r***@btinternet.com
2012-09-07 08:34:26 UTC
We all know that there is an awful lot of genealogical garbage out there polluting the Internet,
but I came across an Ancestry record yesterday that simply defies belief!!!
Take a look at.....
http://records.ancestry.com/Mary_Topley_records.ashx?pid=2634974
This concerns one MARY TOPLEY, whom I happen to be interested in. The website carries
the heading "Mary Topley (1572-1839) and the copy below it tells us that Mary Topley "Born
1572. Mary married Thomas Dexter. Mary married Thomas Dexter and had 3 children. She
passed away on Apr 1839."
Really? So Mary Topley/Dexter was aged 267 when she died!
Scroll further down the page and we find that Mary married two men both called Thomas
Dexter, one whose dates were 1568-1676 (so he would have died at 108) and then another
Thomas Dexter whose dates are given as 1609-1840, so he would have been 231.
Click on Thomas Dexter No 2 and the family tree becomes even more bizarre! We are told
that Thomas was born in Dedham, Essex, England, in 1609. He married 1) Dexter and 2)
Mary Topley and they had 4 children.and Thomas passed away in Sep 1840 in England.
Click on one of the children, George Topley Dexter, and you find on his record that his
parents are stated to be Thomas Dexter (1609-1840) and Mary (1572-1839).
The only thing right about this record are the death dates of Thomas Dexter and Mary, who
both in fact died at Oakham, Rutland (England's smallest county), at the dates stated.
How anyone can seriously confuse two totally different men and their wives from a couple of
centuries apart and combine them into the same family trees is utterly beyond me! Shouldn't
there be some kind of law that debars people who clearly don't have a clue what they are
doing from ever taking up genealogy? Or is it something to do with Ancestry's often peculiar
system of record-presenting that has confused and defeated me?
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE
but I came across an Ancestry record yesterday that simply defies belief!!!
Take a look at.....
http://records.ancestry.com/Mary_Topley_records.ashx?pid=2634974
This concerns one MARY TOPLEY, whom I happen to be interested in. The website carries
the heading "Mary Topley (1572-1839) and the copy below it tells us that Mary Topley "Born
1572. Mary married Thomas Dexter. Mary married Thomas Dexter and had 3 children. She
passed away on Apr 1839."
Really? So Mary Topley/Dexter was aged 267 when she died!
Scroll further down the page and we find that Mary married two men both called Thomas
Dexter, one whose dates were 1568-1676 (so he would have died at 108) and then another
Thomas Dexter whose dates are given as 1609-1840, so he would have been 231.
Click on Thomas Dexter No 2 and the family tree becomes even more bizarre! We are told
that Thomas was born in Dedham, Essex, England, in 1609. He married 1) Dexter and 2)
Mary Topley and they had 4 children.and Thomas passed away in Sep 1840 in England.
Click on one of the children, George Topley Dexter, and you find on his record that his
parents are stated to be Thomas Dexter (1609-1840) and Mary (1572-1839).
The only thing right about this record are the death dates of Thomas Dexter and Mary, who
both in fact died at Oakham, Rutland (England's smallest county), at the dates stated.
How anyone can seriously confuse two totally different men and their wives from a couple of
centuries apart and combine them into the same family trees is utterly beyond me! Shouldn't
there be some kind of law that debars people who clearly don't have a clue what they are
doing from ever taking up genealogy? Or is it something to do with Ancestry's often peculiar
system of record-presenting that has confused and defeated me?
--
Roy Stockdill
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."
OSCAR WILDE