I have attached two files showing two different ancestry lines for the same person. Can anyone shed any light on this for me please?
Thank you, Karen
To confirm either way, you need to do research in original records. Fortunately, FamilySearch is the world's largest website for genealogical records. Ancestry.com is probably second.
If you were to specify which person or couple you are interested in, I will be able to help more. A basic "crash course" in English genealogy: Pre-1837, you are mostly reliant on records of baptisms, marriages and burials kept by different church denominations. Starting in 1841 a census was taken every 10 years. Starting in 1837, the government registered births, marriages and deaths. You can get at least partial access to all three of those records on FamilySearch, though full access to the original records may require payment at another website.
You are not alone ...
We were all NEW once ...
Basically, hard work; and, perseverance ... ie. Research ...
I do my work, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
That Said ...
I use other Websites (eg. "Ancestry_com"; and, "MyHeritage_com"; and, others); as, a "Guide" ...
There are some excellent 'Trees', out there, that are well, "Researched"; "Sources"; and, "Documented" ...
I compare; as, MANY of them; as, I can.
ie. to get the BEST of EVERYONE'S World ...
So, I DO use OTHER peoples 'Trees'; but, ONLY as, a "Guide"; and, checkout and research, what I find; as, I go.
One must be "Flexible"; and, ready to accept, DIFFERENT "Information"; &, be WILLING, to "Change" things ...
As, NEW, "Records"; or, "Details", even from People, through 'Word of Mouth'; becomes, available ...
NONE of us are PERFECT ...
We ALL make MISTAKES ...
And, more importantly, we ALL do things (and, like things) DIFFERENTLY ...
Sometimes, "Facts", can be hard to come by ...
Hence, perseverance ... never give up.
Come to a 'Brick Wall', leave it, for now, move onto another, "Line"; and, more often than not, an opportunity, presents itself, at a later date, to help/assist, to break down the previous 'Brick Wall' ...
That FIRST 'Tree', MAY be one, of MANY, of the SAME / SIMLAR, "Ancestral" Lines, on "Ancestry_com".
Checkout, the OTHERS ... are there DISCREPANCIES between them ... most likely, there are ... even, if just minor
Checkout, OTHER Websites ...
And, "Compare" them ALL ...
Pick the "Bones" out of them, to build your own "Skeleton", to what suits you ...
Remember: NOTHING is PERFECT ...
We are ALL, just TRYING, to do our BEST; and, what suits us ...
Everyone, is at a DIFFERENT "Level", of "Experience" ...
And, one ONLY gains "Experience", by trial and error, making mistakes; and, learning from them ...
One picks thing up, as one goes ...
I learn something new, just about every day ...
[ And, I have been at this, for quite a while ... ]
Here's where DNA can assist you, and since you are already in Ancestry, perhaps you have a second DNA test you manage or CAN manage, such as a sibling? So the question is William and Emma (WE) or James and Louisa (JL) are the correct parents? Hopefully you have checked out the locations, dates, etc of WE vs JL and found both couples live compatibly to be the parents?
Here is how you can use Ancestry to take a "vote", if you will, of which couple all your DNA matches think are the parents. Build an alternate tree in Ancestry. Here's where you REALLY need a second DNA test that is as close to you as possible. Associate that sibling test with your alternate tree correctly (ie, if a sibling, make sure the sibling is on the tree and connected at the right spot.) Now wait up to a week and see what the two sets of ThruLines say to us.
My husband's tree had(s) such a dilemma. I used his sister's DNA and built an alternate tree using couple 2. Couple 1 was on the main tree where hubby's DNA was attached. What I discovered was that not only did most trees of DNA match's to my sister-in-law favor couple 2 in the alternate tree, ThruLines predicted many more possible common ancestors that were parents, grandparents and great grandparents of couple 2. That did NOT happen with couple 1. No DNA matches to my husband shared common ancestors with him that were ancestors of couple 1.
So while this does NOT provide proof according to most genealogical standards of proof, if your results are anything like mine, it will cause you to concentrate more on one couple and perhaps make THAT couple the "preferred" in FamilySearch.
A couple of thoughts about William.
