Date   

Help in comparing FH Gedcom with Ancestry Gedcom

John Clarke
 

Hi all

I have got myself into a bit of a mess. I have been using Ancestry for my family tree in conjunction with FH. I use Ancestry as I and my family have done DNA tests, so it has been very useful to discover new relatives. However, my discipline of trying to dual maintain both databases has fallen down and now I have about 500 more records on Ancestery than in my FH project.

I have downloaded the Ancestry gedcom and made a comparison to the FH gedcom, but in reality I just don’t know where to start in trying to construct the missing relatives into the FH tree.

I don't want to press merge - I have made back-ups, because i do want to validate each record to ensure that it is attaching to the right person. Also I know there are some errors in Ancestry due to transcription mistakes, that I have researched and corrected in FH.

What approach would you recommend please?

Apologies for the conundrum. Will spend more time and effort in the future in dual maintaining the two databases.

John Clarke


Re: Do you record "negative result" certificates

David Nicoll
 

Excellent idea! I for one will be adopting

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Geoffrey Knott
Sent: 09 February 2021 09:49
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Do you record "negative result" certificates

 

John,

I've found a number of instances where for a while I've been following the wrong individual, only for further research to get me back on track. (This can happen if you follow online trees, eg on Ancestry, where the tree owner has not followed up properly on research.) My solution is I've created a FH custom fact 'not be confused', with a sentence reading '{individual} should {label} with a person of the same name, {value}, {note}' with a reference to the unrelated individual I've created, under whose entry I can store the confusing facts and documents. Then, if I later return to the related individual, I won't make the same mistake twice.

Worth consideration?

Geoff K

On 08/02/2021 17:31, johnfirr via groups.io wrote:

This is a bit of a random query but i,m just interested to know what others do in this situation.

I try to avoid ordering certificates unless I am very sure that they represent someone in my database ( costs rack up quickly!), but occasionally it is necessary to order certificates to work out if you are dealing with the correct person.

This happened just recently which has resulted in my holding two certificates of individuals I now know are neither ancestors or relatives. Whilst on the face of it these are therefore negative results they do have value in that recording them properly will mean I can avoid going that way again.

Just wondering what others do? Do you discard them, record them offline somewhere and keep the paper or do you create an unrelated individual on FH so you can record the event and put a note that this was a research channel that yielded a none relative.?

Just interested on how those who are more experienced approach this.

thanks
John Firr


Re: Do you record "negative result" certificates

Geoffrey Knott
 

John,

I've found a number of instances where for a while I've been following the wrong individual, only for further research to get me back on track. (This can happen if you follow online trees, eg on Ancestry, where the tree owner has not followed up properly on research.) My solution is I've created a FH custom fact 'not be confused', with a sentence reading '{individual} should {label} with a person of the same name, {value}, {note}' with a reference to the unrelated individual I've created, under whose entry I can store the confusing facts and documents. Then, if I later return to the related individual, I won't make the same mistake twice.

Worth consideration?

Geoff K

On 08/02/2021 17:31, johnfirr via groups.io wrote:
This is a bit of a random query but i,m just interested to know what others do in this situation.

I try to avoid ordering certificates unless I am very sure that they represent someone in my database ( costs rack up quickly!), but occasionally it is necessary to order certificates to work out if you are dealing with the correct person.

This happened just recently which has resulted in my holding two certificates of individuals I now know are neither ancestors or relatives. Whilst on the face of it these are therefore negative results they do have value in that recording them properly will mean I can avoid going that way again.

Just wondering what others do? Do you discard them, record them offline somewhere and keep the paper or do you create an unrelated individual on FH so you can record the event and put a note that this was a research channel that yielded a none relative.?

Just interested on how those who are more experienced approach this.

thanks
John Firr


Re: Do you record "negative result" certificates

F97Russell
 

What works for me is to make a note for the person in FH to the effect that "Their Birth/Marriage/Death isn't  XYZ..." which can be deleted when I've finally got the right one.


Re: Do you record "negative result" certificates

Victor Markham
 

That is not how I would do this.

At the persons name I open the plug in for GRO and fill in the refernce details. Those details will be added to the persons name whether it is birth, marriage or death. If at a later date you can confirm th details are correct then order the certificate. If you find then wrong then delete it. All this is on the persons FH information so no need for a file. If the details are correct order the certificate then scan it ito a folder with the persons name. The input the image to the line where the GRO ref is

Victor

On 08/02/2021 8:52 pm, stephen.challis@... wrote:

Assuming that you have an electronic record (eg a download or a scan), I would put them in a folder on my computer labelled, for example, ‘non-relatives’. Give the downloaded or scanned file the name of the person in the format surname, first name(s). Don’t forget to refer to it before you order any more certificates!

