This site was created using MyHeritage.com. my tree was compiled in familysearches PAF
I originally started my tree about 18 years ago from various notes my sister, a cousin and I had on the family. At first I kept the tree to just direct ancestors and cousins but very quickly came up against brick walls or end of lines. One day I could not find any one to research,'net research then being in its infancy, and so I decided to just look at a relatives in wield Hampshire spouse’s paternal line. I discovered that the line not only connected via that spouse but that the line connected both a few generations back and forward also in to my direct line. From that day on I have actively researched all persons within the tree and added all persons which connect no matter how they connect whether they are direct or not as long as they connect to the tree via a name already there. My priority is of course my direct line and cousins but would love to hear from all who find a connection to the tree. Unfortunetly as this is the free version of this site i am unable to load all the persons in my tree on to this database but you can access a text version of my full tree on RootsWeb (a free to use site) or a full tree at Ancestry ( a cermercial site) by entering the name 'DONNA ' - 'ADAMS HUTTON' year 1998 place CROYDON.
I have a few rules which govern my tree. Firstly and most importantly I must be able to check all data in census, parish records or certs’ extra, I will also accept IGI as well within reason.
My second rule relates to the above some what. I have had to exclude all none UK except those with direct ancestor/cousin connections as I live in the UK so I can not verify all data out with. I have a few connections to the tree out with the UK which are direct and do have relatives I am in contact with who can verify some of these for me and now and then I will increase my ancestry membership to world deluxe and can find some collaboration there. The main reason that most non UK are excluded is also because of the vast numbers the tree generates especially from the USA and I am unable to cope at this time with the numbers of entries I would have myself.
Currently I am not adding any one to the tree found here due to the limitaions as a free user (rootsweb is the place for the most up to date tree with all persons ) but I would still like to have the information for future inclusion. Another reason for this is simply because I am trying to add as many missing dates now the BMD’s are on line and also the notes needed to be cleaned up as I felt they were a mess and rather vague. With 4100 names and a single parent this takes time i am also not in good helth. But do check my notes for two reasons this is where you will find I have references too the information and also you will find references too some of the family members I have not yet given their own records. If you can’t find the info you want I do have a lot of info from contacts which includes geds some of which I don’t have permition to merge into the tree directly. One such contains almost 5000 names only about a handful of the names are in common with mine! I can also point you in directions on the net to trees which also connects.
Another thing you will find is that I have used BMD’s refs from FREEBMD or ANCESTRY. I always check both for each reference where possible. Unfortunately being a single mum I am unable to buy any certs’ even for my direct ancestors (my younger sister buys these), so help here is appreciated.
I can not say that my tree is 100% correct but I try my best to make it as near as I can after all I am only human and the people concerned are mostly not alive to ask. This now brings me to another very important point. I had to add this to my trees were possible in regard to my most senior WESTBROOK relation and recreate it here as I feel it is important to warn others as ancestry’s ‘ONE WORLD TREE’ still exists and alters trees:-
THIS IS THE CORRECT VERSION OF THE TREE
The USA content you might find showing for his (Thomas Westbrook 1728/ 1732 of
Hampshire)birth, death and for his parentage ON VARIOUS OTHER TREES is erroneous information which was CREATED BY ANCESTRY'S ONE WORLD TREE PROGRAM BY AMALGAMATION OF TWO TREES that I have found with dismay has been accepted and past around as fact by others. One tree, the original data shown here on my tree, was submitted by me to One world tree and concerns the wield Hampshire Westbrook’s, the other was submitted by another researcher and concerned the USA Westbrook’s. When our trees were submitted to One World Tree THE PROGRAM decided that these two Thomas Westbrook’s were the same person despite the fact they came from two different continents and had two different set of dates in the birth entry. THERE ARE NO PARISH RECORDS WHICH CONNECT THESE TWO
TREES AS NONE EXIST ANYWHERE. This is for the simple reason THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE FAMILY'S. Thomas Westbrook of brown Candover/ Wield Hampshire, DID NOT have American parents. He DID NOT go to or come from, never lived or have ANY connection to the
USA, of course this applies to the USA Thomas he had no connection to England what so ever. The data that you have possible found which show both USA and English connections HAS NO GENEALOGICAL TRUTH WHAT SO EVER. It is a factious amalgamation which was created by a very unreliable bit of programming produced by ancestry. Unfortunately this is now being accepted by many researchers as true. I have checked all data in the Hampshire parish records for this the correct tree please check my tree which is always to be called 'A FAMILY WANDERING BRITAIN' where my work on our common family remains unaffected by the ambiguous one world tree program and where I have used true data from PARISH RECORDS not a computer programs amalgamation.
If you have any comments or feedback about this site, please click here to contact me. Our family tree is posted online on this site! There are 5942 names in our family site. The site was last updated on Nov 20 2018, and it currently has 5 registered member(s). If you wish to become a member too, please click here.