Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Jane Ellwood and the perils of online family trees

Expand Messages
  • Gillian Mc kenna
    Hi Steve, Good advice!! I quickly checked my data & I have the correct families...phew! Another common mistake is the two Mark Ellwoods- first one born in 1793
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 9, 2011
      Hi Steve,

      Good advice!!

      I quickly checked my data & I have the correct families...phew!

      Another common mistake is the two Mark Ellwoods- first one born in
      1793 in Brampton , Long Marton Parish to William and Barbara Ellwood (nee Jackson) the second one born 1796 in Appleby, St Michael Bongate Parish to William and Anne Ellwood(nee Simpson)- my ancestor. The first Mark moved South with his parents to the Kendal area in the early 1800s before setting up as a farmer in Stainton (south of Kendal.) He then moved over the border into Lancashire and farmed in Arkholme a village in the Lune Valley.

      The confusion between these two Marks has arisen not just because of the similar periods that they were born but also because of the similar geographical locations of their birth place- Brampton I gather is not very far from Appleby even though it is in a different Parish. The first Mark complicated the issue by giving his place of birth in the 1851 Census as Appleby- in 1861 he was more accurate giving it as Brampton.

      Both Marks also had spouses called Mary (first Mark's Mary was Mary Jackson, born in Stainton, whilst the second Mark's Mary was Mary Mounsey born in Culgaith,Cumberland.)

      The other complicating factor is that for a time the Mark born to William and Anne Ellwood (nee Simpson), lived for a time in Long Marton Parish himself. It is likely that he lived in Long Marton at least between 1823 and 1829 ( 3 daughters recorded as being baptised between 1823 and 1827 to a Mark and Mary Ellwood,; whilst Parson and White's Directory of 1829 records a "Mark Ellwood, Farmer, Field House, Brampton, Long Marton" In the 1851 Census this Mark is recorded as a Farmer in Bolton in Morland Parish with Place of Birth given as Bondgate.

      Check out your Marks!!

      Regards,

      Gillian



      --- In ellwood@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@...> wrote:
      >
      > Do you keep your primary genealogy data in an online family tree?
      >
      > My advice is: Don't.
      >
      > If you use an online family tree, you should use it only as a back-up for you
      > main data, or as a way of contacting other researchers. It is best to keep
      > your data in a reliable genealogy program, on your own computer (with back-
      > ups, of course).
      >
      > We've been looking at a lot of online family trees lately, especially in
      > connection with the Ellwood family, where the discovery of a link to several
      > generations has opened up a lot of possibilities for more research, and shown
      > a lot of people interested in various branches of the same family.
      >
      > But we have also discovered that a lot of the online trees are full of
      > errors, and the people who run the sites make it easy to propagate the errors
      > by encouraging you to copy faulty research to your own tree. It also seems
      > that in the some cases online software actually creates and introduces
      > errors that weren't there in the first place. We've sent people GEDCOM files
      > and when they've uploaded them to Ancestry.com, Geni.com, MyHeritage.com and
      > other sites, they are full of errors that weren't in the GEDCOM files we
      > sent.
      >
      > Here is an example where about 80% of the trees on Mundia/Ancestry were
      > simply wrong.
      >
      > There was a Jane Ellwood born about 1834/35 in Dufton, Westmorland, England.
      >
      > She was the daughter of John Ellwood and Nancy Bell.
      >
      > The majority of online family trees show her as married to Anthony Brunskill.
      >
      > A much smaller number show her as married to John Ellison.
      >
      > Since polygamy was illegal in England in that period, it is unlikely that she
      > was married to both of them. So which is right?
      >
      > You could take a majority vote, and say that since the majority of trees show
      > she was married to Anthony Brunskill, that would be the correct conclusion,
      > and the others must be wrong.
      >
      > But that would be wrong.
      >
      > A look at FreeBMD shows that Jane Ellwood married John Ellison in 1857.
      >
      > And Jane Elwood married Anthony Brunskill in 1863.
      >
      > So, logically, one should look at the 1861 census, when one Jane would be
      > married and the other wouldn't.
      >
      > But unfortunately the unmarried Jane was not staying at home with her
      > parents, but was staying with Robert Bellas Brunskill, and she is described
      > as his sister-in-law, before she married his brother Anthony, who was also
      > staying in the house.
      >
      > That means that Robert Bellas Brunskill's wife Bridget could be Jane's
      > sister, if we're lucky.
      >
      > Or, more remotely, that he had another sibling who married one of Jane's
      > other siblings.
      >
      > It turns out that Bridget Brunskill's maiden name was Ellwood, and she was
      > Jane's sister.
      >
      > Their parents were John Ellwood and Ann Bellas.
      >
      > Note that a marriage certificate would not have solved this problem, because
      > the father of both Janes was John.
      >
      > So two Brunskill brothers married two Ellwood sisters, and what is more they
      > were first cousins on the Bellas side. That doesn't affect the identification
      > much, though it does help to confirm it.
      >
      > What is more, in 1861 Jane was staying with Bridget, in 1871 Bridget was
      > staying with Jane.
      >
      > So the Jane Ellwood who married Anthony Brunskill was the daughter of John
      > Ellwood and Ann Bellas, and NOT the daughter of John Ellwood and Nancy Bell.
      > The daughter of John and Nancy married John Ellison, but only a minority of
      > online family trees showed that.
      >
      > Do you have these Janes in your family tree?
      >
      > Make sure you have them attached to the right parents!
      >
      > Some online trees show these two groups of Ellwoods -- the ancestors of John
      > and Nancy, and the ancestors of John and Ann -- joining in earlier
      > generations via a Thomas, son of Thomas Ellwood and Elizabeth Dobson. For a
      > time we were fooled by that, until someone pointed out that their son Thomas
      > died in infancy, and there is no record of the other Thomas to show who his
      > parents were.
      >
      > So if you do put your family tree on line, be careful, and to exchange
      > information with other researchers, rather upload your GEDCOMs in the file
      > section of this forum, and if you download them, check them carefully before
      > you add them to your tree, and discuss any discrepancies you find in the
      > forum. Two heads are better than one, and if we pool our knowledge and
      > experience, we can solve many family mysteries.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Keep well,
      > Steve Hayes
      > Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com
      > http://hayesfam.posterous.com/
      > E-mail: shayes@...
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.