09 November 2012

One Wrong Move

Comments after the jump. 

 TREE #1
 CHARLES WIGGINS FOSTER
 B: 28 Nov 1883 in St. Louis, MO
 Parents
 William Livingston Foster, B: 1850
 Mary M Wiggins (1856-????)
 Spouse
 Married in 1919 to Annie B. [Last name unknown] (1899-????)

 TREE #2
 CHARLES WIGGINS FOSTER
 B: 28 Nov 1883 in St. Louis, MO
 D: 29 Sep 1962 in Bexar, TX
 Parents
 Turner Saunders Foster, Jr. (1849-1886)
 Mary Wiggins (1858-1886)
 Spouses
 Married in 1918 to Anne Belle Bradley (1898-1989)
 Married to Mollie Pearl Foster (1890-????)

ⓑⓐⓡⓚⓘⓝⓖ  ⓤⓟ  ⓣⓗⓔ  ⓦⓡⓞⓝⓖ  ⓣⓡⓔⓔ

Charles Wiggins Foster is not in the direct line of the home person on either of these trees but since they've added parents and children I'm going to assume, for our purposes, that they have some interest in his line. Both have three sons for Charles and Anne/Annie. Since two of them are living I won't list them here but they were all born between 1919 and 1926. Tree #2 has the correct son listed as dead. Tree #1 shows a different son with a death date in 1990. That's incorrect. The only reason I know is because my step-niece spoke with him about this time last year to ask if I was on the right track with her tree. Charles William Foster is in her line.
Tree #2 is a complete disaster but let's start with the mistake that led them both astray. This record is attached to both trees. For those of you with a current Ancestry.com subscription it's on the page on the right, 7 lines from the bottom. For those who don't, here are the important details:

 Birth date: 1883 Nov 28
 Name: Foster Charles Higgins
 Father's name and place of birth: T.S. in Tenn
 Mother's name and place of birth: Mary H. in St. Louis

Only one problem, the Charles Wiggins Foster born 1883 in Missouri to T. S. Foster and Mary Wiggins died in 1911, unmarried. So if they're researching descendants of someone on their tree and trying to find distant cousins they should delete spouses and children for Charles Wiggins Foster. He had neither, unless there's an illegitimate child or two somewhere. If they're looking for the ancestors of Charles W. Foster and Annie Bradley's sons then they should delete the parents they have for Charles.
One misstep and suddenly they're researching the wrong family. It's nothing that can't be corrected if someone decides to pay attention. Even professionals can go down the wrong path. Crista Cowan's family did. I'm not telling tales out of school. She talks about it in this entertaining and informative video.
(More about the Tree #2 disaster after the video.)



Back to Tree #2. Here it is again so you don't have to scroll so much.

 TREE #2
 CHARLES WIGGINS FOSTER
 B: 28 Nov 1883 in St. Louis, MO
 D: 29 Sep 1962 in Bexar, TX
 Parents
 Turner Saunders Foster, Jr. (1849-1886)
 Mary Wiggins (1858-1886)
 Spouses
 Married in 1918 to Anne Belle Bradley (1898-1989)
 Married to Mollie Pearl Foster (1890-????)

Here's a look at some of the mistakes related to records attached to this profile.

 RECORDS

 1900 US Census: Living in St. Louis, Missouri with many family members including his mother.
 Yup, she died in 1886 but is on the 1900 census. Impressive.

 1910 US Census: Living in Wise, Texas with wife Pearl M. and daughter Bonnie (age 1 yr. 5 mo.)
 1920 US Census: Living in Joplin, Missouri with wife Mollie P. and daughter Glena M. (age 1 yr. 1 mo.)
 It looks like these two censuses were combined to invent the Pearl Mollie listed as Charles' spouse. Despite the fact that the wife in both 1910 and 1920 is 20 years old.

 World War I Draft Registration Card: Charles William Foster, B: 27 Nov 1881, with "nearest relative" listed as "Annie Bell Foster, wife." Living in San Antonio, Texas.
 1920 US Census: Living in San Antonio, Texas with wife Annie and one son (age 7 mo.).
 1930 US Census: Living in San Antonio, Texas with wife Annie and three sons (ages 10, 7 & 3).
 Texas Death Certificate: Parents are listed as James H. Foster and Mary Frances Dennis.
 Just because a record was attached doesn't mean the tree owner read it.

 Texas Marriage Record for Annie Bradley (B: 1902) & Donnie Spicer (B: 1918) wed in 1977.
 Yes, this is attached to the 1918 marriage event on Charles' and Anne's profiles. I could probably do an entire blog post just on the wrongness of this record on this profile. Sigh.

As I've done in the past I wrote a story pointing out the differences between Charles William Foster and Charles Wiggins Foster. It's attached to Charles William's profile on my tree. Hopefully it will show up as a hint for some of the clickophiles and give a few of them pause. Not holding my breath on that one but I'm glad to see that it's been attached to a couple of trees that have the correct info.


PREVIOUS POST: My Two Dads
NEXT POST: DNA Will Solve Everything - Part 2

10 comments:

  1. ROFL @ "Yup, she died in 1886 but is on the 1900 census. Impressive."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have been trying to find out about something and the only way I know of to contact you is here on a comment, Hopefully you will get it.
    I have been working on my family tree for about a year. Of course I understand how the first cousin second cousin once removed or twice on down the line works but I also have some that my program shows that they are related to me by steps. I have one for example that is a 2nd cousin 4 times removed I believe it was but when he shows up in the tree again on another line it shows him being related in steps. Is that the same as generations back.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have included a sample here from out of my tree. and I guess the way I take it maybe its being related through marriage

    Benjamin Bartlett is a 1st cousin 8x removed-His grandfather Love Brewster is a direct descendant 10 generations
    Benjamins wife Ruth Pabodie is related to me 11 steps- Her grandfather John Alden is related to me 13 steps.

    I use ancestry to search but actually I have all the genealogy books on my whole maternal line and the program I use to do the tree in is My Heritage and that is the one that lists how they are related.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't get it. Is Ruth related to you another way? If not she's only related to you by marriage so her grandfather isn't related to you at all.

      Delete
    2. The only explanation that I can see is that it is a relationship calculation specific to your software program.

      It looks like they are calculating how many steps it takes to arrive from an unrelated person to you.

      From you to Benjamin Bartlett is 10 steps (1st cousin, 8x removed) an additional one step is added to connect you to Ruth, his wife, because of their marriage. Giving you the 11 steps. And you can see that 2 more steps would get you to Ruth's grandfather giving you the 13 steps calculation.

      Delete
  4. Yes she is also in the Wadsworth Line and so is her grandfather Twice in fact, Back then I have found a lot of cousins marrying and it has gotten quite confusing keeping up with her was who in the family or a man after his wife has died marrying her sister or the same with the women marrying her dead husbands brother.

    I can let you look at my family tree if you would like

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have only been doing this for about 10 months never having done genealogy before except on my dogs. All I know is The Brewsters, Aldens,Bradfords,Bartletts married into the Footes, Freemans Wadsworth,Hurlbuts,Clapps(These last two the main lines right to my maternal Grandmother/Grandfather)
    So I reckon the steps mean they are not really related but their family down the line is.
    Thanks for your help I will keep digging and se what I turn up. This program usally tells me if they are not related or how they are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have decided that even though it says they are related by steps I am taking them out of the tree. They are related through a daughter/son in law and really do not contribute anything to the blood line.Thanks to the comments that heloped me realize that I was filling up my tree with people related through marriage only.Will keep the parents and nothing back further

    ReplyDelete