|How to read my family trees|
I also show many branches that are not direct ancestors. The level of detail I go into varies widely:
- This descent is proven by DNA. We have two people who are believed to be cousins from the documents, with a believed common ancestor, and then we have this confirmed by DNA tests. Hence both of their descents from the common ancestor are DNA proven. You can search for all such lines.
- An uncertain DNA line. This can be for various reasons. For example:
You can search for all such lines.
- Two people on the tree are linked by DNA, but there is uncertainty about through which line. They may relate through some entirely unknown line.
- The DNA match is regarded as a "match" by one of the genealogy sites, but I am setting a higher standard. For example, with the Blennerhassett problem I am setting the standard at 9 cM.
admin administration of person's estate after their death (admin - when no will, probate - will) approx approximately bapt baptised bur buried c. circa (about that date) C.C. Curate cent century cert certificate cr created (date of creation of a hereditary title) dau daughter Dept Department ed editor of, or edited by edn edition educ educated at emig emigrated esp especially est estimated (probably by me - subject to future revision) estab established fl floruit - was alive at a certain date (fl 1991 = was alive in 1991) inaug inaugurated incl including mar married matric matriculated née born as (maiden name) NOT used to point out errors in other documents, to refute previously held facts nr near par parish (normally refers to civil parish) poss. possibly PP parish priest pr will proved prob. probably pron pronounced pub published qr quarter (of a year) ref reference repub re-published sp sponsors (at baptism) succ succeeded (to a title or lands) tel telephone temp tempore - in or around that time (temp 1721 = late 1710s, early 1720s) think I think, or it is thought (todo) things to do (if you want to help me, you might do some of these for me!) wit witnessed (at marriage) yrs years
N North S South E East W West C Central LHS left-hand-side RHS right-hand-side
OJ Julian calendar with old style new year, or "Old Style". NJ Julian calendar with new style new year. G Gregorian calendar, or "New Style".
The old style year ran from March 25 to March 25, so that 8th Mar 1735 OJ is really the end of the old year, i.e. 8th Mar 1736 NJ, i.e. 19th Mar 1736 G.
From 1582 to 1752, England used OJ while the Continent used G.
I think NJ is the clearest way of expressing old style dates, that is, express the year properly, but don't change the day since that's the day that was recognised at the time. For example, 26th Feb 1703/4 becomes 26th Feb 1704.
Similarly, if someone is: age 13 in 5th James I
then I simply say: born 1595
without going into complications.
The reason I don't get too uptight about dates of birth based on ages is because ages are so often wrong. Unless you have a document at the time of the birth itself, all dates based on later statements of age should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.
Likewise, I list siblings in order of age, but in the absence of actual dates of birth the exact ordering should be regarded as still uncertain.
For living people, I publish only a bare skeleton tree, listing who married who, and who begat who - a simple list of names, with no dates, addresses, or even countries indicated. For an example, see how I handle my own family.
I realise this lists people's mother's maiden names, which is an ID sometimes used by banks, etc. However, the alternative would be to not list the person at all, and stop the tree completely a generation or two back. This would make the tree largely incomprehensible to family members, since they would be unable to find anyone they knew on it.
I'm open to discussion on this, but in fact I don't think the maiden name issue is a big problem, for the reason that all geographical details will have stopped a generation or two before. It is unclear what country the living people are supposed to be living in, let alone what town or city. It could be anywhere in the world. So my current policy is by default to put up a bare skeleton tree of the living.
If this is too much, I am quite happy to remove you. Simply contact me to let me know you want to be removed from the tree. If you change your mind I can restore you later.
For example, say I am given the full name of a living person: "John Richard Smith". I have no other name for them. If I write this as "John Smith" I am assuming they go by their first name. But they may go by their middle name. Since I don't know which name to drop, I leave it as "John Richard Smith".
So if I publish your middle name(s), please contact me to confirm which name you go by and I can then remove the other name(s).
When I say "X married Y and had issue", I always mean issue by Y. When there are multiple marriages, I separate out the issue by each spouse. When there are affairs I separate the issue as well. And likewise when there are adoptions. Here are the two scenarios:
(1) (2) X, mar Y and had adopted issue:
X, mar Y.
You simply tell me which one you prefer. The one I prefer is (1). The one I do by default is (2). I am happy to do either of these. Just tell me what you want.
(1) (2) (3) X, mar Y and had issue:
and had adopted issue:
X, mar Y and had issue:
X, mar Y and had issue.
You simply tell me which one you prefer. The one I prefer is (1). The one I do by default is (2) or (3). I am happy to do any of these. Just tell me what you want.
Please donate to support this site.
I have spent a great deal of time and money on this research.
Research involves travel and many expenses.
Some research "things to do"
are not done for years, because I do not have the money to do them.
Please Donate Here to support the ongoing research and to keep this website free.