Search for content in message boards

Only female common ancestors?

Replies: 46

Re: Only female common ancestors?

Posted: 2 Jan 2013 12:41PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 2 Jan 2013 12:45PM GMT
I was given an ancestry provided surname match of a man to a woman in the early 1700's. Obviously this is not the exact same person. And she cannot account for that surname being handed down (there are living men with this surname). She married and her children have a different surname (which changes each generation).

So another question that I have would be do I look for a match among her descendants children who would actually have a different surname or look for a sibling or father and follow the surname, or could it be the mother with yet a different surname. No one appears to have a father for her in any tree that I have seen and there is almost no documentation for her so finding the father could be challenging. The same with a brother since I would have to have a parent to find the brother. Also, she was a first generation immigrant so she could have arrived on the boat from anywhere. If I am truly related to her, there does appear to be some information for her spouse but that was not the match. I am not sure what direction to head with just having her. In other words am I trying to follow the surname or her family whatever the name (could be the so frequently overlooked mother)?

That was another issue concerning women that I am noticing is that people seem to be forgetting the wives ethnicity and focusing only on the surname ethnicity.

SubjectAuthorDate Posted
peggyannchown... 3 Jan 2013 1:35AM GMT 
sl_kelly 3 Jan 2013 1:40AM GMT 
peggyannchown... 3 Jan 2013 1:53AM GMT 
scwbcm 2 Jan 2013 7:41PM GMT 
Smilebird 3 Jan 2013 5:09AM GMT 
smsitton 3 Jan 2013 5:25AM GMT 
Smilebird 3 Jan 2013 6:23AM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | Privacy | Terms and Conditions