First of all, I’ll start this post by stating that I do realise that for most people family history is a hobby, and that many people researching their family history have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours tracking fown every possible mention of an ancestor just to make sure that they really, really do belong in your tree. Far more fun to take that census return or parish entry at face value, and to plough merrily on with a cry of ‘Oh, a new line to trace!’
I know.
I’ve done it myself.
But it’s very, very frustrating to discover some time later that you’ve connected to the wrong line entirely and months – possibly years – of research have been wasted.
I know.
I’ve done it myself.
And how much more frustrating it is – especially in these days of internet research – to discover a tree which at first sight connects to yours, puts you in contact with previously unknown relatives, takes you back several generations: and then, on close inspection, shows that great-grandma had her first child at the age of six, married her grandfather, or – in the case of my partner’s great grandma – died in America shortly before she gave birth to a child in Yorkshire.
Most of these mistakes are due to shoddy research. In the case of the aforementioned partner’s great grandma, an American researcher had clearly decided that the woman in question – who came from Bristol – was the same woman who was married in Birstall, and that ‘Birstall’ was a misspelling of Bristol.
Birstall and Bristol are two entirely different places.
But once this sort of confusion arises, due to the dissemination of information on the internet, it becomes accepted as fact, no matter how ridiculous it appears.
How, then, do we ascertain that we have the correct lineage? Especially in the period before 1837?
One way of doing this is applying the principles of the Genealogical Proof Standard to every single piece of information we discover.
This is such an important area that I’ll add a page about it: but in brief there are five elements to the Standard:
1. Make a ‘reasonably’ exhaustive search for all pertinent information
Note the quotation marks around ‘reasonably’. It is, clearly, impossible for anyone to wade through all the documents in every known archive/repository in the vain hope that a particular ancestor may be mentioned: but it’s not impossible once you’ve found an ancestor in – say – the 1851 census to look for them in all other available censuses (and I would include here the 1851 religious census) and to cross check with trade directories, business records etc. This is where the internet, I believe, is of the greatest use. Check online catalogues for archives – not forgetting the TNA. In fact the TNA should be your starting point, because their catalogue also lists resources which are held in other archives.
2. Make sure you have a complete and accurate citation for each source
By which I mean what it is, where you found it, and the archive reference number.
Information from books or magazines should include a reference to the title, author, publication date, publisher and page number.
Information found on the internet should include the full URL address AND the date you accessed it (because information is likely to change at any given moment).
3. Analyse the quality of the information
This sounds tricky, but really means that you should consider when the information was collated, who collated it – did they have first hand knowledge of the facts? – and why.
An example: one of my ancestors is vilified in Shakespeare’s ‘Richard II’. I’m very proud of this fact – in fact I dine out on it – but it must be borne in mind that (a) this is a play, a piece of drama, not a historical record (b) Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616. Richard II was born in 1367 and died in 1399. Shakespeare, therefore, was writing about events about which he had no personal knowledge whatsoever. He may have been right: equally, he may have been wrong. It still doesn’t stop me enjoying his portrayal of my ancestor: but I don’t accept it as incontrovertible fact.
4. Resolve any conflicting or contradictory evidence
For example, there are two men called George Fieldhouse shown in the Wolverhampton rate books for 1802. Both have the same occupation. To ascertain which one is which, I must trace both trees backwards – in fact, as suspected, they have a common ancestor and are cousins – also noting the details of their respective marriages – and also forwards, to ascertain dates of death for both men. I also need to search for their wills (which will reveal the exectutors and beneficiaries) to obtain a solid bedrock of information from which I can say ‘This one is the one who founded the company…’
And if it’s impossible to reach such a conclusion? Then say so in your notes. ‘The evidence suggests that this was the same man who… but note that the parish registers for Wolerhampton St Peters reveal that…’
And remember – ALWAYS remember – that the verisimilitude of any information in documents such as parish records or census returns is only as good as the person recording it was told. People lied – they still do. The 1911 census may well tell us how many years the head of house and his wife said they were married – but if the eldest child was born out of wedlock or very shortly thereafter, the census may be – well, shall we say ‘not entirely truthful’ ?
5. Arrive at a reasoned conclusion
And this may be as simple as ‘although the father shown on Ann Burgess’s marriage certificate is named as John Burgess, her baptism record shows that she was illegitimate and no father was named. Ann’s mother married a man named John Warrender, and therefore it appears that the ‘John Burgess’ named as father is in fact ‘John Warrender’ who was her stepfather.
A long post, I realise, but I hope that it helps in your own researches.
