Part of genealogical research is evaluating what you have and altering conclusions when new and more reliable information warrants. Early in our research when we are inexperienced, it can be tempting to rely too much on family information. It can also be easy to rely on incomplete information–especially before we learn that “official” records can be incorrect or inconsistent. And sometimes DNA and other information will cause us to re-evaluate what we thought was true even when we had a number of records and completely analyzed them. My children’s great-great-grandfather (father of their great-grandmother) has morphed through many iterations over the nearly thirty years that I have researched him–always because I have located new information: And so it goes. Don’t be afraid to admit you were wrong, but […]
An excellent way to learn about records, research, and methodology is to “rework” a family that you think you already know. Probably the best way to really understand court, probate, land, and other records is to completely research them on a family that’s “already been done.” Completely reading those records in families where you already know the family structure will allow you to focus on details (legal terms, especially) other than the family. It’s a great way to broaden your understanding of records for those times when you don’t have all the names and relationships at your disposal. And sometimes when you “redo” a “done family,” you realize that it wasn’t as done as you thought it was.
The 1928 death certificate for Belle M. Tinsley of Popular Bluff, Missouri, indicated she was fifty years of age at the time of her death. While there are blanks on the certificate to provide for more age precision (months and days), those details were not listed on the death certificate. Belle could very well have been fifty years of age when she died in March of 1928. It is remotely possible that she died on her birthday. The more likely scenario is that the listed age of fifty was an estimate. Ages ending in a “0” are more likely to have been a guess on the part of the informant. It’s very possible that the informant indicated the deceased was “around fifty” and that was entered solely as […]
Consider bringing something with a little bit of color on your next tombstone photographing trip. That flash of color (red in this case) can mark which stone was the one of interest when taking pictures from a distance to show perspective or the location of the stone. Sometimes stones all do look alike–much more than the ones in this cemetery in Tioga, Illinois.
Some researchers will “believe” something when they have three sources that provide the same piece of information. One has to be careful using this approach. Sources may all contain information from the same person or “original source,” which does not really mean that three “sources” agree. It could only mean that the same person gave the information three times. And there is always the chance that the second two “sources” got their information from the first. Think about who provided the information, why it is in the record, and how reasonably the informant would have known the information. That’s a good way to get started with information analysis.
Just because the spot for the months on his age is blank does not mean that Henry Dorges was 18 years and 0 months old when this declaration was signed. He could have not provided his age with more precision than 18. He might have simply guessed at his age. It’s hard to say, but saying that this declaration was made on his birthday is a bit of a stretch. What is safe to say is that Henry indicated he was 18 when he signed the declaration. Whether that age was correct, accidentally wrong, or an outright lie is another matter. The year of the declaration is not included in the portion of it used to illustrate this post. There’s the second tip–screenshots and clipped versions of record […]
Are you looking in other records besides census records and death certificates for occupational clues on your ancestor? Obituaries may provide information about your ancestor’s occupation or at least mention memberships that may provide some indirect insight. Estate inventories are good places to get an idea of what occupation your ancestor might have had. Those with city-dwellers in their family tree should use city directories for clues of this type. Land records in some locations may provide occupations as a way to clearly distinguish the individuals involved in the transaction. Court records may also provide some insight into your ancestor’s occupation. And don’t forget some European church records use occupations to distinguish men of the same names from each other. Any record could provide information about your ancestor’s occupation. Just […]
Do you have Grandma’s roses, Great Aunt Susan’s lilies, or other ancestral flowers or plants? Are you the only one who knows what plants originated where and what their history or provenance is? If you care about passing that information along or think that those who live past you will want to know, consider creating a map. Put that map with your other important papers. It’s not necessary for the map to be fancy or look like an engineer drew it. The important thing is that it preserves and passes along the information.
Did your pregnant relative travel back home as the expected date of birth for their baby approached? In some times and places, distances may have made this travel impossible. But if the time and place are right, it may have been easier to make the trip home than the researcher may expect. I’ve got a person I’m researching who was from Pittsburgh and lived in Washington, DC, with her husband after her marriage in 1905. But the last baby she had in 1909 was born in Pittsburgh in her childhood home where her brother and unmarried sisters still resided. While there may be a few details about the birth and her travel that remain a mystery, consider the possibility that someone may have returned “home” to give birth.
Whenever you are writing or talking about a person be specific. First names are rarely specific enough, particularly in some families. First and last names are best, perhaps combined with a date of birth or date of death. My mother has three Aunt Ruths. It usually took more than just “Aunt Ruth” to know to whom someone was referring. Sometimes it was clear from context, but not always. Don’t create additional confusion in the records you leave behind. Be specific.
If someone is your ancestor, they were born (hard to avoid that), they reproduced (married or not), and eventually died (hard to avoid that as well). Everything else is somewhat negotiable–within reason. Everything else you “think” that is true about them may not be true. This gets especially true as your research extends back in time and what a person “knows” often is based more on what we assume as opposed to things we have evidence for. They might not have attended the same church their children did. People change churches for a variety of reasons. They may have spelled their name differently than their descendants do or did. They might not have really cared how it was spelled. They might not have been a member of the […]
Generally speaking, the easiest explanation is usually correct. The more logical hoops one has to jump through, the more times one has to “put away common sense,” and the like, the more likely the explanation isn’t correct. Unusual things do happen, but there is a reason that they are unusual. That “oops” baby great-grandma had at the age of 55, twelve years after her last child was born, most likely is a child of one of her daughters in their late teens. The more creative you have to get to explain something, the more likely something simply is not correct. Now…if you find first hand evidence of those unusual events, that is a different story. Just make certain the informants are reliable. And sober…it helps if they were […]
An 1881 affidavit in a War of 1812 pension case mentioned three children of the veteran and his wife. The youngest of those three was the one making out the affidavit and she referenced the dates of birth for her two older siblings. That was necessary to backtrack into a time frame for her parents’ marriage. Information on the younger children was not necessary to establish that marriage date–so they aren’t mentioned. The genealogist needs those names. The pension official did not. Always keep in mind the original purpose of any document and analyze it in that context. Not your own. The document may have been complete and accurate given the situation in which it was created. A lot of us don’t do more work than we need […]
When you think you are done with your research, ask yourself: Sometimes when we think we are done we are. Many times we are not.
If things “don’t quite make sense,” consider that a couple’s first child might not have been both of theirs or might have been born less than the “necessary” time after their marriage. Their last child, particularly if born significantly after the couple’s other children, might have actually been their grandchild. Most of the time a couple’s children are theirs, but there are times where other possibilities could be the reality:
Recent Comments