Will we be the last generation able to do family research?

helenbee · Post by **helenbee** » Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:30 pm

I've continued this from another thread as I'm interested in responses to this question. I am wondering if future generations will find family research virtually impossible, if you think of the changes in family structure over the past few generations. Although the amount of information available online is increasing all the time, there has been such a trend away from traditional marriage relationships and loads of people would have difficulty tracing their parents let alone their grandparents and beyond. How often do we hear or read about a woman having several children by different fathers, none within a legal marriage?

And what about future generations with a same-sex partnership in their line? Today in the papers I read that lesbian couples are to be allowed to register themselves as joint parents with no mention of the natural father.

How about the complexities of relationship that egg and sperm donation are creating?

(Please don't take any of this as criticism, anyone - it's not intended to be.)

I'm just glad I'm doing my research now - it's difficult enough with the number of illegitimacies and odd marriages that I've found (my great-grandfather married his stepdaughter after his wife's death).

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:51 am

I think genealogy research will continue, but it will be more complicated. The software is going to have to make allowances for same sex marriages, sex changes, multiple partners and so on. Because if the software doesn't match the needs of the data, it WILL be too difficult.

Post by **AndrewP** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:15 am

Some more points to ponder.

Another issue that will face the genealogists of 100 years time is the amount of people who dodged the census or gave false information to evade perceived government spying. Rumours went about that government departments (tax, police etc) would have access to the data when it was fresh and be able to track down criminals, tax evaders and the like. The Government gave assurances that the only information that would be used immediately would be used to show general trends (not name specific) and definitely not used for spying purposes. Anything that was name specific would be sealed for the 100 years closure. But some were still suspicious, or chose to lie low, so either dodged the census or purposely gave false information. Good luck to the genealogists in 100 years time when they have that information to look through.

Another complication will be tracking the more mobile population. Emigration is far simpler now. Gone are the days like my paternal line. Tracing back my father's father's father's, father's etc, I can go back seven generations looking at all the birth, marriage and death records, plus the open censuses, and show that at all of these events took place within a ten mile radius of Ratho, Midlothian. What are the chances of that for the next seven generations?

All the best,

AndrewP

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:18 am

That's a good point Andrew. And in Australia's recent census, people had the option of having their data shredded rather than kept for 100 years. I think (from memory) a massive 40% of paranoid people chose that option. A big GEE THANKS, NOT!!!! from the future genealogists.

Post by **paddyscar** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:50 am

The most recent Canadian census allowed you to opt out of having any of your census information included in future releases.

Frances

helenbee · Post by **helenbee** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:53 pm

Good point - I hadn't thought of that one! I knew it applied to the electoral roll, where you can choose not to have your information in the public version, but that still doesn't stop people avoiding it altogether. If they do the same with the census, heaven help us! I imagine that the Child Support Agency was also responsible for a number of people choosing not to make their whereabouts known...

trish1 · Post by **trish1** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:18 am

Hi Helenbee

I don't think it will be any more complex than now - perhaps less so. Many of the issues you mention existed in the past - but some were also "hidden", whereas today it is more socially accepted to have single parent families/multiple partners and the like, so perhaps folks are more inclined to know the truth of their parentage. My parents were researching before the internet existed & I have found many things in the last few years that they could not find without much travel and manual searching of source documents, or alternatively paying for professional assistance.

I don't think the increase in the availability of information from records offices and similar will reduce and as more and more information is indexed, access becomes easier. There are legal requirements to register BDM events & even if one was inclined not to do so, there can be serious financial and identity issues if one does not register, which was not always the case in the past.

I have found some almost insurmountable issues from the 19th century, due to families hiding the truth (or perhaps not knowing the truth) of family situations. So many folks listed as Mr & Mrs xxx on census information - have no easily found marriage information. Children were often given the name of a step parent and thus tracking their forebears is somewhat difficult. We all have families that can't be found on the census - perhaps there were reasons in the 19th century that folks didn't want to be recorded (the comments I have read from some enumerators could be a good reason not to tell the truth!)

Despite the comment on 40% of the Aust Census of 2005 being shredded - 60% will be available & since 1841 there has been NO census information available in Australia - so 60% is a big increase from nothing.

Such things as adoptions in western countries are very much regulated with detailed records maintained. I have one friend who has a virtully insurmountable brick wall because her mother was "given away" at birth. The "adoptive" parents gave her a little information on her family, but using this information the family and her birth cannot be found. Latest thoughts are that the information given was wrong, but it is now 100 years too late to find the "real" story.

So for many reasons, I think the research may get easier, rather than more difficult & certainly not impossible.

Trish

helenbee · Post by **helenbee** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:22 am

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Helen

djcrtoye · Post by **djcrtoye** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:44 pm

Reading about the census shredding what's the point of going to all the expense of orginising one then turning around and destroying 40% of it. I think the census in the future will be optional my reason is lots of paranoid people are becoming the majority now in not trusting any governments and their ideas are now becoming mainstream. So the percentage of people filling in the forms will come down even though its compulsory.

trish1 · Post by **trish1** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:32 am

djcrtoye wrote:Reading about the census shredding what's the point of going to all the expense of orginising one then turning around and destroying 40% of it. I think the census in the future will be optional my reason is lots of paranoid people are becoming the majority now in not trusting any governments and their ideas are now becoming mainstream. So the percentage of people filling in the forms will come down even though its compulsory.

As I mentioned above - destroying 40% is a BIG improvement on destroying 100% - perhaps Australians (being partly descended from convicts) have been paranoid about governments since European settlement

Trish