Genealogy/Family Tree software

[Bill]

I've been passed some scans of a hand written, hard to read, family tree going back generations and with possibly some gaps between the 11th century and now.

I'm not interested in Genealogy, but there seems to be a family push to get things together. I've already been persuaded, and have started, to scan in old photo albums full of pictures of so far totally unidentified ancestors, so I suppose a readable tree would be useful to someone.

Does anyone have views about suitable free Windows programs for this?

Is it possible just to type it into, say, a basic spreadsheet, or do any of the specialist programs use standard database formats so that data typed in will be reasonably future proof and recoverable? What is Gedcom compatibility and is that any use?

Basically, I'm asking what to type the data into so it might be usable by someone in the reasonably foreseeable future.

[S Viemeister]

You might want to ask advice over at

[Tim Watts]

The format you want is

It's ascii, and AFAIUI *the* defacto standard that anything decent can use.

[michael adams]

Basically why not just tidy up the stuff you've got, and anything additional you can find in Word or your DTP program of choice and print out a few copies on archival quality i.e acid free paper, along with copies of the scans date of transfer etc put the copies in archival quality envelopes with Family Tree written on the outside and distribute copies to however many relatives might be interested, either for themselves or to save for their children.

If you're serious about the 11th century - or have not simply been told like a lot of other people that you're descended from William the Bastard/Conquerer/1st then its likely that one of your more illustrious rellies, given that clearly you're not all peasants may have already done some of the work.

Stuff written on paper is far more future proof and is more likely to be looked at in the future than is stuff on somebodies computer which will doubltless be buried amongst loads of other stuff - files etc.

michael adams

...

[Chris Hogg]

While I'm sure you can build a family tree using a spreadsheet, a dedicated family history programme will give you a whole lot more and make researching a lot easier and better structured.

There is a standard format that allows the exchange of family trees between different programmes.

Most family tree programmes will allow saving in that format, as well as their own particular format.

I use RootsMagic, not for any particular reason; it was the first I hit on, a few years ago. I find it OK; it does what I want. There may be better ones, but it's the only one I've tried. At the time I got it, it wasn't free.

But there are also quite a few free programmes out there.

and a comparison chart here

I see RootsMagic does a cut-down free version. Bearing in mind my version is 3.2.4, and they're now up to version 7, the free version is probably not very different from what I use.

Unless someone has a very unusual surname, I'm extremely sceptical of any family tree claiming to go back much beyond 1750. Before then, you're relying on Church registers, which give much less information about the individual than say the official birth, marriage and death registers and census returns, that came in later and were much more detailed. Without that detail it's almost impossible not to go down the wrong road at some point. I stopped researching my tree some years ago, having got back to about 1780, for that reason. There were just too many possibilities to choose from.

[Bob Eager]

Get a free WikiTree account and stick it is there. It's very capable, quite easy, and you can export GEDCOM if you wish.

[Brian Reay]

[Brian Gaff]

It is the same question as how do you future proof any data. How do you make it understandable in the future and as you say readable enough to understand any description of the format. Brian

[Harry Bloomfield]

michael adams formulated the question :

On paper, if it goes back far, it can become very unweildy and needing large pieces of paper to get it all in. Then when it needs modification, as more people are discovered, you need to start again. It is much easier on a PC.

A free site, where you can build up such a tree is

The site seems very reliable, well supported, with plenty of facilities. It is the one I have used and my tree is traced back to the

16th century. The more relis you find, the more appear.

Your own research, is often supplemented by the efforts of others, in the form of hints you are sent. Its well worth reviewing the hints to confirm their validity, before accepting them.

It is a really fascinating subject - I found several interesting mentions of my ancestors in local papers from the 1500's.

[michael adams]

Doing it on PC indeed makes it easier for the compiler right now, but my suggestion was mnainly directed at the question "who is this for" or in the end who is going to benefit from Bill's work in the future, say in 50 years time or whenever ? While they may all crowd around the computer screen right now if sufficiently encouraged to see the results of Bills efforts, (even assuming they actualy undestand what they're looking at

- not that Bill's rellies are thick or anything. just "normal") will they still be doing that in 60 years time ?

From his original question, Bill's not familiar with genealogy, but why should we assume any of his family are that interested in PC's either ? Reference has been made on here to GEDCOM compatability; which indeed will make sense to genealogy enthusiasts or anyone curious enough to follow the topic up on Wiki. But why should anyone assume that any one of Bills relatives in the future will be sufficiently intersted in the topic to immerse themselves in the subject sufficient to make sense of what Bill has left them ? That's even assumimg that they find these files on a computer, a disk, USB stick, in the clousd or wherever and can actually identify what they are. And have access to a computer screen large enough to make sense of a family tree before just giving up.

As to the large paper size, even going so far back as MSPublisher 95 its been possible to print large sheets as posters comprising loads of separate panels. Maybe all I'm saying to Bill is, whatever software you chose to use, you're probably better off in the long term printing it all out if you "want to be sure" it's to be of any long term benefit to anyone.

I stand to be corrected but AFAIAA there were no local papers in the 1500's. The earliest newspapers started in the mid 17th century - "Courants" which carried mainly foreign news about the outcome of European battles as this would affect market prices for imports etc and were circulated in cities. Amsterdam, London etc. Printing domestic news of any kind was subject potentially to strict censorship and penalties, prison etc. The provincial press only got started in the 18th century based on largish towns.

michael adams

...

