The Lemon Fool

ten0rman wrote:In respect of their connection with Ancestry, I too have noticed that recently there indeed appears to be a connection with the Ancestry website. Quite how deep, I do not know.

.......

p.s. I have just noticed that there is a reference in an earlier posting to another genealogy website with a similar name to Family Search, the Mormon site. I maybe getting confused between the two and their connection with Ancestry.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. The Ancestry website/database itself has never been Mormon-owned, but AIUI it was founded in Salt Lake City (in 1983), using the Church of Latter Day Saints' records. More Mormon records followed in 1997, so the LDS research is woven into the Ancestry fabric, as you might say.

On another topic, my wife phoned Ancestry with a query, and the person at the other end of the line went straight into a sales pitch for a DNA test. A bit of a mixed blessing, those tests. But that's another matter entirely.

BJ

Possibly slightly off topic, but, well, if so, I apologise.

I'm looking into my wife's family and I've managed to find rather a lot of people going back to the 1790's. And that's only for her father's side of the family. In fact, if I take the current generations right down to our grandchildren, I've got around 10 generations. Which given the size of my laptop screen is too much. Using Ancestry's latest version of tree drawing, they can be shown, but are almost unreadably small.

So, what to do? Well initially, I split the family at her Gt Grandparents, and produced two separate trees. That seemed to work well until on updating the most recent generations, I realised I had two lots to do and it doesn't seem possible to merge the trees. I'm now considering a third branch, but this time of the most recent generations, say 1900 to 2022. The other two would be, eg paternal gt grandfathers lot running from, say 1910 back to 1790 or whatever, with then the maternal gt grandmother's lot covering the same period.

So I'm now thinking that when it comes to her mother's side, that's going to be another two trees, so five trees in all for her side. And then there's my side. Another four trees?

Anyone see any problems? Anyone actually done it? Does it seem reasonable to have five trees linked via the most recent generations? Your thoughts please, negative or positive. The advantage I can see is that I would then be able to print onto A4 sheets of paper which should make it reasonably easy to cross refer.

Cheers,

ten0rman

ten0rman wrote:Possibly slightly off topic, but, well, if so, I apologise.

I'm looking into my wife's family and I've managed to find rather a lot of people going back to the 1790's. And that's only for her father's side of the family. In fact, if I take the current generations right down to our grandchildren, I've got around 10 generations. Which given the size of my laptop screen is too much. Using Ancestry's latest version of tree drawing, they can be shown, but are almost unreadably small.

So, what to do? Well initially, I split the family at her Gt Grandparents, and produced two separate trees. That seemed to work well until on updating the most recent generations, I realised I had two lots to do and it doesn't seem possible to merge the trees. I'm now considering a third branch, but this time of the most recent generations, say 1900 to 2022. The other two would be, eg paternal gt grandfathers lot running from, say 1910 back to 1790 or whatever, with then the maternal gt grandmother's lot covering the same period.

So I'm now thinking that when it comes to her mother's side, that's going to be another two trees, so five trees in all for her side. And then there's my side. Another four trees?

Anyone see any problems? Anyone actually done it? Does it seem reasonable to have five trees linked via the most recent generations? Your thoughts please, negative or positive. The advantage I can see is that I would then be able to print onto A4 sheets of paper which should make it reasonably easy to cross refer.

Cheers,

ten0rman

I was looking at this problem again last night. I've drafted a very "rough & ready" family tree with just short of 400 people on it. I've not proofed much of it, but that will come over time. In the meantime I was looking for a way to print the tree out. My thoughts were to plot it on A1 or A0 paper. There are companies available which will do this for about £10 delivered. But the problem is how to get the tree to display completely on Ancestry and it doesn't seem possible.

The next possible solution was to map it out on Excel. Which is possible, but seems quite time consuming. Power point doesn't seem to lend itself to this option though.

I've tried looking for software which will do this for me but just can't find anything or if it's out there I haven't found it or realised it can do it.

So the best solution I have is the Excel route. I hope someone can point me in a better direction.

