Genealogy Chat

Following on from the other questions I have just been adding information to lost cousins:( free to search on Monday as an anniversary offer) and have found 11 direct ancestors on the 1881 census. It would be more if I could find my Wiltons who I know are living at the Crown inn in Kelston.

Hi Annie I dont know all the handy web sites yet, which is the site you talking about? Jayne

These, perhaps? Anne Witton abt 1850 South Stoke, Somerset, England Wife Kelston Somerset View Record Christopher Witton abt 1879 Kelston, Somerset, England Son Kelston Somerset View Record Elizabeth Witton abt 1860 Bitton, Gloucestershire, England Niece Kelston Somerset View Record Emily Witton abt 1874 Odd Down, Somerset, England Daughter Kelston Somerset View Record Florence Witton abt 1879 Kelston, Somerset, England Daughter Kelston Somerset View Record Francis Witton abt 1876 Kelston, Somerset, England Son Kelston Somerset James Witton abt 1843 Kelston, Somerset, England Head Kelston Somerset View Record Martha Witton abt 1837 Pikeridge, Devon, England Head Kelston Somerset View Record Walter Witton abt 1866 Kelston, Somerset, England Son Kelston Somerset You must always check for mistranscriptions........... Reg

Thanks Reg. I knew they must be transcribed wrongly but tried the usual suspects such as Walton and Wilson. Jayne. Lost cousins is a site that tries to link people through the 1881 census as you have to give your ancestors folio and page number it shoud be more accurate than hot matches. I have only just discovered it so don't know how many names they have on there or how successful they are. You can discover your ancestors free on 1881 at familysearch.org. It depends on being able to find them though.

I currently have 17 direct ancestors 39 Blood relatives 16 related by marriage and 0 matches :(

I've got loads of my rellies and ancestors up on Lost Cousins and have been a member for ages, and only ever had 1 match (a year ago) and that was somebody I had already got in contact with via GR. So don't get too excited! I really can't understand why one of the family history magazines recently gave Lost Cousins top marks for value for money and this site bottom marks, since membership costs about the same (mind you, I haven't ever been asked to pay a subscription to LC yet) and this site seems to give you so much more. I can spend all day on this site, and frequently do, but as for LC, all there is to do as far as I know is add your rellies and click search and log off! Just found my stats: Direct Ancestors 20 Blood Relatives 179 Related by marriage 14 Total 213 (I don't put up the 'related by marriage' ones unless his / her spouse is not on the census) Kate.

Hi Kate I have never had a contact either, but I do think this is possibly to do with not enough people entering their relatives. If everyone did it would be more accurate than the hotmatches here as they would be correct matches with the census of 1881. Not just getting 100's of Jones' sent regardless of place or date of birth :-( It is free to enter your rellies on the site, and my understanding is that when you press search your matches (if there were any) would show up. To contact the people with the 'matches' you would have to subscribe. But subscribers can contact you and you can reply as a non-subscriber just like on here. Maybe this is why they are giving people a free weekend, hoping more people will make contact. I will try the search button everyday this weekend just in case I find a match - fingers crossed Good Luck everyone Yvonne

Hi Annie Here are my stats not brilliant either I'm afraid Direct Ancestors 19 Blood Relatives 51 Related by marriage 11 Have to keep looking Yvonne

All of my direct ancestors were either dead or in New Zealand by then :-( I have a few distant rellys listed on Lost Cousins in the vain hope someone might see them and recognise them but no hits yet and I am not hopeful. Why did my lot have to be sooooo adventureous and head off to the new world that early. The 1841 is the only census when I have any hope of finding all of them at home. Christine in NZ

My stats: Direct Ancestors 29 Blood Relatives 139 Related by marriage 42 Been a member (non-subscriber) since November 2004, and not one contact or match so far :-( Richard

I have not used lost cousins, but was interested to see what my stats would be for direct line ancestors only: Alive in 1881: nil Parents (I'm not that old! LOL) 1...Grandparents 8...G-grandparents 10..2xG-grandparents 3....3xG-grandparents 22...Total Too complicated for me to work out the other types! Merry

Once upon a time I had wishlists for the censuses, but goodness know where they've disappeared. It took me a long time to grasp the principle that at any time in the past at least one ancestor was alive. 32 ancestors in 1881, but I haven't a clue how many extended family members I've found. But it is entirely a matter of luck. Best friend was born when her father was fifty three, so she's probably got no more than six or seven ancestors on that side.

Thanks for putting this thread on - currently 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 8 gt gt grandparents and 2 3Xgt grandparents but checking made me realise I'd missed off my Smith gt gt grandmother (that's the one who had actually died the day before the census date but was still head of the household lol), so if I go and put her on now that will be 23 in total. I've only had two contacts via Lost Cousins, and both were already known to me but perhaps by putting my Smith rellies on there I might get some more likely links than the hot matches on GR have produced :-)

!881 census grandparents 2 my grandmothers were both born in 1882 greatgrandparents 8 great great grandparents 11 great great great grandparents 1 aged 92 late a coalminer total 22 direct ancestors I think tomorrow's offer on lost cousins means if you do match with someone you can contact them free of charge. I have been playing with the site today and have been able to print off a useful table of census reference codes, and certificates held. You can also sort ancestors by age and household which gives a different way at looking at information.

Found loads more since putting this lot on - but i haven't had a single ocntact. Direct Ancestors 37 Blood Relatives 159 Related by marriage 30