There should be a question mark at the end of the title. This is a problem from a few years ago. It felt remarkably personal when there were enquiries about family history through to email, post or even Ancestry message.
There were only four areas of confusion that I can think of right now:
- Hannah 'Robinson' the wife of William Bagshaw of Eyam - born 1792 Chesterfield. There was no baptism that fitted. Thanks to a timely message from Barrie Robinson in 2014 which showed that the William Bagshaw who married Hannah Robinson was alive and well in Sheffield in 1841. And that left the door open to exploring other options. Ultimately Hannah turned out to be Hannah Gee, with baptism, family background and DNA all happily confirming this, and most online trees now do reflect that.
- Elizabeth Marshall wife of William Hugo. Ancestry trees are torn on this one. Most have her as born about 1781 in Egloshayle the daughter of John Marshall and Ann Guard. She is actually (as many trees show) born about 1775 in Bodmin the daughter of John Marshall and Jane Stephens. The key piece of evidence for this is the will of John Marshall of Bodmin.
- William and Jane Hambly of Redruth, Cornwall. The prevailing mood in the 1990s was that this couple had married in 1753 in Duloe, Cornwall rather than in 1757 in Redruth. Furthermore, nobody had clocked that she was a widow nee Jane Bohemia. Most trees do now recognise this and there is proof in that William jr's will names his half-sister's daughter as a niece.
- Ruth and Rachel Grist of Hemington, Somerset married George Crees a gardener in Bath in the period around 1820. For a while there was doubt that these two were sisters. This seems to have been resolved. I am sure Crees would have been around at an interesting time in Bath's history.
- Thomas Haine born 1822 in West Pennard. Because his first marriage took place in Batcombe, Somerset, archive staff suggested that Thomas might have been born as Thomas Haimes (or similar) in the parish, and until the 1881 census was released showing the correct birthplace, the Batcombe Thomas was thought to be everyone's forebear. In addition the family had wrongly suggested Thomas had a middle name of Talbot, which due to careful tree pruning by the family, has been close to eradicated: although see the next point.
- Ancestry.com has a weakness for made-up middle names for our forebears. It will unfortunately not challenge these and even encourage their proliferation. It might be possible to challenge this by inserting 'NoMiddle' as the middle name.
It is a relief to know that these are now mostly resolved. Possibly human nature and the Ancestry algorithm eventually favour the correct information: but that is by no means certain.
Posts
