There is a weakness in the way Ancestry is perceived. That is, it allows speculative data to be published without the burden of proof. In itself that is a good thing, since it allows an incomplete story to be put out there in the hope that others may hold the rest of that story. However, this situation can draw less experienced researchers into accepting fiction as fact and before we know it wrong information is out there and being accepted as correct. The mind-set being – “It must be right - I found it on ancestry”.

By example my own research work, which by necessity contains a few speculative connections, has been made available to others together with a significant amount of supposition data explaining what is missing, and hence requiring further proof. I did this to encourage others to dig deeper and prove or disprove those speculative parts. Now I see all my data online, presented as fact and with all my supposition data stripped out. Even worse I have latterly seen others quoting that “source” as “fact”.

Another worrying point is that at least one researcher has amended the spelling of surnames in my research. That is replacing the ancient forms (Fullilove/Fullylove) with Fulleylove long before that variant appears in old records. I have a well-researched essay on the evolution of all the Fulloflove family of names and this plots EXACTLY when Fulleylove and other variant forms came into being in the 18th century. Presenting Fulleylove as having older roots is genealogical hooliganism at its worst. Before c1750 ALL these folks were Fullilove/Fullylove. (If others would like my essay then I am happy to share that in order that this folly can be stopped and corrected).

Hence if you are interested in the Fullilove, Fullelove, Fullylove or Fulleylove families whose roots were originally in Leicestershire (fl 1497), and then in Warwickshire, Huntingdonshire, Staffordshire and later in Wales, Australia, Virginia and elsewhere please be in touch before accepting what appears online as “truth”.