You may (rightly) think that the number of separate trees will be dictated by the extent to which I am able to find links between people, together with my decision of who to add as trees: do I add people who will not be attached to anyone else, or only where I have at least a couple, or couple with a child or … That certainly is a consideration, but not what I am considering here.

This is about how I use TNG, the software that I use to display my family tree online. ‘Tree’ in TNG terms means what I decide shall be lumped together under a single heading such that a single ‘tree’ search will return any individuals from that ‘tree’ that fulfill the search criteria.

For a family history where one is looking at one’s ancestor perhaps having them all fit together on one tree is the norm, although my ‘tree’ certainly contains a few small unattached tree-lets e.g. the beneficiaries of an ancestors will who I suspected were related – although I now think they were probably only neighbours, and some families with the same name as my ancestors who due to their location I suspect are fairly closely related – only I have yet to work out how.

But with a one-name study the situation is rather different. There are likely to be lots of different trees (in the usual genealogical sense), possibly of more significant size, that hopefully will be linked into fewer larger trees as time goes on.

So should I have 1, 2 or many trees?

If I have separate trees for my family (including the Kent Goathams), for the Devon Gothams, for the Staffordshire Gothams, the Liverpool Gothams, etc. then it helps those only interested in one section. Search, view the calendar, ‘what’s new’ or various other parts of my website and you can restrict what you view to just that part in which you are interested.

However, if I then find a link I can’t link them without combining them into one tree. That will mean the url for an individual’s page would change, possibly breaking bookmarks people have created; in addition, I’m not sure I could keep the person’s ID number the same, and my notes about contacts would get out of date, any media links would break (i.e. links on a persons page to any photos, documents or articles etc.)

This suggests one tree might be best, and those with limited interests will just have to put up with the site being a bit less helpful.

I asked for advice from other GOONs who use TNG and the replies suggested just one tree.

I’m not ignoring this, I did move away from thinking of half a dozen trees as result. However, possibly foolishly, I am going for a compromise. I don’t really want those who have a chunk of my tree in common with them to have to put up with even more irrelevant content (more than they see already for the parts of my tree which aren’t theirs, that is). So I think I am going to create 3 trees:

1. The one I have at present, my own family history.
2. Gothams from other parts of England, including strays. Even if DNA shows we are related I doubt I will be able to link the Kent Goathams to the Devon, Staffordshire or Liverpool Gothams.
   Even so, I may be being foolish; perhaps a greater risk than me (or anyone else) finding a link is the possibility that I will discover I have Devon Gotham ancestors, and then want them on my main tree! (I already know of a link: one Anne CUMMING married first a William GOTHAM, and then a distant cousin of mine, 4th cousin 8 times removed, to be precise, Giles NARRAMORE. I am content, though, to have a handful of people on both trees with references from one to the other).
3. I think I will create a separate tree for the early de Gothams (apart from the Devon ones). Most of the data I have regarding these is from much later sources, and I am not sure how trustworthy it is. I’d rather not mix it in, and I’m almost certain I won’t be able to link them to anyone else for whom I have data.