AiY(D)

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I was looking at this problem again last night. I've drafted a very "rough & ready" family tree with just short of 400 people on it. I've not proofed much of it, but that will come over time. In the meantime I was looking for a way to print the tree out. My thoughts were to plot it on A1 or A0 paper. There are companies available which will do this for about £10 delivered. But the problem is how to get the tree to display completely on Ancestry and it doesn't seem possible.

The next possible solution was to map it out on Excel. Which is possible, but seems quite time consuming. Power point doesn't seem to lend itself to this option though.

I've tried looking for software which will do this for me but just can't find anything or if it's out there I haven't found it or realised it can do it.

So the best solution I have is the Excel route. I hope someone can point me in a better direction.

AiY(D)

What I have done is to convert the big tree to a PDF file, then you can either have it printed on A0 or A1 paper, or select a view and print that view. I use Legacy, and you can produce partial trees as and when you need them, by choosing an ancestor and printing either his pedigree or his descendants.

TJH

ten0rman wrote:Possibly slightly off topic, but, well, if so, I apologise.

I'm looking into my wife's family and I've managed to find rather a lot of people going back to the 1790's. And that's only for her father's side of the family. In fact, if I take the current generations right down to our grandchildren, I've got around 10 generations. Which given the size of my laptop screen is too much. Using Ancestry's latest version of tree drawing, they can be shown, but are almost unreadably small.

So, what to do? Well initially, I split the family at her Gt Grandparents, and produced two separate trees. That seemed to work well until on updating the most recent generations, I realised I had two lots to do and it doesn't seem possible to merge the trees. I'm now considering a third branch, but this time of the most recent generations, say 1900 to 2022. The other two would be, eg paternal gt grandfathers lot running from, say 1910 back to 1790 or whatever, with then the maternal gt grandmother's lot covering the same period.

So I'm now thinking that when it comes to her mother's side, that's going to be another two trees, so five trees in all for her side. And then there's my side. Another four trees?

Anyone see any problems? Anyone actually done it? Does it seem reasonable to have five trees linked via the most recent generations? Your thoughts please, negative or positive. The advantage I can see is that I would then be able to print onto A4 sheets of paper which should make it reasonably easy to cross refer.

Cheers,

ten0rman

Having multiple trees is generally not a good idea in my experience. [Talking about a single family history here, of course if you are researching for friends then start a new tree.]

Some problems with splitting your family up in multiple Ancestry trees are:
-There will be overlapping people in the two trees. You'll have to maintain all those overlaps with sometimes extensive timeline information and sources in multiple trees
-Searching for people and places within the trees now has to be done in multiple stages
-You have to do the same maintenance on multiple trees: add the same images, define the same custom sources and repositories, enter addresses manually because automatic matching only happens within a single tree, invite guests to multiple trees, manage hints etc etc
-Certain DNA (e.g. ThruLines) and other tools won't work properly
-Hints may be less useful
-And probably a bunch of others I haven't thought of.

Quite besides these it is MUCH easier to split a tree when you need to than to merge two trees.

Merging trees can be done but you'll almost certainly want some desktop software to help (free apps are available); it's probably a topic for another thread.

To split a tree merely for the convenience of viewing it appears to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem and applying completely the wrong solution. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this issue before on this board and several people suggested software which can enhance the family view. Ancestry have already made improvements themselves but if you are not satisfied there is almost certainly a tool out there that can do what you want. Just a matter of searching for it and learning how to use it.

GS

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I was looking at this problem again last night. I've drafted a very "rough & ready" family tree with just short of 400 people on it. I've not proofed much of it, but that will come over time. In the meantime I was looking for a way to print the tree out. My thoughts were to plot it on A1 or A0 paper. There are companies available which will do this for about £10 delivered. But the problem is how to get the tree to display completely on Ancestry and it doesn't seem possible.

The next possible solution was to map it out on Excel. Which is possible, but seems quite time consuming. Power point doesn't seem to lend itself to this option though.

I've tried looking for software which will do this for me but just can't find anything or if it's out there I haven't found it or realised it can do it.

So the best solution I have is the Excel route. I hope someone can point me in a better direction.

