilst at the same time still giving loads of info !

pinkypinky · 11-07-2011 10:49am

I do a bit of both - a family tree laid out in a traditional manner can get messy when you have say 8 kids in one generation and a couple of those having several kids as well, not to mention trying to print out on a standard A4 printer! I just put names and dates on that and do a companion document with paragraphs on the people.

P. Breathnach · 11-07-2011 11:29am

As I said, I'm struggling with this area.

I'm not sold on the usefulness of the family tree as a way of representing things, particularly if you want to include all the descendants of X and Y. It just becomes too unwieldy to produce and for other people to read.

I use a free software package to record what I find, and have told people if they want to have the file, they are welcome to it. They can download the software for themselves to allow them to look through it.

At the moment I am writing a set of reports. Each one will include a graphic. The graphics will differ a bit, according to what I am dealing with, but will typically be a section of that larger diagrammatic representation that I am not going to bother drawing -- perhaps representing a couple, their parents, and their children. As it evolves, I might add in cross-references to indicate that if you want to know more about child Thomas, his story is told in the report about Thomas and Mary.

shanew · 11-07-2011 11:50am

I've found that I usually end up with a few different trees - as well as the documentation with the certs, photos, maps etc. On the main tree I just show primary ancestors (no siblings) with very basic details such as year of birth and death plus year of marriage.

I also do subtrees for families I have good details on - which include more detail, such as siblings and their marriages etc

For my own use I also keep a full tree (multiple pages stuck together) with all the ancestors and all siblings etc - but just the basic details to save space. I use this as a quick reference on paper, and it gets scribbled on as I locate various details..

I think visual representation is the best way to see the relationships..

Shane

hblock21 · 11-07-2011 12:15pm

I thought about this again last night and I believe the only coherent way to present a branch or branches is to have a summary. These summary pages would be broken down in generations, say, one generation per page and only include name, dob & dod and spouse, possibly children (depending if that generation fits into one single page); and so on for the next generations. I think it would be important to have a generation on a single page, parents at top and 5, 6, 7, etc children underneath. Then bulk up the branch / people later on in the document.

Maybe (definitely) index names or have a contents page (so that the reader can fast forward to a beefed up section regarding that particular person).

That way people can reference the 'clean' summary pages and will be more at ease reading through it all. Knowing that they can always flick back to the summary page when they get lost.

P. Breathnach · 11-07-2011 12:25pm

Another issue is that there are many people for whom only half your family tree will be interesting. My cousins on my mother's side won't be greatly interested in my father's ancestry.

pinkypinky · 11-07-2011 12:37pm

Oh I only give the common ancestry for the relevant branch. If it was my mother's side, my Dad just gets mentioned as her husband, and vice versa.

P. Breathnach · 11-07-2011 1:18pm

That's a reason why I am not thinking of compiling a single master document.

As one of my grandparents married twice, I have first cousins whose interest is focused on only one-quarter of my ancestry; they have a lower level of interest in another quarter.

hblock21 · 11-07-2011 1:23pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Another issue is that there are many people for whom only half your family tree will be interesting. My cousins on my mother's side won't be greatly interested in my father's ancestry.

Luckily for me my fathers side has been fully researched by my aunt!

I would only be showing relevant branches to relatives and only mentioning spouses name of my mother.

annieoburns · 18-07-2011 11:24pm

This is a ongoing issue with me. I have done a few narratives written from the point of view of great grandparents so different ones for different lines. But I must admit they are probably unwieldy despite much tweaking. But they do allow for developing some more interesting episodes and adding in pictures, maps, bit of historical perspective etc.

Some people are good at map reading and others not ... so reading a familytree is probably a similar skill. So much more detail is accumulated that does not lend itself to be put on the tree yet fills out and clothes the story hence the narrative approach.

The problem is that these ancestors become so familiar to us but the level of detail is overwhelming to a half interested family member. I think I am reconciled to researching primarily for my own pleasure rather than attempting to share.

Colleen317 · 21-07-2011 2:20pm

The problem is a family tree is more like a forest, filled with mighty oaks and scraggly shrubs. Getting lots of clear information on one piece of paper is very challenging. Perhaps this is where a website or blog is useful. Your relatives can click on the tree where they have connections to learn more or share.

mari2222 · 21-07-2011 6:26pm

wikitree.com lets you upload anecdotes and photos as well as the relationships. it is easy to use also.

Family Tree Layout

Comments