• Welcome to Family History Forum 🔎

    Dive into a community where unraveling family history is a shared passion. Here, real people collaborate, offering advice, insights, and support in navigating the rich tapestry of genealogy. Engage in vibrant discussions, pose questions, or celebrate your latest findings on our active message boards.

    Whether you're piecing together ancestry or breaking through brick walls in your research, our forum is your essential resource 📚

    Join fellow family historians in this journey, where every story uncovered strengthens the bonds that connect us all 🔗

    Family History UK
  • Do you love Genealogy? Why not write for us? we're looking for volunteers to write articles for Family history. Please contact us for further information.

Being picky?

ptjw7

Loyal Member
Posts
1,692
Likes
193
Location
dovercourt but born Enfield
#1
I don't know whether its me being picky but why do people not include all the family on their tree:confused:
I have a family from down under who had 3 children(well most trees show 3) BUT some trees show only 2 and others only 1o_O
How can this be, not enough information or just laziness:(
Anyway I will leave mine as 3 children(y)

Peter
 

DaveHam9

Loyal Member
Staff member
Moderator
Posts
84,408
Likes
1,363
Location
Sydney
#4
The older Australian records generally have more info than the British ones. That has changed over the years as the records issued now have less info than the ones of say 70 years ago. I suspect that is to reduce the amount of data that has to be kept on computer servers.

I have seen trees with only one child and with more than five others missing. I suspect the tree owner was simply following the direct line.
 

Similar threads

Top