AiY(D)

Have you tried Gramps? It's open source and there may be extensions which do just what you want. I'd avoid Excel. What a nightmare! I've seen pretty rotten trees attempted in Word too. Ugh!

GS

tjh290633 wrote:What I have done is to convert the big tree to a PDF file, then you can either have it printed on A0 or A1 paper, or select a view and print that view. I use Legacy, and you can produce partial trees as and when you need them, by choosing an ancestor and printing either his pedigree or his descendants.

TJH

I think they want to display everything, not just a partial tree. Circular charts do this quite well; there are other clever styles too, like a "fractal" one, I once explored these on some software but can't remember what it was.

Also, have you tried Ancestry's MyCanvas linkup for producing posters? They're pretty and easy to do, if not exactly what some are looking for.

GS

Has anyone tried either of these please?

https://progenygenealogy.com/

https://treedrawlegacy.spansoft.org/index.php#FEATURES

Thank you

AiY(D)

I've had a reply from Progeny

Copied here

Charting Companion will support up to 200 generations (3000 B.C.).

We have used Charting Companion to manage databases of up to 5M persons.

Charting Companion can display your family tree on A0 sheets or larger: 90 cm x 180 cm, 105 cm x 240 cm, etc. The only limit is imposed by the PDF file format (500 cm).

To create a large chart, set the page size to "Custom" in the Layout tab of the Options dialog, specify the Width and Height to equal the dimensions of the printer at your local print shop, and save as a PDF document.

It's $39.95 so I think I'll risk it - will update if it's useless

AiY(D)

I am an absolute beginner. I am considering tracing my grandfather. Should I join Ancestry? He was born in County Longford, Ireland but I believe that birth records in the 1800s were poor and often non-existent. He served in the Seaforth Highlanders. I think I can find his Scottish marriage certificate.

Where should I start. All advice greatly appreciated.

TP2

TahiPanasDua wrote:I am an absolute beginner. I am considering tracing my grandfather. Should I join Ancestry? He was born in County Longford, Ireland but I believe that birth records in the 1800s were poor and often non-existent. He served in the Seaforth Highlanders. I think I can find his Scottish marriage certificate.

Where should I start. All advice greatly appreciated.

TP2

ancestry.co.uk will give you a free month, if you plan to dig in seriously it is worth making sure you have at least a couple of free days to dedicate to it to get the most out of that month.
About 50% of the 'hints' they give you will be wrong and it takes time to read the documents and figure out which ones are correct.

For Scottish relatives, the Scotlands People website has some detail missing from Ancestry, I managed to get back to 1661

TahiPanasDua wrote:I am an absolute beginner. I am considering tracing my grandfather. Should I join Ancestry? He was born in County Longford, Ireland but I believe that birth records in the 1800s were poor and often non-existent. He served in the Seaforth Highlanders. I think I can find his Scottish marriage certificate.

Where should I start. All advice greatly appreciated.

TP2

This might be a good place:

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/search/

TahiPanasDua wrote:I am an absolute beginner. I am considering tracing my grandfather. Should I join Ancestry? He was born in County Longford, Ireland but I believe that birth records in the 1800s were poor and often non-existent. He served in the Seaforth Highlanders. I think I can find his Scottish marriage certificate.

Where should I start. All advice greatly appreciated.

TP2

My mother was born in Canada before birth registration began. She had to get a baptismal certifcate to prove her date of birth for eligibility to the state pension. You need a site which has parish records available.

TJH

Many local libraries have access to Ancestry free so a good way to see whether joining Ancestry is worth it for you.

Chris

Lanark wrote:

TahiPanasDua wrote:I am an absolute beginner. I am considering tracing my grandfather. Should I join Ancestry? He was born in County Longford, Ireland but I believe that birth records in the 1800s were poor and often non-existent. He served in the Seaforth Highlanders. I think I can find his Scottish marriage certificate.

Where should I start. All advice greatly appreciated.

TP2

ancestry.co.uk will give you a free month, if you plan to dig in seriously it is worth making sure you have at least a couple of free days to dedicate to it to get the most out of that month.
About 50% of the 'hints' they give you will be wrong and it takes time to read the documents and figure out which ones are correct.

