The best way to get new insight into a problem is to get away from it. Put that “brick wall” away and do something totally unrelated to your genealogy for a while. Sometimes the mind simply needs to let things stew for a while. If you just can’t put your brick wall away, then work on another problem. Personally I have the best breakthroughs when I walk the dog and discuss my problem with him. He never interrupts or criticizes and it gives me time to really think. Sometimes criticism is good, but one needs time to organize your thoughts and put them in order. Constantly researching non-stop does not allow that to happen. Riley is one of the best brick wall breakers I have.
In 1858 a patron of my relative’s bar was killed in an altercation with a tenant who lived in an apartment next door. For years, I referred to the incident as a “murder.” The reference to the incident was inaccurate. I should have referred to it as a “killing,” a “shooting,” or something similar. Are you using the right word when referring to something? Are you using a word that may be conveying a message that’s not entirely accurate? And I actually need to review what charges were brought up against the shooter. Just because a newspaper called it murder does not mean that a court did.
A relative is married in 1843 in St. Louis, Missouri. He is married again in Illinois in 1848. The most likely scenario is that she died. It is possible that the couple actually divorced or separated and never bothered to divorce. The divorce would have generated a court record. A separation that never resulted in divorce may not have generated any records at all. But I should not assume the first wife died unless there is some additional evidence other than simply the subsequent marriage.
Do you only look for relatives in college yearbooks when you know they graduated? Is it possible they attended but were unable to graduate? Finances or “real life” may have prevented your relative from graduating college, but they may still appear in college yearbooks as my aunt does in the 1934 yearbook for what is now known as Western Illinois University. Genealogy Tip of the Day book is here. Learn more about it..
I’ve been working on the ancestry of a Mary Dingman, born in Canada (probably Ontario) in the early 1810s. There are online trees taking her family back generations. The only problem is that there’s not really anything solid on her connection to her parents. That needs to be solved before I put all those earlier ancestors in my file. Since information on Mary herself is coming up short (she died in the 1850s in Illinois), I could trace her purported parents and siblings (and maybe even purported grandparents and cousins) in hopes of something turning up on her, but I need to wait to put them in her actual tree until I have a more solid connection. Genealogy Tip of the Day is proudly sponsored by GenealogyBank. Try their […]
Our goals here at Genealogy Tip of the Day are simple for the most part. They are generally to get readers thinking about: the research process what they find analyzing what they find their assumptions about research and their ancestors terminology and language used in records the history, culture, and environment in which their ancestors lived And we try to be short—that’s sometimes the difficult part. Tips are not meant to be verbose or lengthy discussions. The intent is to make people aware or to remind them of a topic, concept, term, etc. Longer discussions are posted on my Rootdig blog. We also appreciate those who purchase a webinar, one of the recommended how-to books on my virtual shelf, or a GenealogyBank subscription through our affiliate link. Those things help support […]
Transcriptions are not necessarily unreliable, but one needs to be aware if one is using the original record or a transcription of it. These town records from Marlborough, New Hampshire are actually transcriptions of the original records. The “first page” of the book indicates that it is a copy and the handwriting is too consistent throughout the volume to have been done contemporaneously. Transcriptions can always contain errors–after all, transcriptionists are human. It may not be possible to get the original and it’s not always necessary. But it’s always worth knowing what you are using.
Your ancestor’s name may not appear in the city directory or directories may not be available. Classified ads in the newspaper may tell you where the person lived or had a business establishment. They may also help you confirm addresses for people who moved around quite a bit–sometimes one step ahead of the rent collector.
DNA testing will not solve all your genealogy problems. It is only one tool. It can confirm that a relationship exists between two people, but it needs to be used together with other genealogical sources to establish the precise nature of the relationship. DNA testing won’t tell many of the biographical details about your relative that will be in other records. One can’t simply send their DNA to one of the sites and expect to have a completed pedigree chart returned to them. It’s more complicated than that. I’ve finally taken the plunge and ordered a DNA test–which will be discussed in more detail on my Rootdig blog. I’m hoping to get some clues, but not a completed pedigree chart.
There are several ways one can approach “problem-solving” and it’s been mentioned as a tip of the day before. One way is not necessarily any more correct than another. The important thing is to think about your research as you do it. I’m a fan of the problem-solving process attributed to George Polya, which I’ve slightly modified. There are essentially four steps in the problem-solving process: Understand the problem–this involves learning the history of the area, learning the applicable laws of the time, all the records available (and their issues), knowing key terms in any documents already located, assumptions you have made, your ancestor’s background, etc. Understanding takes time. Plan–pick a record to access or an approach to use to answer your question Execute-search the record or apply […]
I originally wondered why the oldest son was not the administrator of this 1823 estate. One reason was the son was only twenty when his father died and not old enough to legally administrate the estate. He would have needed to be twenty-one.
County histories may mention people who never lived there. This Marlborough, NH history mentions a native of Ontario never set foot in New Hampshire. She married into a family who spent time in New Hampshire–but the family member she married left as a young man and never returned. The clue to your puzzle may have been published several states away.
It seems obvious, but a will only lists those children to whom property is being given in the will. A testator (the person signing the will) may have had other children to whom property had already been given. These children may not be named in the will. Sometimes they are named if only to state that they have already received their inheritance and are not intentionally being left out. Do not assume every child is named in the will. Do not assume there have to be other children either.
After waiting for years, I decided to take a DNA test in hopes of learning more about my Irish heritage. You can read more on my Rootdig blog.
Appraisers of an estate can be relatives of the deceased, but they cannot (usually) be heirs or beneficiaries of the estate. If one of the appraisers of an estate has the same last name as the deceased, then they are not an heir or a beneficiary. It usually is a violation of state statute, not to mention good practice, to appoint someone with a direct interest in an estate as an appraiser of that estate.
Recent Comments