If your great grandparents on one side were cousins, what is the acceptable tree

Question:Or somehow noting that both branches are same and equal and show only one branch. These branches go back to adam and eve and there are thousands of names.
Could I have something like: same as so-and-so branch. What is correct in the Genealogy circles?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Or somehow noting that both branches are same and equal and show only one branch. These branches go back to adam and eve and there are thousands of names.
Could I have something like: same as so-and-so branch. What is correct in the Genealogy circles?

I have come across quite a bit of this in my family and I gave up on making "family tree" charts. I wrote the thing out instead. One example is James I. Monypenny, 25th Laird of Pitmilly who married his 1st cousin Mary Blackwell Monypenny. I showed this at:
http://www.robertsewell.ca/monypenny.htm...
and
http://www.robertsewell.ca/monypenny.htm...

The above information sounds strange; but it is from a notebook left by Mary Beatrice Blackwell Monypenny (1872 - 1932). Mary was a granddaughter of James and Mary and is shown at http://www.robertsewell.ca/monypenny.htm...

I must admit that I never thought of trying to put this in a programme such as "Family Tree Maker" and letting it sort the thing out. I think I'll try this after tea break.

Are you doing this on paper or using a program?

If it is a program for spouse you might have the option of choosing the option of someone already in the tree- then you can let the software sort it out.

How long have you been at genealogy? You cannot possibly have thousands of names and going back to Adam and Eve.......AND your research be accurate and legit.

It takes YEARS to research several hundred names, have the documented proof of your research, and your research be accurate.

AND.......there is little, if any paper trail documentation of anything before about 1400 or so. So, to say you have your tree all the way back to Adam and Eve is very poor genealogy work as you cannot possibly have documented proof of anything back that far since they did not document anything. The Bible has no place in responsible genealogy. It is not legal documentation as there is NO other proof or documented source of anyone in the Bible.

Your "research" is very negligent and irresponsible. You are doing a grave disservice and being dishonest if you upload that tree on to the internet for someone else to find and confuse them into believing it is accurate and you actually have documented research of all that.

If you REALLY did the proper research, you wouldl have learned as you went along the answers to the questions you are asking and would already know what is correct in genealogy circles.

What is acceptable in genealogy circles is that in spite of what you find on the net and what you believe you know, there should be no one in your tree you cannot prove and back up with legal documentation about their existance, their rightful place in your tree, and any dates or other info you include about them. This requires birth/marriage/death records, census records, wills and probate records, court records, land records, ship records, church records, etc. If you cannot do that, then you cannot responsibly add a person to your tree. Even with that, you will be VERY lucky to get back to 1500, and in many branches, you will not be able to get back any further than 1700 or 1800. The Bible is NOT a legal, accurate source.

All you have done is what us genealogists call "name collecting". If you just want to collect a bunch of names, go get a phone book and carry it around. It will be more accurate than what you've got.