The first thing to do is take a good look at both trees for him.
It is encouraging to see that both actually have sources. Family Tree has 16 and Ancestry has 8. Start by carefully looking all all these sources, including checking out all available images, and see what they say about him. In addition to the sources, be sure to carefully go through all the documents on William in Family Tree which are among the 26 memories on his record. There is no reason to repeat research that others have put right there in front of you.
Second, start reconstructing his life from what you know and from what each tree has. This always works best going backwards in time. That is, start with all death sources and see what they tell you about his earlier life. Start with the last census in which you can find him. Then go back from there.
As you look at these two trees, you will see that there are 1871 census records on each. They are for two different families. Pull up the two images (the one on Family Tree is under Memories, not sources) side by side and compare them. The list of siblings is very different so if you can prove which were the siblings of your William Thomas, then you will have your answer as to the correct parents.
I do have to say that it is quite unfortunate that according to this website: https://www.bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz/dataCollected/marriage New Zealand did not start including the parents of the bride and groom in marriage records until 1880, three years too late to help you.
One item that might be of great value is his 1874 emigration information. If you can find which William in the 1871 census is still in England in the 1881 census, you will also have your answer as to the correct parents for the William that was in New Zealand then.
Good luck on your search!
@Gail Swihart Watson's approach to leveraging AncestryDNA is spot on. But first . . .
Understand that AncestryDNA ThruLines are based on genealogies contributed by members. Garbage in, garbage out.
My strong recommendation would be to do all your tree building on FamilySearch not Ancestry. Do check Ancestry for additional historical records, if you need more, but build here. Why:
Before you copy any tree anywhere, thoroughly research the tree. Work all the source hints, add record dates to all the sources lacking them, examine every source image, standardize all the names and dates (and in the process look for and resolve conflicting details in the attached sources), examine the time lines, merge duplicate profiles, deconflate conflated profiles, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat until there is no work left to do.
Also, but this means even more work, choose some key ancestors for each work their descendancy trees. Your goal is not so much a tree as a lattice. This is because all our genealogies are interlinked. Minding your ancestors' descendancies will greatly magnify the power of your future analyses on AncestryDNA.
On FamilySearch, the L1RQ-KL9 William Thomas Peacock profile is a conflation of at least two person's records. There are two christening records, in different years and parishes. That likely means 2 sets of parents, both sets named James Peacock and Louisa. That also tells me the tree is likely to have many other errors and is not ready for use in any DNA analysis.
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Those "Pedigrees", are from Two (x2) DIFFERENT Programmes.
The FIRST, is from "Ancestry_com"; being, a particular User's/Patron's, personal 'Tree'.
The SECOND, is from the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'; being, a 'Branch'/'Ancestral line' ...
that is interconnected, in the SINGLE "One" World "Tree", that is the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
DIFFERENT Users, CAN; and, often, DO, have DIFFERENT "People", for the supposed SAME "Ancestral" Line.
[ ie. For the SAME individual/person ... ]
That is NOT uncommon.
Particularly, in "Ancestry_com"; where, there is NO, SINGLE "One" World "Tree", just a bunch of separate 'Trees'.
In the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', we are TRYING, to come to a consensus, of what is the most correct/appropriate, "Ancestral" Line, for individuals/persons.
The 'Trees' in "Ancestry_com"; and, the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', serve two (x2) DIFFERENT purposes.
The 'Trees' in "Ancestry_com", are a just a bunch of, separate; and, "Unconnected", 'Trees', by various Users.
[ One can have, whatever one likes ... as, such is one's "Personal" research ... ]
The basic 'nature' and 'premise', of the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is that ...
We do not have our OWN "Tree", in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
We ONLY have "Branches" (ie. Ancestral" lines), that are interconnected, in this SINGLE "One" World "Tree", for all of us, that is the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is NOT like 'On-Line' "Websites" (eg. "Ancestry_com"; or "MyHeritage_com"; or, the like); and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes (eg, the OLD, now no longer supported, "PAF"; or, "Ancestral Quest"; or, the like).
We DO NOT have "Private"/"Personal" 'Trees', in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', like other 'On-Line' "Websites"; and/or, 'standalone' personal (computer) programmes.