 

Kind regards

 

Stephen

 

 

Stephen Challis

Please reply to Stephen.Challis@...

 

From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of johnfirr via groups.io
Sent: 08 February 2021 17:31
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Do you record "negative result" certificates

 

This is a bit of a random query but i,m just interested to know what others do in this situation.

I try to avoid ordering certificates unless I am very sure that they represent someone in my database ( costs rack up quickly!), but occasionally it is necessary to order certificates to work out if you are dealing with the correct person.

This happened just recently which has resulted in my holding two certificates of individuals I now know are neither ancestors or relatives. Whilst on the face of it these are therefore negative results they do have value in that recording them properly will mean I can avoid going that way again.

Just wondering what others do? Do you discard them, record them offline somewhere and keep the paper or do you create an unrelated individual on FH so you can record the event and put a note that this was a research channel that yielded a none relative.?

Just interested on how those who are more experienced approach this.

thanks
John Firr


Re: Do you record "negative result" certificates

stephen.challis@...
 

Assuming that you have an electronic record (eg a download or a scan), I would put them in a folder on my computer labelled, for example, ‘non-relatives’. Give the downloaded or scanned file the name of the person in the format surname, first name(s). Don’t forget to refer to it before you order any more certificates!

 

Kind regards

 

Stephen

 

 

Stephen Challis

Please reply to Stephen.Challis@...

 

From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of johnfirr via groups.io
Sent: 08 February 2021 17:31
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Do you record "negative result" certificates

 

This is a bit of a random query but i,m just interested to know what others do in this situation.

I try to avoid ordering certificates unless I am very sure that they represent someone in my database ( costs rack up quickly!), but occasionally it is necessary to order certificates to work out if you are dealing with the correct person.

This happened just recently which has resulted in my holding two certificates of individuals I now know are neither ancestors or relatives. Whilst on the face of it these are therefore negative results they do have value in that recording them properly will mean I can avoid going that way again.

Just wondering what others do? Do you discard them, record them offline somewhere and keep the paper or do you create an unrelated individual on FH so you can record the event and put a note that this was a research channel that yielded a none relative.?

Just interested on how those who are more experienced approach this.

thanks
John Firr


Do you record "negative result" certificates

johnfirr@...
 

This is a bit of a random query but i,m just interested to know what others do in this situation.

I try to avoid ordering certificates unless I am very sure that they represent someone in my database ( costs rack up quickly!), but occasionally it is necessary to order certificates to work out if you are dealing with the correct person.

This happened just recently which has resulted in my holding two certificates of individuals I now know are neither ancestors or relatives. Whilst on the face of it these are therefore negative results they do have value in that recording them properly will mean I can avoid going that way again.

Just wondering what others do? Do you discard them, record them offline somewhere and keep the paper or do you create an unrelated individual on FH so you can record the event and put a note that this was a research channel that yielded a none relative.?

Just interested on how those who are more experienced approach this.

thanks
John Firr


Re: Ancestry subscription discount

Victor Markham
 

£89 for worldwide subs. Mine is due for renewal next month at £179.99! Better cancel then renew!

Victor

On 08/02/2021 4:48 pm, Sue Herrington wrote:

I’ve used the link for at least the last 3/4 years without any problem. As long as your subscription has ended, so that you can no longer view records. £89 will give you Worldwide membership for 12 months.

 

Sue

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: James Pam
Sent: 08 February 2021 15:44
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Ancestry subscription discount

 

Much to my surprise this Ancestry link first posted by Trevor Rix in 2017 still offers a 50% discount on subscription. I was  a lapsed Ancestry member so don't know whether  £59 for 12 months is limited to lapsed members.

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15275&p=80914#p80914

 


Re: Ancestry subscription discount

Sue Herrington
 

I’ve used the link for at least the last 3/4 years without any problem. As long as your subscription has ended, so that you can no longer view records. £89 will give you Worldwide membership for 12 months.

 

Sue

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: James Pam
Sent: 08 February 2021 15:44
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Ancestry subscription discount

 

Much to my surprise this Ancestry link first posted by Trevor Rix in 2017 still offers a 50% discount on subscription. I was  a lapsed Ancestry member so don't know whether  £59 for 12 months is limited to lapsed members.

