I did a search on ancestry.com for my gr-gr-grandfather, John Rivers. I put in his birth and death information and found exactly 6 results – all in the family trees section. Out of those 6 results, 5 were public member trees and 1 was in OneWorld tree. I just thought I would check the public member trees to see if I could gather any new clues about John. What I found was both interesting and frankly rather disappointing.
Out of the 5 trees, 3 of them were the exact same tree – just submitted by 3 different people. These 3 had source citations – the exact same ones. Clearly, they were just copying each other. The other 2 were unsourced, but one of them was actually more useful and I am waiting to hear back from that person.
I point this out because the 3 trees that were carbon copies of each other have completely incorrect information in them that the other 2 trees had copied. The incorrect information is GLARINGLY incorrect which is what makes this so much worse. The 3 trees have him married twice and living in 2 different states in 1880.
According to these three trees, John was born 16 May 1823 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada and died 21 November 1902 in Taymouth [Township], Saginaw [County], Michigan. This sort of coincides with information that I have (although I have his birth as April 1824).
The 3 trees have John married twice with his first wife as an Elizabeth and two children – Elizabeth Betsy and Susannah. The problem is this can NOT possibly have been the same John Rivers. The wife Elizabeth has a birth of 1765 and a death of 1810 (her death is 13 years BEFORE John Rivers was born – how could they have been married?). The daughter Elizabeth Betsy Rivers was born 12 Jan 1780 in Virginia and died 1822 in Green Kentucky. The daughter Susannah was born 25 Dec 1783 in Virginia and died 1824 in Green Kentucky. Both daughters were born before their father was born???? Come on – it’s obvious that this family does not belong with the John Rivers born in 1823/4 in Montreal Canada.
These 3 family trees also give that John Rivers was living in 2 different states in 1880 – one in Albee [Township], Saginaw [County], Michigan (who is my gr-gr-grandfather) and one in Newport, Orleans, Vermont. The census for Vermont gives his age as 56 born Canada and lists only children who were born in Vermont with him – John age 24, Fredie age 18, Annie age 15, Melvina age 13 and Eugene age 10. The census for Michigan gives John as age 55 born Canada with wife Jane (Francis Jane) age 34, children Betsey age 16, John age 14, Thomas age 10, Gardner age 8, Birtie (Burt Eugene) age 4 and Daniel (James Daniel) age 1. All the children were born in Michigan. The ONLY things that the Vermont John Rivers shares with my gr-gr-grandfather is his name and birth year/general place. It is a coincidence that these two happen to have the same name and same birth year/general place. It is clear that these are 2 separate and different John Rivers. They are not the same person as these 3 trees suggest.
I really wish that people would just not copy information and tout it as accurate without examining the evidence. This is a perfect example of why you cannot count on the information in the family trees section of ancestry.com. It provides clues only – not truths. And in this case – not very good clues even.
Oh. The one tree that was more useful was a tree that was unsourced (which always makes me a little suspicious), but was one that did NOT just copy information from the others. Yes, the birth of John was copied, but it only listed one wife and one child (which is inaccurate). But it gave more information on that child – that Daniel was married twice (which I knew and the names matched) and had at least 2 kids – one by each wife. That was new – I didn’t know about the 2nd child. This person was clearly a descendant of the 2nd child by the 2nd wife and was completely new information to me. That is why I pursued contact with this person and am waiting for a response now. Am I taking it as gospel? No, not until I make contact with that contributor and verify the information.