We do not even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, the "Deceased" individuals/persons, in "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
And, most importantly ...
We DO NOT even, own; or, manage; and, are NOT even responsible for, Our OWN "Deceased" Ancestors/Family/Relatives, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
The "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch', is built on a "Open Edit" Platform - hence, why any "Registered" User/Patron can "Edit" (ie. Add, Delete; and/or, Change) ANY "Deceased" individual/person, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'.
Just my thoughts.
I hope, that this may help/assist, somewhat.
Thanks for that Brett. Do you have thoughts on how I can confirm either way. I'm fairly new to genealogy, and have been trying to research the facts and not other users ancestral paths.
Well..... THANK YOU Everyone for replying and sharing your expertise with me. It is very much appreciated, and I'm looking forward to working this one out using your expertise. My siblings blew their DNA tests, but a nephew has done his, so I'll work with his. I'm also doing his parents (fathers) family tree. I use an exercise book to jot things in when I am researching.
Again, thank you.
And, I would take to heart the comments dontiknowyou made in the last paragraph. Before you do anything else, look closely at the sources since there are apparently conflicting sources.
Thanks Gail. I did notice conflicting sources. Made me more confused and tired:-). Will have another look with a fresher brain.
I've got it down to the fact that there are two William Thomas Peacocks born the same time. I can't yet confirm the death of one of them, as their is no proof to which William Peacock (and there are many) the source is pertaining to!!!
I'm re reading your comments and working on from there.
When there is not enough information to know which same-name man goes with which wife and children, ignore the mystery man for a while and focus on the relatives. Here, work one by one each of the William Thomas Peacock children and their respective mothers while ignoring the William Thomas Peacocks. Usually, in the process the same-namers will sort themselves out.
If you would like an example, I did this today: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/collaborate/MKH3-P37
There are still hints pending because I don't know yet where Ann Gibson fits and I don't know which man married Elizabeth Welch. There are a bunch of men named Ebenezer Clough in and around Boston at the same time. It's a multi-generational, multi-family tangle, of which Ebenezer Clough is just a small part.
Hmmm.... ok. I have been working with parents; but I'm finished with them for the mo. So off to the kids I go.
THANK YOU THANK YOU
Mission accomplished. James Peacock and Louisa Wall's descendants didn't make it to NZ.
Next, in Family Tree apply the same process to the other couple WE on the Ancestry tree, William and Emma Jane. Ruling out JL is forward progress but says nothing about WE.
Thank you. I will😉
Hi. I did as you suggested, tweaked bits and went over everything again. I have attached William's sources from Ancestry for viewing.
I assume this will reach the data correction people. Annette Stanley Daniel GQPD-JDN has conflicting birth dates on her Details Page. She was born 7 April 1901. However, the birth date 7 April 1907 is also listed as a birth date on her page. I have tried unsuccessfully to have this corrected previously but.... apparently I did not reach the person(s) I needed to reach. Hopefully I will make contact on this try. If not, I hope someone will connect for me or give me a better link.
You have found an instance of a weird standardization error I have seen before, that others have doubted exists. So thank you!
This is how I fix these. I edit the date, select the standard from the drop down menu in the date field, and save. That is, I do not accept the default aka alternate standard field.
Do you see? I have not saved my changes, so you can try it yourself.
@JACKSONDANIEL1 There are no "data correction people," there is just us users. The only people who are ever going to correct this are users who have an interest in her profile and want to correct it. That would be you.
Family Tree is a single database, a wiki-style, open-edit system that all of us users work in together in the hopes of having the best, most accurate data found and entered but there is no overarching authority monitoring what we do or checking whether what we do is correct or correcting any errors for us.
But back to your question. This type of error you are reporting is due to to the dual entry system of date and place name entry and either poor proof-reading, carelessness, or being in too much of a hurry. The ability to have the displayed data and its linked standardized version be different from each other is a powerful tool, however, when used correctly.
Since @dontiknowyou tried to post two images in the same post, which still does not work, resulting in those two blue rectangles, I'll post a short video about how to correct this type of error and a bit about why it happens:
1 of 2
2 of 2