-
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.
Blood relative or not
- Thread starter juliejtp
- Start date
My eldest brothers father-in-law would be a prime candidate. He was a gentle kind and caring man. I knew he wasn't of my family, but I would have adopted him as a family member.
He was a wonderful man.
He taught me how to drink Newcastle Brown. He was medically retired from work, but always lived his life to the full. I only saw him 2 or 3 times a year, and I loved every second.
Steve.
I was just pondering this the other day Julie. In the past my family embraced the in laws family as their own and would call them relatives. It has confused me a bit in my research, because names I remember from childhood, don't show up where I think they should in family data, but then when I research sideways, I'll find them and they are not directly related at all.
Since I've been trawling through all the census details of a particular district though it's made more sense. I'm finding that as most of my family only lived or moved within a 10 mile radius, many of the families who married into my direct lines lived in the same street as them all their lives. The kids grew up together played in the streets and parks together, went to school together and the familes intermarried. I had a Martha Binns at one point who married into my direct line and for almost 200 years after that in various census documents there would be a Binns person visting one of my relatives. Yet the name only ever showed up once in my direct line in 1732.
Unlike todays nuclear families I think they all developed and grew in friendship first and when sons and daughters married that gave them the elevated relationship of being "family". Not sure I've explained it well!
Jill
Since I've been trawling through all the census details of a particular district though it's made more sense. I'm finding that as most of my family only lived or moved within a 10 mile radius, many of the families who married into my direct lines lived in the same street as them all their lives. The kids grew up together played in the streets and parks together, went to school together and the familes intermarried. I had a Martha Binns at one point who married into my direct line and for almost 200 years after that in various census documents there would be a Binns person visting one of my relatives. Yet the name only ever showed up once in my direct line in 1732.
Unlike todays nuclear families I think they all developed and grew in friendship first and when sons and daughters married that gave them the elevated relationship of being "family". Not sure I've explained it well!
Jill
Julie, I'm not sure whether this helps or not, but I had a good night on Ancestry last night, so want to spread the word.
I might have been slow to pick up on this or it could be new, but Ancestry seem to have suddenly put many more BMD records on line and there's a new facility which makes searching in 1900s much easier all of a sudden. I was trying to track down cousins of my Dads (could still be a live) and having no luck. Last night all those brick walls tumbled down.
If you search for a birth all you need to do is run your cursor down the page and all the individual details appear including mother's maiden name. You don't even have to open the listing anymore. I found that Dad's cousin Peggy was actually Margarita (too posh for our lot) and unless I had seen her Mother's maiden name I wouldn't have found it! Another example was the name Bottomley features in our family, I had been looking forever for descendants, with this feature I found that the family must have changed their names from Bottom and again a couple of brick walls tumbled. One cousin Dad called Keith, with this system he was identified as William K. and other things fell into place.
Thinking about this in your context, this could be a fast way of just skimming down the pages of all the people with associated with the surnames involved and finding obscure listings you hadn't though of!!
I hope I haven't confused you more.
Jill
I might have been slow to pick up on this or it could be new, but Ancestry seem to have suddenly put many more BMD records on line and there's a new facility which makes searching in 1900s much easier all of a sudden. I was trying to track down cousins of my Dads (could still be a live) and having no luck. Last night all those brick walls tumbled down.
If you search for a birth all you need to do is run your cursor down the page and all the individual details appear including mother's maiden name. You don't even have to open the listing anymore. I found that Dad's cousin Peggy was actually Margarita (too posh for our lot) and unless I had seen her Mother's maiden name I wouldn't have found it! Another example was the name Bottomley features in our family, I had been looking forever for descendants, with this feature I found that the family must have changed their names from Bottom and again a couple of brick walls tumbled. One cousin Dad called Keith, with this system he was identified as William K. and other things fell into place.
Thinking about this in your context, this could be a fast way of just skimming down the pages of all the people with associated with the surnames involved and finding obscure listings you hadn't though of!!
I hope I haven't confused you more.
Jill
Hi Jul,
I know that when working with family history making sure that the non blood can still be put into the tree, my oldest sister had a different father (died prior to her birth):'( and when my aunt (actually she was my uncles wife, blood was not there either) on my fathers side made a tree of the wood family she did not put my sister in , she was really hurt:'( , of course we took her little design and made the leaf with my sister connected to my mother and put her father in it too, And sent that one to all of our immediate family members, of course our aunt immediately told my sister how sorry she was for the oversite. even adopted family to me is and always will fall in my family tree (have some of them too). So I guess every individual would have to make the decision on whom they consider a relative or not. Joyce
I know that when working with family history making sure that the non blood can still be put into the tree, my oldest sister had a different father (died prior to her birth):'( and when my aunt (actually she was my uncles wife, blood was not there either) on my fathers side made a tree of the wood family she did not put my sister in
, she was really hurt:'( , of course we took her little design and made the leaf with my sister connected to my mother and put her father in it too, And sent that one to all of our immediate family members, of course our aunt immediately told my sister how sorry she was for the oversite. even adopted family to me is and always will fall in my family tree (have some of them too). So I guess every individual would have to make the decision on whom they consider a relative or not. JoyceYes Joyce, that's such an important thing to include as no one wants anyone to get hurt. My Grand Aunt was a lovely soul and she married a man whose wife had died 6 months after giving birth to twins, they were fostered out after their Mother's death. My Aunt married this man when the twins were 6 years old, brought them out of foster care and raised them as her own, my Gt Grandmother treated them as she did all her other Grandchildren.
I was really hurt on my relative's behalf recently when I wrote to the (now elderly) wife of one of the twins and she said she couldn't tell me anything about the family or fill in some gaps for me as she really didn't take much notice, because her husband wasn't a blood relative.
There's hurt all round when things are not thought through thoroughly.
This is just a small thing, but it really annoys me when you can't put a child on Ancestry without a Father's name. That's so out of date as a concept.
Guess who has many Unknown Unknown' s on her tree?
I was really hurt on my relative's behalf recently when I wrote to the (now elderly) wife of one of the twins and she said she couldn't tell me anything about the family or fill in some gaps for me as she really didn't take much notice, because her husband wasn't a blood relative.
There's hurt all round when things are not thought through thoroughly.
This is just a small thing, but it really annoys me when you can't put a child on Ancestry without a Father's name. That's so out of date as a concept.
Guess who has many Unknown Unknown'
s on her tree?
Yes Joyce, that's such an important thing to include as no one wants anyone to get hurt. My Grand Aunt was a lovely soul and she married a man whose wife had died 6 months after giving birth to twins, they were fostered out after their Mother's death. My Aunt married this man when the twins were 6 years old, brought them out of foster care and raised them as her own, my Gt Grandmother treated them as she did all her other Grandchildren.
I was really hurt on my relative's behalf recently when I wrote to the (now elderly) wife of one of the twins and she said she couldn't tell me anything about the family or fill in some gaps for me as she really didn't take much notice, because her husband wasn't a blood relative.
There's hurt all round when things are not thought through thoroughly.
This is just a small thing, but it really annoys me when you can't put a child on Ancestry without a Father's name. That's so out of date as a concept.
Guess who has many Unknown Unknown' s on her tree?
I was really hurt on my relative's behalf recently when I wrote to the (now elderly) wife of one of the twins and she said she couldn't tell me anything about the family or fill in some gaps for me as she really didn't take much notice, because her husband wasn't a blood relative.
There's hurt all round when things are not thought through thoroughly.
This is just a small thing, but it really annoys me when you can't put a child on Ancestry without a Father's name. That's so out of date as a concept.
Guess who has many Unknown Unknown'
s on her tree?
Joyce
Last edited:
Hi Julie,
I think with most people the answer to this lays with each individuals personal feelings.
In my case my brother-in-law got quite incensed when I included his ex wifes children after they divorced in my tree. He kept on going on that they were not related. But as I said to him they are related to his children as half sibblings. I needed to show the connection, or at least mention it in the notes. I haven't followed their fathers line further than his name & birth details, just as I haven't followed his ex wifes line other than to make note of her details & her parents.(we didn't really get along :biggrin: )
If there was a lot of affection with the family between blood & non blood family I might include them for a bit further along. I have a lot of branches in my tree already, too many non blood lines might make it confusing.
Peta
I think with most people the answer to this lays with each individuals personal feelings.
In my case my brother-in-law got quite incensed when I included his ex wifes children after they divorced in my tree. He kept on going on that they were not related. But as I said to him they are related to his children as half sibblings. I needed to show the connection, or at least mention it in the notes. I haven't followed their fathers line further than his name & birth details, just as I haven't followed his ex wifes line other than to make note of her details & her parents.(we didn't really get along :biggrin: )
If there was a lot of affection with the family between blood & non blood family I might include them for a bit further along. I have a lot of branches in my tree already, too many non blood lines might make it confusing.
Peta
Hi All
I have done my tree which includes everyone connected to the immediate family, including their inlaws and immediate family, and their inlaws and immediate family, and so on and on, to a point my tree at present, has so many branches and leaves that at present it stands at 11,339 individuals, 562different surnames, in which I have to verify a fair amount of them, but i'm getting there. I also have quite a few others that I havn't put on yet. I dont want to offend anyone which is connected to the tree by missing anyone out.
Am I being ridiculous in overdoing this, or should it be stricktly bloodline only?
What are your thoughts?
Kind Regards
Bewilldered
I have done my tree which includes everyone connected to the immediate family, including their inlaws and immediate family, and their inlaws and immediate family, and so on and on, to a point my tree at present, has so many branches and leaves that at present it stands at 11,339 individuals, 562different surnames, in which I have to verify a fair amount of them, but i'm getting there. I also have quite a few others that I havn't put on yet. I dont want to offend anyone which is connected to the tree by missing anyone out.
Am I being ridiculous in overdoing this, or should it be stricktly bloodline only?
What are your thoughts?
Kind Regards
Bewilldered
Hi bewildered,
I can sympathise with you here, although that is a lot of names!
I really like adding the in laws as well because I've found that many of mine have married into the same families and you can build up quite a good sociological picture of their lives and times that way.
I found quite a few old newspaper clippings about family weddings and other social events in a box of "stuff" sent from England by an Aunt and it was so much fun to populate the tree with in-laws to find out who the bridesmaids etc were. It's all part of the family history fun.
Cheers,
Jill
I can sympathise with you here, although that is a lot of names!
I really like adding the in laws as well because I've found that many of mine have married into the same families and you can build up quite a good sociological picture of their lives and times that way.
I found quite a few old newspaper clippings about family weddings and other social events in a box of "stuff" sent from England by an Aunt and it was so much fun to populate the tree with in-laws to find out who the bridesmaids etc were. It's all part of the family history fun.
Cheers,
Jill
Hi All
I have done my tree which includes everyone connected to the immediate family, including their inlaws and immediate family, and their inlaws and immediate family, and so on and on, to a point my tree at present, has so many branches and leaves that at present it stands at 11,339 individuals, 562different surnames, in which I have to verify a fair amount of them, but i'm getting there. I also have quite a few others that I havn't put on yet. I dont want to offend anyone which is connected to the tree by missing anyone out.
Am I being ridiculous in overdoing this, or should it be stricktly bloodline only?
What are your thoughts?
Kind Regards
Bewilldered
I have done my tree which includes everyone connected to the immediate family, including their inlaws and immediate family, and their inlaws and immediate family, and so on and on, to a point my tree at present, has so many branches and leaves that at present it stands at 11,339 individuals, 562different surnames, in which I have to verify a fair amount of them, but i'm getting there. I also have quite a few others that I havn't put on yet. I dont want to offend anyone which is connected to the tree by missing anyone out.
Am I being ridiculous in overdoing this, or should it be stricktly bloodline only?
What are your thoughts?
Kind Regards
Bewilldered
My tree is only approx. 550 names. I've roughly calculated that I have about 60-80 more to add, and then I'm done.
I will add more rellies, but only if they 'drop in my lap'.
I'm only trying to follow the blood lines of my grandparents, and other rellies that are obvious will get added. (Mainly in-laws)
I do not envy your birthday/xmas card list.
You have my total admiration for 'collecting' all your rellies. I would like to see your tree set out and mapped. It should fill the side of a barn. But well done.
Will put your name forward for FH addict of the year.:biggrin: :biggrin:
Steve.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
James BLOOD & Mary ? | English Genealogy Roots | 13 | |
|
|
BLOOD family | Travel and Migration | 12 | |
|
|
BLOOD & HOPKINS and HATFIELD & HAWKINS | Australia & New Zealand Genealogy Roots | 12 | |
| B | Danny Dyer's link to blue blood. | FHUK General Chat Room | 1 | |
| W | Finding my blood father | Genealogy Beginners Help | 4 | |
|
|
Emma BLOOD and Henry H HATFIELD | Travel and Migration | 30 |
Similar threads
-
-
-
BLOOD & HOPKINS and HATFIELD & HAWKINS
- Started by DaveHam9
- Replies: 12
-
-
-