Why dont the ancestry records match up?

Question

The LDS index shows my great, great, grandfather having married a Catherine Gowing in Wiltshire Uk in 1836. No record of her death.

He is listed as a widower when he married my great, great grandmother Martha Day in Wiltshire 1843. The Genes Reunited site says there is no record of his 1st marriage or wifes death. Who is accurate, the LDS or G/R?

Also they say no record of him in any Census. Tracing further back to 1810, the same thing, listing by LDS but no record G/R.

Answer 1

You are looking at "submitted works" in both cases. The trees weren't professionally assembled and double-checked for accuracy. They were the work of earnest people who were researching their own trees and submitted them when they found what they could find. But that doesn't mean that anyone went back and double-checked the work to make sure they looked everywhere and got everything right. The real answer is to do your own research and look for the things other people overlooked. If you're like most of us, you'll find the "submitted works" are sometimes full of errors and can only point you in one direction. But you need to take the research and verify each step, not assuming anything is right until you prove it yourself.

Answer 2

In this particular case (and all genealogy gets particular), there ARE 2 entries in the LDS International Genealogical index.  And one of those entries is based on a church extracted record, meaning, a volunteer made transcriptions of original documents.  Here is the info on where to find that-

Source Information:

Batch No.:   Dates:   Source Call No.:   Type:   Printout Call No.:   Type:

M153202   1754 - 1895   1279370   Film   NONE  

Sheet:

the marriage for George and Martha FOREMAN is shown also as extracted

M153202   1754 - 1895   1279370     Film   NONE  

Sheet:

As Genevieve's mom says, many or most "files" on the internet are not factual RECORDS or sources, but the marriages above are the exception.  It is very hard to explain to new researchers that Genes reunited, ancestry.com, "lds files", etc,  are websites, not actual records, and why.  The same is true of ancestry.com..  it DOES have images of original census records, but ALSO has compiled family trees.  The person submitting the information to GR states there is no record of a 1st marriage, when the actual comment SHOULD be "I didn't find it".  

One way to help you define the difference is to PRETEND in your mind that the internet does not exist, and you are doing research the old fashioned way. Meaning, your only way to get valid information is personally going to the courthouse, the cemetery, so forth. NOW, which of the information you find online, is BACKED UP by a stated source, that you could go to and check for yourself? If the source given is someone's gedcom, it means the person really does not know the source, except someone else told them.  And someone else might be just guessing.

If you are certain that George is the same man in both of the above (which, with common names, you MIGHT have 2 different men) - then it is inferred that Catherine's death was between 1836 but prior to 1843. Then, if you find George in the first census after the 1843 marriage, WITH A CHILD BORN in 1841, you can figure Catherine was still living up to that date.

Seeing as the GR submitter did not find a marriage that I personally found.. I would not take their word for him not being in the census. I have not used UK census records, so don't know if 1841 will include all family members by name... but I certainly would be doing a repeat search for myself. This would be even MORE critical, if you happen to descend from a child of George, whose date of birth is debatable, and MIGHT fall prior to the 1843 marriage.  If that is the case... Martha may not be your ancestor, but could be stepmother to any such child.

Bottom line... the internet is a tool for research.  If you don't get the ORIGINAL RECORDS, you will run into conflicts.