Does anyone here have any public family trees on Ancestry?

[James18]

Just out of curiosity, as I am always fascinated by well-researched family trees, and as something of an amateur etymologist I've long been interested in people's choices of different names, which is actually one of the main reasons I enjoy genealogy.

I know some of you will have private trees for fear of Ancestry having your work uploaded and incorrectly edited, but I wasn't sure if there was a place on this site for people to share their public family trees for others to browse. Obviously living individuals are set to private by default.

If you are happy to let myself and others browse one or more of your online family trees, could they be shared here perhaps?

I hope this isn't breaking any site rules (?) and obviously if you don't feel comfortable linking to any family trees then please don't.

If you'd like to share a tree, perhaps add a little bit of background, such as the family's origins as best you know them, and any interesting events or people you have discovered.

[Janet]

Please don't take it personally, James, if no one comes forward. It's not you, it's the hard lessons some have learned (and the rest of us have read about) that make it unlikely. I can't think of anyone here who has mentioned a public tree.

[Jill]

Mine's public James, help yourself! William Thomas Badcock (http://person.ancestry.co.uk/tree/17033206/person/452402289/facts).

[kiterunner]

Mine is public but James has already seen it.

[Merry]

The only online tree I have is an old one (probably at least five/seven years old) on Genes Reunited. If you are a member you can contact me on there and I could give you access. Alternatively, I could point you in the direction of OH's online tree on the same site which is probably more up to date and I expect includes all of my tree too! (He still pays GR a sub whilst I stopped giving them money years ago!)

[Shona]

Have info on GR. but not Ancestry. GR has, in the past, proved helpful. I have contacted people with public trees on Ancestry, but the response has been more mixed - particularly if I am contacting people because they have made a glaring error.

[Merry]

particularly if I am contacting people because they have made a glaring error.


I don't bother doing that any more!

[Shona]

I don't bother doing that any more!

Wise...given the stroppy responses I've received.

'Dear X, we appear to share a great-great grandmother. I would like to point out that according to your tree, she gave birth to her first child before she herself was born and continued to produce children after she was dead and buried...'

You know the score!

[James18]

Firstly, thanks for all the responses. :)

Secondly, unfortunately I too am reluctant to message people on Ancestry now, as I've had one or two 'mixed' responses.

For example, a few weeks ago I messaged someone saying that they had my grandmother as being married to my great-grandfather and so my grandfather (her husband) appeared as their son; numerous other names and dates were wrong as well, and they replied that said family are just distant cousins of her adopted mother's tree, and that since she started studying her birth mother's tree she has no interest in working on it anymore.

I didn't reply, as obviously that's very much their decision, but I still think it's odd that someone would leave the tree up as being public when it had so many errors. I hate to think that down the line, people researching my family (as, going by the public family trees, many seem to be) are going to copy mistakes like that on the assumption they are right. That will make for some confusing family conversations!

[Margaret in Burton]

Firstly, thanks for all the responses. :)

Secondly, unfortunately I too am reluctant to message people on Ancestry now, as I've had one or two 'mixed' responses.

For example, a few weeks ago I messaged someone saying that they had my grandmother as being married to my great-grandfather and so my grandfather (her husband) appeared as their son; numerous other names and dates were wrong as well, and they replied that said family are just distant cousins of her adopted mother's tree, and that since she started studying her birth mother's tree she has no interest in working on it anymore.

I didn't reply, as obviously that's very much their decision, but I still think it's odd that someone would leave the tree up as being public when it had so many errors. I hate to think that down the line, people researching my family (as, going by the public family trees, many seem to be) are going to copy mistakes like that on the assumption they are right. That will make for some confusing family conversations!


Now you are getting the hang of it James. People put their tree ( maybe we should laugh at the words their tree) . They don't care if it's accurate as long as it looks impressive to other people.

My tree is not on Ancestry and it won't be.

[Merry]

Why is it when you find a bad tree it's always copied a million times, but when you find a more accurate tree there is only one version?!!

[Margaret in Burton]

Ive noticed that too Merry

[Olde Crone]

Merry

I have a theory - unproven - that the less research which has gone into a tree, the more it is likely to be shared.

Shona - I have a 3 x GGM who died before she was born, had 45 children, 5 of them after she died and the last one born when she would have been 69. We ought to compare notes!

I have a very brief, very small tree on Ancestry, purpose: to attract contacts for one person only. I have seen several trees in which BITS are correct but the whole is a pile of tripe.

OC

[Shona]

Ah - I've seen that tree, OC. It says I'm your gran. :D:D:D