Lost Cousins newsletter mid Dec 2015

[JBee]

http://lostcousins.com/newsletters2/middec15news.htm

[kiterunner]

Once again he is propounding his method for tracing relatives forwards using only the GRO indexes. This can be good for getting possibles, but anything found that way does need to be confirmed somehow and he doesn't really spell that out. You can't be sure that a certain couple are the parents of children with a particular surname / MMN combination just because you can't find another marriage between those surnames - in addition to the possibility of the parents marrying abroad or in a different part of the country (which he rules out as very unlikely), their marriage could have been a second one for the wife in which case it will be listed under her previous married surname, or they could never have married at all but pretended to be married when registering the birth(s), or the child(ren) could be children of the wife after the couple split up or the husband died, and she had not remarried - in this situation they would still be listed under her married and maiden surnames even though her husband was not the father. And a surname like Wright is so common that you can very easily go wrong. Also, it is nice of him not to follow the children further forward as they are probably still living, but why didn't that stop him from naming them at all in the first place?

[Merry]

Oh dear, sounds like it would be bad for my blood pressure to read the newsletter this month!!

[Rick]

I also thought his piece on the new Ancestry site was bizarre and almost completely inaccurate. He said there was only one days notice of the change, when they announced in the summer that all users would be on it by the end of 2015. If he scrolled down a bit from the blog posting he highlighted, he would also have found the announcement of the date, three weeks before the change was made as well as a later reminder

He then went on to say that the search was now more accurate, but that part of the site was not included in the change, which was to the tree-building bit. Very odd.

[kiterunner]

He then went on to say that the search was now more accurate, but that part of the site was not included in the change, which was to the tree-building bit. Very odd.

Yes, I noticed that too, Rick.