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15275&p=80914#p80914

 


Re: Ancestry subscription discount

liz_graydon
 

The 50% discount is still available as long as members cancel their subscription, let it expire and then resubscribe.  I have found you need only wait for about an hour after you show as only having a guest account for it to work



On Monday, 8 February 2021, 15:44:24 GMT, James Pam <jamespam1@...> wrote:


Much to my surprise this Ancestry link first posted by Trevor Rix in 2017 still offers a 50% discount on subscription. I was  a lapsed Ancestry member so don't know whether  £59 for 12 months is limited to lapsed members.

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15275&p=80914#p80914


Re: Ancestry subscription discount

Fiona Hall
 

You didn’t have to be brand new to Ancestry to use it – just not a current subscriber
 
Fiona
 

From: James Pam
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 3:25 PM
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Ancestry subscription discount
 
Much to my surprise this Ancestry link first posted by Trevor Rix in 2017 still offers a 50% discount on subscription. I was  a lapsed Ancestry member so don't know whether  £59 for 12 months is limited to lapsed members.

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15275&p=80914#p80914


Ancestry subscription discount

James Pam
 

Much to my surprise this Ancestry link first posted by Trevor Rix in 2017 still offers a 50% discount on subscription. I was  a lapsed Ancestry member so don't know whether  £59 for 12 months is limited to lapsed members.

https://www.fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15275&p=80914#p80914


Re: Revoked will

Julia Vokes
 

One thing that comes out loud and clear to me is the importance of making a Will and then keeping it up to date!! This is so relevant these days when people often marry more than once or not at all and might have children and step children from different relationships. Also worth remembering is that a divorce does not make a Will invalid, unlike a marriage, unless the Will was made with the marriage specifically mentioned.

A friend recently came unstuck badly, and expensively, when her common law husband died. She was the second partner and he had made his Will when married to the first wife and never updated it!!

Julia

On 6 Feb 2021, at 12:35, David Dewick <david.dewick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Intestacy rules are even more complicated (or vindictive) if you are adopted and one of your adopted parents re-marry . ☹️
On 6 Feb 2021, at 12:30, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 at 12:19, Lorna Craig via groups.io
<l.m.craig=ntlworld.com@groups.io> wrote:
Adrian, that’s interesting but I recall learning something slightly different. It was my understanding that if two people died more or less simultaneously (as in the case of a bombing incident) and there was no way of knowing exactly who died first, the older person was presumed to have died first.
Doh! Your understanding is pretty much what I meant, only it says it
more generally.

For titles (which was all I was talking about) of course there is only
one heir so your objection of two heirs doesn't apply. However, in the
more general case, your statement makes sense and is more useful than
my formula.

Thanks
Adrian








Re: Revoked will

David Dewick
 

Intestacy rules are even more complicated (or vindictive) if you are adopted and one of your adopted parents re-marry . ☹️

On 6 Feb 2021, at 12:30, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 at 12:19, Lorna Craig via groups.io
<l.m.craig=ntlworld.com@groups.io> wrote:
Adrian, that’s interesting but I recall learning something slightly different. It was my understanding that if two people died more or less simultaneously (as in the case of a bombing incident) and there was no way of knowing exactly who died first, the older person was presumed to have died first.
Doh! Your understanding is pretty much what I meant, only it says it
more generally.

For titles (which was all I was talking about) of course there is only
one heir so your objection of two heirs doesn't apply. However, in the
more general case, your statement makes sense and is more useful than
my formula.

Thanks
Adrian





Re: Revoked will

Adrian Bruce
 

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 at 12:19, Lorna Craig via groups.io
<l.m.craig=ntlworld.com@groups.io> wrote:
Adrian, that’s interesting but I recall learning something slightly different. It was my understanding that if two people died more or less simultaneously (as in the case of a bombing incident) and there was no way of knowing exactly who died first, the older person was presumed to have died first.
Doh! Your understanding is pretty much what I meant, only it says it
more generally.

For titles (which was all I was talking about) of course there is only
one heir so your objection of two heirs doesn't apply. However, in the
more general case, your statement makes sense and is more useful than
my formula.

Thanks
Adrian


Re: Revoked will

Lorna Craig
 

Adrian, that’s interesting but I recall learning something slightly different.  It was my understanding that if two people died more or less simultaneously (as in the case of a bombing incident) and there was no way of knowing exactly who died first, the older person was presumed to have died first. 

 

If it was just a case of assuming that the ‘heir’ survives longer, how would you resolve a case where the two people concerned had made each other their heirs?

