Good morning Pat,
I have two big Somerset Catley trees listed on my main "all Cat*ley bmd
spreadsheet" :-
1) Emery of Midsomer Norton
2) Thomas of Welton
Logic tells me, given the geographical closeness, that these two lines are
probably linked together but so far, I do not think that anybody has been
able to make a connection. (We have a dna test on Emery's tree on file with
FTDNA as part of their Cat*ley name project).
I have Robert Suple and Robert John as 2/6 children born to Robert William &
Ann Nee Brodribb and 2/3 of their children who died in infancy. My
information comes from Glynis Brown an Emery of MSN Catley tree member who
did a lot of research on both trees a few years ago now. We also have on
List :- Jann Parks and Andrew Hayes who are co-lateral members of this tree
and should also be able to confirm if the data is accurate.
Happy Christmas Tim Cattley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat H" <patsm2010(a)gmail.com>
To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
I have come across the following information on public trees and was
wondering if anyone could verify whether this is correct or not. The
following are listed as the children of Robert William Catley and Ann
Mary Brodribb but I have not been able to find them in any "official"
records.
Robert Suple Catley
20 Nov 1833 - 21 Nov 1833
Born: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
Died: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
Robert John Catley
15 Jul 1835 - 30 Jul 1835
Born: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
Died: Bedminster, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England
Thanks and Merry Christmas
Pat
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, <catley-request(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Public trees available on research sites (Tim Cattley)
> 2. Re: Public trees available on research sites (Chris Newall)
> 3. Re: Public trees available on research sites (Tim Cattley)
> 4. Re: Public trees available on research sites
> (Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:05:39 -0000
> From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
> Subject: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
> To: "catley @rootsweb" <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> Message-ID: <1B0C5442641E427CB6E0A4610C41B092@NewUser>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
> found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that crop
> up on internet research sites?
> All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
> contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>
> It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my case)
> are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees connected
> by marriage events which in many instances, took place less than 100
> years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each surname in a
> frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then proudly post the
> results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on the grounds that
> "bigger is better" ?
>
> It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought about
> by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research mistakes
> being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own original
> research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been avoided.
> In my case, there are numerous instances where would be genealogists have
> managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees in to one by
> mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a Garforth tree
> female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>
> It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
> "I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
> policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
> them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct. However
> such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment with no
> guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention the
> possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the facility of
> modifying/editing information already contained.
>
> What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
> attempt change?
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:43:54 +0000
> From: Chris Newall <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
> To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
> Message-ID: <uFCussBq3K1QFwXG(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
>
> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>
> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>
> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>
>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>
>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>
>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>
>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>attempt change?
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> --
> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:39:40 -0000
> From: "Tim Cattley" <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> Message-ID: <6DE2A2EEBA8D4308AE7CA7A4D9A17A87@NewUser>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Thank you Chris,
> I take it that you proffer helpful corrections privately or is it via the
> public comments provision that the web sites provide? The latter
> would have more impact for obvious reasons but would that be a
> step too far?
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Newall" <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>
>
>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>
>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>
>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>
>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>
>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>
>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>
>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>attempt change?
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>-------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>> --
>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes
>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:30:49 +1300
> From: "Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov" <prvanov(a)xtra.co.nz>
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> Message-ID: <00b001cddfdb$97a55880$c6f00980$(a)co.nz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi there Tim,
> Often I ask people how they have come to their conclusions, and
> invariably
> there is no response, as I am truly interested in case I have made a
> mistake
> somewhere. My view is that everyone has to be aware that unless there is
> documented proof, then its someone else's assumption.
> Jocelyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: catley-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:catley-bounces@rootsweb.com] On
> Behalf Of Tim Cattley
> Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2012 12:40 p.m.
> To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>
> Thank you Chris,
> I take it that you proffer helpful corrections privately or is it via the
> public comments provision that the web sites provide? The latter would
> have
> more impact for obvious reasons but would that be a step too far?
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Newall" <chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk>
> To: <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Public trees available on research sites
>
>
>> When I was a novice researcher I made an assumption which resulted in me
>> assigning the wrong set of parents to one of my ancestors. Another
>> researcher pointed out to me where I was wrong. I am eternally grateful
>> to him for that and have been much more careful since then. I now shun
>> assumptions like the plague unless they cannot be avoided, in which case
>> I make clear that my conclusions are 'provisional'.
>>
>> So I generally try to point out to such people the errors in their data,
>> along with the facts as I know them. This rarely results in a published
>> correction but at least I have tried. To try to get them to correct the
>> error of their ways as well is a task quite beyond me.
>>
>> A very Happy Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and [hopefully] Prosperous
>> New Year to all in the Catley study group.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Tim Cattley <felis(a)mypostoffice.co.uk> writes
>>>I presume that I am not alone in being concerned by the errors to be
>>>found in other peoples attempts to record Cat*ley family trees that
>>>crop up on internet research sites?
>>>All too often I come across peoples work which has been made public but
>>>contains fundamental errors caused by assumption, speculation, or worse.
>>>
>>>It is interesting to note that in all instances the authors (in my
>>>case) are not Cat*ley tree members but way off members of other trees
>>>connected by marriage events which in many instances, took place less
>>>than 100 years ago but the authors see fit to chase back up each
>>>surname in a frantic effort to bag as many names as possible and then
>>>proudly post the results as multiple tree compilations, presumably on
>>>the grounds that "bigger is better" ?
>>>
>>>It is also obvious that many of these erroneous efforts are brought
>>>about by a certain amount of cribbing with classic (known) research
>>>mistakes being repeated and compounded. Had the authors done their own
>>>original research work, it is probable that such mistakes may have been
>>>avoided. In my case, there are numerous instances where would be
>>>genealogists have managed to merge two different Yorkshire Catley trees
>>>in to one by mistaken attachment of a Normanton tree male Catley with a
>>>Garforth tree female to create a hi-bred pseodo tree!
>>>
>>>It is very easy to take umbrage when seeing such errors taking the view
>>>"I am not having our tree misrepresented" and assume the role of
>>>policeman by making contact with the perpetrators and attempting to get
>>>them to make the necessory changes to get the genealogy correct.
>>>However such actions invite a considerable amount of time investment
>>>with no guarantee that the author will make adjustments not to mention
>>>the possibility that certain web sites do not seemingly offer the
>>>facility of modifying/editing information already contained.
>>>
>>>What are your views on the subject, does one leave things alone or
>>>attempt change?
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>-------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>> --
>> Chris Newall EMail : chris(a)rebus.demon.co.uk
>> Ealing, London, W5 Website:
http://www.rebus.demon.co.uk/
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes
>
>> in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
>>
http://www.iomartcloud.com/
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To contact the CATLEY list administrator, send an email to
> CATLEY-admin(a)rootsweb.com.
>
> To post a message to the CATLEY mailing list, send an email to
> CATLEY(a)rootsweb.com.
>
> __________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com
> with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the
> body of the
> email with no additional text.
>
>
> End of CATLEY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 44
> *************************************
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
___________________________________________
This email has been scanned by iomartcloud.
http://www.iomartcloud.com/