Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Relatives of inlaws ?

Options
  • 28-04-2011 5:45pm
    #1
    Username is valid and not in use
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭


    I'm doing a family tree for my daughter (age 5), I'm the first in the family to attempt it & have gathered together a huge amount of info so far, however, how wide do I go ?

    For instance, my brother is married with three kids, I know his inlaws & the people that married into that family who also have kids. Should these people be included ?

    They're nothing to my daughter (I think), but they are to her cousins.

    Also, I've got back as far as 1840 on one side, is this enough or should I be pushing harder to get further (if that's possible) ?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    zagmund
    Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭zagmund


    I'm always struggling with this myself. Years ago I gathered a fair bit of information about the extended family, but many of them weren't directly related to me - like my mothers brothers wifes (direct link breaks here) sisters husbands parents.

    I've determined (again) to start from the bottom (my kids) and work up and only include people who are directly related and leave out the very distant people.

    There is value to having them included, but when trying to get a firm grip on many generations of families it helps to stay focused on the ones directly related or else you may inadvertently spend a lot of time and effort researching someone not related to you. There's no harm in that as such, but you could be better occupied putting the work into researching someone directly related.

    My 2c,

    z


  • Options
    #3
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Directly related by blood go in the tree only, unless you have adopted people. By all means have a back-up file of basic information for some sort of distant connections.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #4
    Username is valid and not in use
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭Username is valid and not in use


    So my sister-in-law's parents etc don't go in ?

    But what about when I get further up the tree & it gets really convoluted ?


  • Options
    #5
    Dun
    Registered Users Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Dun


    I normally put in blood relatives, and spouses. I don't go back on in-laws. However it's obviously a personal choice, but if you do go down the in-law route, you're taking away time that you could be spending on your own relatives.

    If you're worried about things getting complicated, why don't you download Legacy Family Tree which is the best genealogy software out there in my opinion. It's pretty easy to use, and best of all the standard version is free. There's a deluxe version for $30 that has extra bells and whistles, but the standard version is all you need to store all your information and print off charts, etc.


  • Options
    #6
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    It's your call. There are no set rules.

    My choice (so far) is to identify linear ancestors and their descendants (who would be my siblings, first cousins, second cousins, etc. -- all blood relations).

    I take pinkypinky's point about adoption needing to be considered, and I have an inclusive policy: (1) I acknowledge an adopted cousin as one of the family, and accept his children as my kinfolk; (2) I also know a cousin who was adopted out of the family, and who has found his way back to us, and I accept his children as my kinfolk.

    I don't try to trace the roots of people who married into the family, not even my wife's roots -- but she is doing her own family research, and we assist one another. I even solicit help here on her behalf.

    It is possible that when I have exhausted all possible sources on my blood (plus adoptive) relations, I might explore other lines if people are interested and ask me to become involved. If they don't ask, or at least indicate interest, I would feel that following those lines is somewhat intrusive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Username is valid and not in use
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭Username is valid and not in use


    I'm on a mac Dunn, but thanks anyway. Using Mac Family Tree & can recommend it


  • Options
    #8
    pinkypinky
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭pinkypinky


    Username is valid and not in use wrote: »
    So my sister-in-law's parents etc don't go in ?

    But what about when I get further up the tree & it gets really convoluted ?

    The only reason to do something like that is if you were doing a pedigree for a client and there were famous people who were in-laws...

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #9
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    I go out in all directions, and have been very surprised to find a few generations earlier the same family coming again; cousins marrying cousins.

    I've been researching for over 25 years and have used Brother's Keeper since the good old DOS days!


Advertisement