 

Don't know about inheritance under intestacy, but there are rules about how titles are inherited if the holder and their heir die at the same time. IIRC, the heir is deemed to survive the holder for enough seconds to inherit the title. After that, it goes to the next heir - if any. (I learnt this from a railway history book!)

 


Re: Revoked will

Adrian Bruce
 

Don't know about inheritance under intestacy, but there are rules about how titles are inherited if the holder and their heir die at the same time. IIRC, the heir is deemed to survive the holder for enough seconds to inherit the title. After that, it goes to the next heir - if any. (I learnt this from a railway history book!)

Whether a similar rule exists to determine who gets what in a case of intestacy, as here, I have no idea, but it's worth bearing in mind as a possible explanation for who might get what.



Re: Revoked will

Richard Hooke
 

Hi John

Your circumstances raise a number of questions of probate/L of A  law

Eg

How old were they

 Is there a will

Who died first or deemed to have died first

Were there relatives who had been abroad or prisoners of war

HM Treasury Solicitor suggests  no relatives could be found

A probate /LOA is often required for title to properties

Interesting to speculate

Richard

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io [mailto:family-historian@groups.io] On Behalf Of John Hanson
Sent: 05 February 2021 23:15
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: [family-historian] Revoked will

 

I have just comes across something that is a rarity and can find nothing in the knowledge base or forum that seems to covers it

 

The Louisa and her husband John died together in 1940 in the crypt of St Peter’s church, Walworth where they were sheltering during an air-raid.

 

There is no will for John but there is an administration by the H M Treasury Solicitor in 1942 for her estate valued at nearly £1,200 (at lot of money in 1940)

 

When looking at the entry for that there is a pencilled note saying that the entry was revoked in 1950 and a new administration re-spawn (I currently have no idea who the person requesting the administration is but must be family somewhere!)

Whilst I can happily record the two administration is a question of how to record the revoking – anyone any thoughts?

Regards

John Hanson


Re: Revoked will

John Hanson
 

Adrian

Thanks – I might well have it in the Halstead files with over 3500 wills (going to have to straighten them out when I bring the file over from TMG!)
But I think that your idea works – can always go find them if need be
Revoked wills are more likely I suspect – I doubt that the Treasury still have the papers!
Will have to go ask the guru on all things genealogical

Regards

John

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
Sent: 06 February 2021 07:22
To: Family Historian Groups.io mailing list <Family-historian@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Revoked will

 

I've never heard of a revoked Admon either - presumably distribution of the estate had not completed, else there'd be no point in revoking the Admon? 

 

For the revoking, as it's something that is unlikely to appear again very often, if at all, I'd probably just record the 2 grants of Letters of Administration, and in the notes for the second grant, I'd record the revoking there. Add a similar note to the first grant, if you like. 

 

If you don't use fact notes and don't want to start, then I guess that a custom event would be the way to go. 


Re: Revoked will

John Hanson
 

Julia

As it is an administration there is no will
I have sent for both admins – at £1.50 no great loss at £10 I’d be thinking differently I expect
Have also found that the administrator on the second one was the brother-in-law of the deceased woman

More interestingly their maternal line look like it might have links to my own brother-in-law but then BYFORD is a common name is Suffolk/Essex

Regards

John

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Julia Vokes
Sent: 06 February 2021 09:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Revoked will

 

I’m wondering if this instance was actually a variation of the Will which has to happen within two years of the person dying. Essentially it varies the distribution of the estate and is sometimes known as a Deed of family arrangement. It doesn’t matter whether the deceased left a Will or not. So I’m thinking maybe a relative came forward?

Below is the summary from the gov.uk website



Also known as a variation – or deed of family arrangement – this allows beneficiaries to rearrange or vary their entitlement. A deed of variation can be used by any person who receives a gift under a will to redirect their inheritance to another person. ... Changes can be made provided all the beneficiaries agree.



It’s a useful device as it can be used to reduce inheritance tax



Regards

Julia

, please excuse any typos.



On 6 Feb 2021, at 07:22, Adrian Bruce <abruce6155@...> wrote:



I've never heard of a revoked Admon either - presumably distribution of the estate had not completed, else there'd be no point in revoking the Admon? 

 

For the revoking, as it's something that is unlikely to appear again very often, if at all, I'd probably just record the 2 grants of Letters of Administration, and in the notes for the second grant, I'd record the revoking there. Add a similar note to the first grant, if you like. 

 

If you don't use fact notes and don't want to start, then I guess that a custom event would be the way to go. 

781 - 800 of 3688