[John J Armstrong]

I agree with everything Chris has written, except that where he uses RootsMagic, I use familyecho.com, also free. I'm saying nothing against RootsMagic; my reasons for using familyecho are exactly the same as his, IYSWIM! It too supports GEDCOM, is easy to use, and produces clear print outs. If you have access to an A3 printer, so much the better, of course.

I too am sceptical about all these trees claiming to go very far back. I've been researching since 1990, and the oldest date I'm happy with is 1680, and that's because the names Grizell and Prudence reappeared over different generations, and there was other strong supporting evidence. Apart from that one line, I can't be certain of anything before about 1770 or so, and that's because although Civil registration in Scotland didn't start till 1855, Scottish death certs are a mine of info. including the names of the deceased's parents.

[Harry Bloomfield]

michael adams explained :

Agreed, a silly error - unable to find the actual stored documents on my system, I had to make a wild guess as to the rough publication dates.

One reference made mention of a reli who had gone out in the middle of the night, to help sort out the mess of a mail coach which had crashed with a hay cart being driven by a drunk. There were deaths involved and reli was called to court to give evidence about the incident. They had drunken drivers even then.

Another was a then young reli who had been having a drink with his girlfriend. The girlfriend worked for a farmer and the farmer had become rather attached to the girl. Said farmer stormed in the pub and stabbed the girl to death, reli was in the court to give evidence.

Another I found, was something about the sale of a large property and land, but I wasn't able to find out enough details to be able to make proper sense of it.

[Chris Hogg]

And copies of Scottish BMD certificates are readily available for a modest price (a couple of £ IIRC, the last time I looked, a few years ago now), much cheaper than getting the equivalent English certificates from the General Register Office, so getting it wrong is not nearly so expensive (and you do get it wrong, quite often)!

IMO people of Scottish descent have a much easier time exploring their family tree than those of English descent. I'm of...er...'mixed race', BTW, so have explored both.

[Chris Hogg]

Just a thought: if you put your tree onto 'Ancestry',

it will be on record for future members of your family and others, should you so wish, and for as long as Ancestry exists. What would happen to what must be an enormous archive of family trees* if Ancestry folded, I don't know, but I can't believe it wouldn't be preserved by some academic institution, for example.

*(albeit not always the most reliable: I've found examples of children older than their parents, and other inconsistencies!)

[Robin]

not now:

copy from National Registers Scotland £12 online

copy from General Register Office £9.25 online*

*the GRO were piloting a system where for £6 you were emailed a PDF. I don't know if a decision has been taken on the future of that offer.

[Chris Hogg]

I'm talking about copies obtained through ScotlandsPeople

Quote "The number of credits and costs of digital images for the different record types are as follows:

Statutory registers of births (older than 100 years), marriages (older than 75 years) and deaths (older than 50 years) cost 6 credits (£1.50) Census returns and church registers of births and baptisms, marriages, deaths and burials and other events cost 6 credits (£1.50) Valuation rolls cost 2 credits (£0.50)"

There may be something similar for English records now, but there wasn't at the time I was researching my trees, or if there was, I didn't know about it. The caveat about the ScotlandsPeople images is that they're not useable for legal purposes, whereas AIUI copies from the GRO are, as I assume are the Scottish ones you refer to.

[Robin]

Just a suggestion to think before putting trees on Ancestry (or any other site). IIRC Ancestry's they are by default public. And while great x 3-grandparents aren't going to complain, your living relatives might.

You can make the tree private. But that may defeat the "for posterity" purpose.

The best advice I've heard from family history obsessives is to try to find someone younger on your tree with an interest to whom you can bequeath it all.

[Robin]

Ah, sorry, thanks for that. I was patently out of date.

[Bill]

In message , Harry Bloomfield writes

As the OP, my problem is that I don't, at the moment anyway, find it at all fascinating. I just felt, and have been gently encouraged, that it might be sensible to get what we have typed up so that others don't have to struggle so much with the handwriting on the old manuscripts we have.

There is a box with the family tree in two large sections inside. A family member has scanned this in as a bunch of A4 sheets that would have to be assembled to make any sense. The current keeper of the box is mentally and physically unwell. His son, who worked for Oracle, was killed - vanished - in the Twin Towers but had been working on computerising the family tree. Unfortunately no-one knows what happened to what he had done.

I am very grateful for everyone's suggestions. My problem with the ones I have looked at so far is that they appear to be aimed at someone interested in the research rather than just recording what we have.

The ones I have tried include Wikitree and Family Tree Builder but they both seem associated with sites that require registration and want to "Help with my research". This put me off as I already am up to my ears scanning in old photos of unknown family members from decaying albums, and attempting to label them. Readers of another forum may remember that it took me a week getting my W98-only handheld scanner (with Japanese software) running satisfactorily on a VM.

I'm beginning to think that the simplest thing would be to start typing up names from the top down and assembling it all using ascii art, then or simultaneously, putting this into whatever simplest GEDCOM supporting program that I can find.

[Chris Hogg]

In which case forget the web sites, research and ASCII art, but install a simple free programme (see my comparison list), and start filling in the boxes with what you've got. But I'd start from the bottom up, i.e. the most recent member of the tree (which may be you), rather than the top down.