Much is made in genealogy about sources. Purists insist that only the "proven facts" can be published. I think this is misleading and more importantly, takes all the fun out of the search. It is also inconsistent with the way the genealogical research is done in the real world.

      The "holy grail" of genealogy is supposed to be primary sources such as birth certificates and marriage certificates where a living person is available to record the necessary information. These are supposedly the most accurate. After that comes, secondary sources such as death certificates which, while exceptionally rich in family history, are tainted by the lack of a living respondent. My experience is common with other researchers. Time and time again I have found both primary and secondary sources that are clearly wrong……people make mistakes, people don’t know, people sometimes lie.  For example, I have one interesting ancestor who never seemed to age more than 5 or 6 years between every census despite the fact that they were taken every ten years.

      The experts  tell you when you first begin your family research to go find the oldest living members of your family and pick their brains for what they know. Most people know who their grandparents are and in general are good for about 100 years worth of information. Having collected the family lore, we are cautioned that somewhere around half of what we are told will be wrong. This should not be surprising.  Some folks remember it wrong, some were told it wrong by someone else or simply the facts have been blurred over the years. Someone who tells you that, for example, he is descended from Robert E. Lee is more likely to have had an ancestor who was standing by the road one day when Robert E. Lee rode by. The story gets "enhanced" as the years pass.   Here’s an interesting fact: There are no descendents of Abraham Lincoln…his only son who lived to be an adult had two children but neither married or had children of their own before they died as senior citizens (Thanks Debbie).