For Scottish relatives, the Scotlands People website has some detail missing from Ancestry, I managed to get back to 1661

I have often wondered how people can get back that far with certainty. My family on both my mother's and my father's side were born in Scotland. I have got back to marriages around the 1790s with some certainty but going further back than that I am relying on the Scottish OPRs and they have very little information. I can speculate that it looks as if this or that but how do I know. I cannot rely on Ancestry or the other websites because for instance I have two different sites telling with certainty that my ggggrandfather's parents were two entirely different couples. Both have the correct surname and the dates more or less fit but how do I know which, if either one, is correct?

Dod

Thanks for all your very helpful suggestions!

I am unlikely to delve back beyond 2 generations.

I have only recently found out some basic and astounding facts about my mother's family hence my sudden interest in finding out more at the belated age of 77. My search will not be helped by my mother's infamous passing acquaintance truth. What little I do know about her family could be fictitious, at least in part. We basically never met them even though they lived a mere 30 miles away. I am only now wondering why. Dumb or what?

My mother deliberately withheld the most basic information about her family from her kids. I only recently found out that her mother, whom I don't remember ever meeting, had been a widow and married twice which would explain who the "uncle", who wasn't and only visited once or twice, was. He was a street sleeper and alcoholic. I met my grandfather only once in a Model Lodging House. As you can see, I'm not exactly top drawer. I am prepared for further bombshells but maybe I know the worst already.

It is all suddenly fascinating!.

TP2.

TahiPanasDua wrote:I have only recently found out some basic and astounding facts about my mother's family hence my sudden interest in finding out more at the belated age of 77. My search will not be helped by my mother's infamous passing acquaintance truth. What little I do know about her family could be fictitious, at least in part. We basically never met them even though they lived a mere 30 miles away. I am only now wondering why. Dumb or what?



It is all suddenly fascinating!.

TP2.

When I delved into my family, I too realised that my Dad had a number of "half-Uncles" from a second marriage living only a few streets away. They were never ever mentioned, AFAIK and I have no idea they existed, nor of the more direct descendants I discovered and now occasionally email.

As you say, "fascinating". How I regret this subject never coming up when my Dad was alive, nor my lack of curiousity to get down some details when Mum pointed to a photo saying: "That's Uncle Phil. I liked him but he was the black sheep of the family" I have the photo, but nothing to tell me who he was or even if he was a proper uncle. Needless to say, I can find no "Philip" in the family tree official records and anyone who might have known is long gone. I have inherited a photo album half full of unknown people which is exceedingly regrettable.

Arb.

As regards keeping records and displaying them, I've used genopro with some success. Since I haven't tried anything else, I cannot comment relative: its a bit clunky but stores all my info plus inset photos. One can export files GEDCOM files or convert to HDML I believe it is still free to use - probably very old fashioned now (2002) so I expect better things have come along.


https://genopro.com/

Dod101 wrote:I have often wondered how people can get back that far with certainty.

This is a good point, in my tree there is one link thats a bit of a guestimate with a good chance of being completely wrong.

Lanark wrote:

Dod101 wrote:I have often wondered how people can get back that far with certainty.

This is a good point, in my tree there is one link thats a bit of a guestimate with a good chance of being completely wrong.

I get back to marriages in the 1790s with some confidence, because if a known relative died in 1860 or a little later their death certificate will show the name of the parents and from that I can often find the parent's marriage around 1785/1800 especially if as in my case the family in general did not move very far. On my father's side both his mother and his father were crofter/fishermen or simply farm labourers and neither his father's nor his mother's families moved very far until into the very early 20th century. When they did move they went to Canada.

My mother's side is more complicated. I discovered for instance that her father was illegitimate, not that that mattered, that he was a twin and that his mother suffered from TB and died a couple of weeks after he was born. My mother definitely knew nothing of that.

I only plot on a chart those relationships that I know to be correct, either from the Statutory records or the Old Parish Records (which are of course possibly accurate enough but missing a huge amount of information.)

This all applies to Scotland only.

Dod