Would this be the action of a troll?

[Phoenix]

DNA has finally (after several years) proved that

William Hawkins married Mary Manuel in Wimborne, Dorset in 1782.

I have Hawkins AND very strong Manuel DNA and am descended from a younger son.

The eldest, William, was baptised in Wimborne 25 July 1784:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/2243/images/32435_239734-00463?pId=1171228


The family then moved to Winterborne Kingston, where younger children were born, but mother's name was not given.


At this stage it gets complicated. Family Search shows a William Hawkins marrying a Jane Small. In fact, her husband was William Kellaway:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discoveryui-content/view/4096152:2243?tid=&pid=&queryId=9e0be873626ce63618f00fc8ab12262a&_phsrc=nUX254&_phstart=successSource


All the lazy researchers get their knickers completely in a twist at this stage.



I am so tempted to add comments to their trees. Would the truth get me banned from Ancestry? :D

[kiterunner]

You wouldn't get banned for leaving a comment on a tree unless it was abusive or otherwise in contravention of their terms and conditions. Even then I don't know whether they would ban you or take some other action instead. Otherwise why would they have the facility to leave comments? But I would leave out the bit about lazy researchers getting their knickers in a twist from your comments!

[Phoenix]

Lol!

Perhaps I'll pm a few. It is difficult, since FamilySearch results for some reason are ranked above parish register entries, and the lack of mother's name (and the fact that both Williams, senior and junior subsequently marry a Jane AND William junior dies before his father, in 1832, so nobody knows where he is born) do offer alternate scenarios.

[Olde Crone]

In the days when I had an Ancestry account I often put comments on trees, keeping it to facts, of course. Who knows whether anyone ever reads the comments or takes any notice of the facts - except one person who replied that 25 other people said something, so they must be right and I must be wrong, lol.

OC

[Mary from Italy]

I usually look at comments if I see them on a tree.

[maggie_4_7]

I usually look at comments if I see them on a tree.

So do I.

A few months ago I was looking at a tree I came across because I was looking for one of my Scots ancestors that had vanished. I realised the tree owner had made a mistake as most had by confusing him with someone else but someone had commented and explained that this was the wrong man and explained what had happened to him because he was a descendent living in Australia.

I contacted the person who commented, not expecting a reply because the comment was 5 years old, and thanked him and explained I had followed his research and confirmed that he was indeed correct.

He said he has also messaged the tree owner and had no reply 5 years ago. I said I would message her. I did message her and she replied thank you but her tree is still incorrect or it was 6 weeks ago

[Kit]

In the days when I had an Ancestry account I often put comments on trees, keeping it to facts, of course. Who knows whether anyone ever reads the comments or takes any notice of the facts - except one person who replied that 25 other people said something, so they must be right and I must be wrong, lol.

OC

I read the comments. Sometimes the tree owner adds more details by commenting, or other people say something useful.

Last comment I read was by a tree owner who said she had made an error but couldn't work out how to take down the incorrect info. Without that some would be going down the wrong path.