View Full Version : Ancestry
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but here goes…..
My 4 th great grandfather was Peter Gordon. I have a paper trail and DNA to prove that.
His parents were Peter and Margaret, no maiden name.
Ancestry has decided Margaret will be Margaret Leys. They have also decided Margaret’s husband, and Peter ( surname Gordon ) father will be John Brown. John Brown and Margaret Leys are the parents of the famous John Brown of Queen Victoria fame.
I cannot connect Leys or Brown to my tree. How the Browns got a son with the surname Gordon is beyond me, although I do know a lot of the workers on various Gordon estates took the surname Gordon.
Her’s where it all turn weird. Ancestry has got one my my common surnames as Brown. While I know that is common, I have yet to find any Brown whatsoever.
Is Ancestry nuts? Or is my 5th great grandmother’s wedding ring sitting on Queen Vic’s hand in her grave?
kiterunner
01-01-23, 13:33
Brown will show up as a common surname among your matches just because it is a very common surname, so I wouldn't read anything into that. Their suggestion of John Brown and Margaret Leys will be taken from someone else's tree, and you know how inaccurate those can be!
The parents of the famous JB would have been born a long time after your PG, surely?!
Brown will show up as a common surname among your matches just because it is a very common surname, so I wouldn't read anything into that. Their suggestion of John Brown and Margaret Leys will be taken from someone else's tree, and you know how inaccurate those can be!
I know Brown is common, but I can’t find one in my tree. Why does Ancestry do this?
I know Brown is common, but I can’t find one in my tree. Why does Ancestry do this?
It's not that Brown is in your tree, but in the trees of people you have a DNA match with. So, if you happen to have matches to people who have big Ancestry trees they may well include a lot of people called Brown.
[QUOTE=Merry;415698]The parents of the famous JB would have been born a long time after your PG, surely?![/
Margaret ( or Barbara) Leys who became JB’s mother is recorded by Ancestry as 1730-1789. The actual report in the newspaper has her dying in 1876, making her 146 when she died……..lol
You’d think a paid service could do better than this.
I'm pretty sure JB was born in the late 1820s!
Unfortunately, Ancestry goes with the majority. I have sorted out Best Mate's tree, selecting the correct John Underwood for her ancestor. He married, and then had a succession of children with his wife, naming one of the boys Sanders after his wife's family.
The majority of researchers, however, think it perfectly reasonable for a couple to have several children before they tie the knot, despite living in a tiny village where such behaviour would have been indignantly highlighted by the vicar.
Consequently, Best Mate's ThruLines insist on overriding our research.
Olde Crone
01-01-23, 21:42
John Brown, son of John Brown and Margaret Leys, was born in 1826.
OC
John Brown, son of John Brown and Margaret Leys, was born in 1826.
OC
So Ancestry says Margaret was 96 when her son was born. Honestly! You do have to wonder.
I don't think Ancestry is 'saying' that - think of it that Ancestry is telling you stuff from other trees without evaluating it for accuracy! As Phoenix said - Unfortunately, Ancestry goes with the majority. - as soon as you get a sniff of anyone 'known' or 'famous' there will be a lot of people wanting to work that person in to their tree. In this case they are probably doing that so they can say they are 'related' to Queen Victoria, given the number of people who have her down as JB's spouse! In this case there's the added help that JB's name is so common, it' simple for people to connect him to random Browns in their tree if they don't care about any degree of sense/accuracy, such as women having children after they are dead etc etc etc :D
maggie_4_7
02-01-23, 09:12
I don't think Ancestry is 'saying' that - think of it that Ancestry is telling you stuff from other trees without evaluating it for accuracy! As Phoenix said - Unfortunately, Ancestry goes with the majority. - as soon as you get a sniff of anyone 'known' or 'famous' there will be a lot of people wanting to work that person in to their tree. In this case they are probably doing that so they can say they are 'related' to Queen Victoria, given the number of people who have her down as JB's spouse! In this case there's the added help that JB's name is so common, it' simple for people to connect him to random Browns in their tree if they don't care about any degree of sense/accuracy, such as women having children after they are dead etc etc etc :D
:D
I have just looked at some trees on Ancestry because you piqued my interest and some have some good facts but all have woven in some fantasy about Brown's relationship with Victoria, some have them marrying! Some seem to have picked up siblings of Brown with totally different surnames but with middle name Brown!
No one will ever know what happened between them, it's clear they had a much closer relationship than the Queen would normally have with a servant but I really don't think the intimacy went that far that it could be called an affair. It is documented that Brown was very outspoken to and in front of Victoria but it is is also clear from documented accounts he was mostly under the influence of alcohol. His younger brother Archie also worked in the Royal household.
I would think though that Ancestry would at least check basic facts before giving me hints. They have John Brown senior and Margaret Leys as my 4 x great grandfather’s parents. There is a tree with that on it, but that tree has as the wrong dates.
I just think for what we pay for Ancestry they shouldn’t use stupid info as ‘potential father or mother’.
There’s no “intelligence” there other than AI, methinks, Libby. I agree with you entirely of course, but I believe they’re attempting to make a quick killing, down and dirty, by just letting their computers run amok. The uninitiated think they’re being catered to. Myself, I’m starting to really resent the time I lose sorting the wheat from the chaff and I wish they’d stop shoveling such nonsense my way.
there’s no “intelligence” there other than ai, methinks, libby. I agree with you entirely of course, but i believe they’re attempting to make a quick killing, down and dirty, by just letting their computers run amok. The uninitiated think they’re being catered to. Myself, i’m starting to really resent the time i lose sorting the wheat from the chaff and i wish they’d stop shoveling such nonsense my way.
yes!
I think it would be too much to expect Ancestry to evaluate the hints it gives you. What they should do is stop giving hints (or probably should never have started). I never look at them. Maybe I will occasionally miss a good hint, but I don't care about that.
In the most part I prefer to do any research myself. That may include looking at other trees, but only for specific proven information that perhaps I don't have access to any other way. Surely reSEARCH should include a bit of searching?!!
I think it would be too much to expect Ancestry to evaluate the hints it gives you. What they should do is stop giving hints (or probably should never have started). I never look at them. Maybe I will occasionally miss a good hint, but I don't care about that.
In the most part I prefer to do any research myself. That may include looking at other trees, but only for specific proven information that perhaps I don't have access to any other way. Surely reSEARCH should include a bit of searching?!!
Merry, this was actually in the ‘thru lines’ on my DNA……not even those little hints I ignore.
Libby, my best potential ancestors on Thrulines are... a brother and sister! The imbecility of some researchers ceases to astonish me.
Merry, this was actually in the ‘thru lines’ on my DNA……not even those little hints I ignore.
I don't see there's any difference - both are just data from others trees. I agree that some are crazy, but if Ancestry were going to evaluate them, think what our subs would cost then!! Be careful what you wish for :D
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.