greatcyber
New member
I haven't been on the forum a lot of late as I am working on our family tree online. Since we are all getting older and my grandparents and my father are deceased, I would like to have this tackled while my mother is still around to appreciate it.
In 4 days, I have found about 700 people in the tree. Seems like distant cousins covered all over the UK, Canada, Italy, Austro/Hungary (Transylvania), actually Ungvar. There are Dutch/Irish couples - well, just about every combination you can think of. Just as in my mother's fictionalized historical novel which includes our family from Upper New York State, the Slocums are rather prevalent. Many of them had people listed as "domestic servants" (I guess that probably means...slaves, yuk). Some of them died just before Independance Day. Some were in famous battles. I even read about "The Battle of Quebec" which in "A Short History of the Slocums in America" says that the war lasted only 30 minutes...and the British won.
The records have so far been traced back to mid 1600's in Wales. I'm having a rough go at the Scottish side. I know that relatives on my father's side come from the Black Watch clan, especially the Clan Gordon. Interesting how they adapated the tartan from the Black Watch and inserted a thin yellow stripe.
Anyway, my basic question is this: is it possible that in the mid 1600's in England, that ancestry records were kept for a couple in just the husband's name? The reason I ask is because when I am on Ancestry.ca and get a "hint" and it happens to belong to another family tree, sometimes it will say, for example: spouse: Alexander Smythe (ficticious) born 18 Aug 1649. Then it will say: Alexander Smythe born 29 Nov 1675, and then list the children.
It doesn't make any sense to me, especially when it is from someone else's already researched tree, and especially when it lists the same children, which would lead you to believe that the information is correct.
I have found this on three sets of records, only in England. Italy seems to be fine with the records, as do Wales and Scotland.
Any suggestions while I still have some hair left? All input is welcome.
I have to admit, this is a tad more fun than watching the History Channel, especially since I am uncovering historical facts and it's part of my family! One thing I read was that one of the Slocum men was the FIRST person in recorded history to successfully sail single-handedly around the world.
I may just have to follow my mom's example and write a book after all the research is done.
Thanks.
In 4 days, I have found about 700 people in the tree. Seems like distant cousins covered all over the UK, Canada, Italy, Austro/Hungary (Transylvania), actually Ungvar. There are Dutch/Irish couples - well, just about every combination you can think of. Just as in my mother's fictionalized historical novel which includes our family from Upper New York State, the Slocums are rather prevalent. Many of them had people listed as "domestic servants" (I guess that probably means...slaves, yuk). Some of them died just before Independance Day. Some were in famous battles. I even read about "The Battle of Quebec" which in "A Short History of the Slocums in America" says that the war lasted only 30 minutes...and the British won.
The records have so far been traced back to mid 1600's in Wales. I'm having a rough go at the Scottish side. I know that relatives on my father's side come from the Black Watch clan, especially the Clan Gordon. Interesting how they adapated the tartan from the Black Watch and inserted a thin yellow stripe.
Anyway, my basic question is this: is it possible that in the mid 1600's in England, that ancestry records were kept for a couple in just the husband's name? The reason I ask is because when I am on Ancestry.ca and get a "hint" and it happens to belong to another family tree, sometimes it will say, for example: spouse: Alexander Smythe (ficticious) born 18 Aug 1649. Then it will say: Alexander Smythe born 29 Nov 1675, and then list the children.
It doesn't make any sense to me, especially when it is from someone else's already researched tree, and especially when it lists the same children, which would lead you to believe that the information is correct.
I have found this on three sets of records, only in England. Italy seems to be fine with the records, as do Wales and Scotland.
Any suggestions while I still have some hair left? All input is welcome.
I have to admit, this is a tad more fun than watching the History Channel, especially since I am uncovering historical facts and it's part of my family! One thing I read was that one of the Slocum men was the FIRST person in recorded history to successfully sail single-handedly around the world.
I may just have to follow my mom's example and write a book after all the research is done.
Thanks.
Last edited:
