Exchanging information from an old Ancestry Tree to a newer one, both owned by you

Although a long time user of Ancestry, I recently learned how to do something not attempted before. That is to transfer details across from one of my Trees to another newly added. In the end I became quite adept at building the new Tree with the intention to export a Gedcom so the person for whom the new Tree was compiled, could incorporate same within his -still to be acquired – FH software. Here is how it started.

The person was a visitor accompanied by someone who had been the wife of a long-time friend (now deceased) for whom I had long researched a Tree and placed on Ancestry entitled W-E. The visitor was her new partner. In conversation he admitted to his shame he knew next to nothing of his family beyond his parents. He said that both paternal grandparents had died 4 years before he was born and the same year his older sister had been born. What they knew between them was all passed down through the family amounting to knowing his paternal grandfather had married twice; his first wife had 4 children and committed suicide when learning of her husband had sired two other children with another woman. Later his grandfather married his new partner and they had 7 more children, one of whom was his father. They knew a few of the names of the other children - aunts and uncles – but little else. Their combined knowledge of their maternal sides was almost but not quite as scant.

To cut to the chase I agreed to research his Tree and in consultation with the sister I ended up with a rag bag of information. As research was underway I began by adding it into the W-E Tree which had not been added to in 3 years. It did not take that long before I began to realise it was inappropriate to add so much into the old Tree, when it deserved a Tree of its own. So I set up another Tree (B-S) and then wondered if there was a quick way to transfer information across from the old to the new. I hit on the method more by accident than design.

I learned that to achieve this a few of the main players needed to be in BOTH Trees. Then commencing with a main player (in this case the father of our friend’s new partner) select him in the W-E Tree and click on Tools/+Save to Tree. Up would come a list of my other Trees so I would select B-S and name the individual to receive the new ‘add-on'- information (which is why he/she would need to be in both Trees). I would then click SAVE and all the information relating to that individual – parents, grandparents, children as well as saved data - would be transferred across effortlessly. It then grew exponentially as I would then select a new name that was within both Trees and repeat the process, ad infinitum.

The B-S Tree is almost finished and when the time comes when I am satisfied I can add no more based on information I have, I propose to go into Manage tree and export a Gedcom to my PC. My visitor does not have an Ancestry Tree though I persuaded him to take out a 14-day trial so he could view the information to date and discuss things with him. I suggested he find himself free FH software program (for which I consulted the appropriate Forum page because I am a little stale on new software) and load onto his PC. When satisfied with his choice he is to let me know and I will then send him the Gedcom attachment which he can enter into his FH software. I have explained how he can take advantage of free online research and the pros and cons of taking out subscriptions if he so desires for Ancestry & FMP; and yes I also mentioned about Lost Cousins. I have planted the seed so must now await the harvest.

 

This might deserve a posting elsewhere but as it is a direct aftermath to the above it is a sort of continuation of what I found on Research. It goes someway to explaining how bare bone facts get distorted in Chinese Whispers fashion. I begin with the story as passed on to me by a brother and sister about their paternal Grandfather (see previous) which I now show in a little more detail.

>The Grandfather (believed to be John and an Engineer who travelled about) had been born in Leeds, married his first wife there, known to be Anne who bore him 4 children but it was believed the 4th died in or after childbirth and was a girl.

The Grandfather when working in Wales had an affair with a Welsh lady who bore him two children. It is believed the first wife committed suicide upon learning of her husband’s infidelity.

(Somewhat apocryphal: The 3 surviving children were handed over to an Orphanage connected with the Church (?) in Coventry. Later it is believed the children were claimed back by the father and brought up within the second marriage in Birmingham.

The Grandfather married the Welsh lady (believed Margaret) some years after Anne's death and together they brought up the two children and had another 7 after marriage. They assumed the 3 (surviving) children from the first marriage also became part of the family.

At some point John & Margaret moved to Birmingham where their father Harold was born and later moved to Rugby. The sister was confident there had been 13 children in all, with two mothers, but not sure of who was born to whom? About 6/7 could be named after a fashion (Mary or Marie, Jack or John, Ann, Anne or Annie sort of thing) allowing they had birth names the same as those known to them as Aunts & Uncles. They thought 5 of the 13 were girls and 8 boys, but could be wrong on this!>

I did not take long to pick holes in the story and I can tell you that contrary information found on research did not go down to well. However, in the end I was able to satisfy that whilst I only claimed some 75% accuracy at this point - admitting it needed to be supported with further research (and not necessarily by me) – I did pacify a little by saying they could take some comfort from seeing how certain facts - for instance the Coventry element – were supported with evidence; albeit not quite as passed on to them.

Here are some of the salient points:

> The Grandfather was not born in Leeds but West Bromwich and his family before him. His first wife Anne was born in Leeds as was their first child but later they moved to Birmingham where the next two were born. Anne had her 4th child Annie in 1905 in Wales (who did not die at birth contrary to family information). Anne’s death (I cannot verify a suicide) was also registered in Wales in 1909.

Before Anne died and in Wales he met Margaret (a Welsh lady as her family before her) and had an affair and a girl (Hilda) was born 1906. Margaret was to have two more children out of wedlock (so 3 in total, not 2 as the family believed) and they married in 1915 in Birmingham and 6 more children followed. (So the total children 4+3+6 agreed the total of 13.

What was of substance and backed up the Coventry element of the apocryphal story that Anne’s children were looked after by a Coventry Church based Orphanage – came when I discovered in the 1911 Census that Margaret was in Coventry with ANNE’S 4 children(She had adopted her (then) partner's surname although they did not marry until 1915. She annotated on the Census: ‘husband away at work’ …and ‘I do not know where the children were born’. Here too was proof that Anne’s 4th child did not die at birth. In the same 1911 Census, but in Leeds, John is shown as a Lodger and gives a Coventry base address.>

That gives a small insight as to how stories have a basis in fact but just get distorted. So for instance a child supposedly dying in 1905 was alive in 1911 whereas Margaret’s first child Hilda born 1906 was not with her in 1911. So perhaps this was the child who died before 1911?

Questions beget questions and there is of course a myriad of other inconsistencies which I have passed on and which I am sure are being debated within the family. I have done my bit to get to the facts, and I am sure in time the truth, or as near as can be hoped for, will come out.

 

Bob, this sounds just like my husband's maternal family! Their stories contained just enough "facts" to make them almost believable. I did my bit to get to the truth, not always to the satisfaction of family members.

 

Yes Margery and what I find amazing, although perhaps I shouldn't, is that they tell their stories with a sort of ..'this is what we learned from the family, for what it's worth'... and then when you offer alternate facts saying it was not quite as you were told, they feel affronted as though you are calling them liars. I have just emailed some Censes & BMD facts to the brother and await to hear what he thinks.

 

I thought it would be of interest to update the latest family story being passed on to me as I am researching the family mentioned above. I am now told (by the person for whom I am undertaking the research)...'my ex wife's family on her mother's side (maiden name Coleman) can be traced back to Sir Thomas Guy who found Guy's hospital in London'. Now I must admit that 'snippet' of information' roused my curiosity and very reminiscent of something out of WDYTYA. He asked if it was something I could confirm, to which I answered probably not, but for the right reasons.

I told him that would involve deep and dedicated research. Just think of the number of generations involved, and perhaps crossovers between maternal & paternal lines as one goes back in time. That would be work for a professional Genealogist and would be costly. If such proof existed in the family he would be best advised to seek it out, whilst I concentrated on what I promised to do unravel his immediate Tree.

As always curiosity got the better of me as I discovered one or two things of interest. For a start there is no evidence that Thomas Guy was knighted. He was born in Tamworth Staffordshire in 1644 and died 1724 in London. He was the son of a London Lighterman and Wharf owner of the same name and Anne Voughton from Tamworth (Staffordshire); they married there in 1643. The most important fact however was he never married! As well as being the de facto founder of Guy's hospital (founded 1721), he was a Bookseller, Speculator & Benefactor. He represented Tamworth in Parliament for the period 1695-1707. In 1995 a carriageway by-passing Tamworth was named Thomas Guy Way.

After unearthing those facts and passing them on I highlighted the fact he had never married, and leaving aside any bastardy offspring (agreeing with Peter it is a perfectly natural word to use in Genealogical research) that might or might not apply, any connection would have to be via siblings and marriages. Given that the 'Coleman' family I had researched so far (back only to the mid 1800's ) had upwards of 8 children per generation, I told him he would have to either obtain the proof via the family, or employ a professional.

If I was being really mean I could have pointed him in the direction of My Heritage where he would undoubtedly meet a handful of people who would be only too happy to help.