Our Memories Are Family History, Too

Recently, I was watching Hazardous History featuring Henry Winkler. If you're in my age bracket, I'm sure you remember The Fonz. While we swooned over his motorcycle, leather jacket and bad-boy image in the 70's and 80's on Happy Days, he's just as enjoyable now on the History Channel. Though he no longer sports the leather motorcycle jacket, he does rock a brown suede jacket appropriate for his age. (Right now, I bet you're wondering why I have an image of a giraffe instead of Fonzie? Stick with me and read on!)

I was watching S3Ep13, titled "Animal Anarchy" and was reminded so much of my younger years. Virtually everything they touched on in the episode brought back truly fond memories. Memories I don't think I've even shared with my male offspring. Here are some of the highlights...

First, they delved into how, years ago, you could buy baby alligators in Florida, to take home as a pet.  While they actually stopped selling them around 1967 (the year before I was born), I vividly remember asking my dad, while on a trip to visit family in Florida when I was in elementary school, if I could have a baby alligator...he said no. I was too young to understand it was no longer legal, or to comprehend baby alligators turn into great big dangerous alligators. Besides, Baltimore hardly boasts the proper climate to raise a happy gator.

During the 1960's and 70's, baby monkeys were all the rage. There was even a time you could mail-order baby squirrel monkeys (who knew?!) As a teenager in the 80's, I recall being insistent I wanted a capuchin monkey. They're easier to train and have better dexterity and problem-solving skills. I was convinced it would make a great little sidekick. My mother promptly squashed every dream I had of getting one. I remember her telling me I'd be changing little diapers forever, since they can live 40+ years with proper care. Not to mention, capuchins like to throw poop! Being a know-it-all teenager, it never once occurred to me to actually research the drawbacks. I just knew they looked cute. In hindsight, I'm awfully glad she told me—in no uncertain terms—"absolutely not!"

In the show, they also highlighted a new experience of the mid-1970's—the African wildlife preserve—where you drove your own car through the park. In 1974, Kings Dominion (just north of Richmond, Virginia) opened their 100-acre Lion Country Safari. I was 6 years old at the time. I had been on a camping trip with my father and older brother. On the way home, I was napping in the back of our pastel blue VW bug. All of a sudden, my father exclaimed "Wake up! What is that??" When I sat up, I was completely amazed to see lions and giraffes wandering around. I'm told I said with amazement "Where are we??!!" The park included lions, tigers, rhinos, hippos, giraffes, zebras, antelopes, and many types of exotic birds. By 1975, just a year later, the ability to drive your own car was replaced with a much safer (and air-conditioned) monorail. Although it probably wasn't the most prudent way to see the wild (sometimes predatory) animals, it was positively amazing and something most people will never have the chance to experience. I'm so glad my dad saw the signs for the park and decided to give it a go. I only wish we'd had a camera with us. While I remember the "experience" (I actually do have a memory of waking up and being both confused and amazed...along with a vague feeling of the vast expanse of the "savannah"), I don't have any real memories of the actual animals. 

My father used to delight in sharing his memories and stories. He was a wonderful storyteller and I wish I'd recorded him, because no one can share the stories quite the way he did. His eyes always sparkled and he'd grin like a guilty little schoolboy when he'd say "Did I ever tell you about the time...."  His stories were always recalled in such vivid detail and with obvious fondness. I rarely document my own memories (I guess I figure they won't be all that interesting to anyone else). Hazardous History prompted me to share these few small little bits with you. Because, if I can be fascinated by a letter about how well the crops in the early 1900's were or weren't doing, perhaps someone will enjoy hearing about my safari adventure (and may even recall similar adventures of their own).

At its core, genealogy is about history—our history. It's the story of our families, their triumphs and tragedies—and everything in between. For most leaves on our tree, we only have a tiny snapshot of their lives, comprised of various (mostly) factual records and (if we're lucky) some photographs. We're often left to imagine how the blanks get filled in. In some cases, we probably just leave the blanks and never think about them. It's wonderful to see genealogists share both family stories and their own experiences, capturing them for future generations. 

Image by Gregor Mima from Pixabay

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist in titling and a description for this post. All content is my own.

Under Certain Conditions, Quick Edit Can Quietly Delete a Death Fact

I was very surprised yesterday when I saw someone in my tree on Ancestry marked as living, despite having a death date fact. I had just found the death location, so I updated the fact, but the profile header didn't update, even with a refresh. 

I went back and marked him as deceased in a "Quick Edit", and the profile then showed correctly. To test if it's a wacky new change, I went back and marked him as living and it totally erased the death fact with no prompt it was going to happen. I'm not sure if this behavior existed before the recent changes. I don't believe I've ever run into this specific scenario before, and I can't say I recall ever testing this previously. Normally, if there's a death fact, it's reflected in the profile header. I typically wouldn't have a reason to flip a confirmed deceased person back to living—at least not intentionally. Living should only display if there's no death fact.

With any other fact, if you choose Edit and Delete, you'll be prompted with a pop-up asking you to confirm you're sure you want to take the action.

This prompt does not appear when you change a person from deceased to living using Quick Edit. The fact is simply unceremoniously erased. While this makes complete logical sense—a living person should not have a death fact—it doesn't account for the possibility of human error. I'd much rather see a prompt so users aren't caught unaware. Perhaps a pop-up saying "A death fact exists for this person. Changing them to living will delete this fact. Are you sure you want to make this change?" I went back to the person's profile and added the death date and location back in again, and the profile did again update correctly. 

To see if this behavior was consistent, I went into a living person's profile and marked them deceased.** I was pleased to see the profile did update properly. I went ahead and added a death fact, and it also saved properly. Then I did a Quick Edit, and marked the person living again, and it again totally deleted the death fact without any prompt. In this test, the deletion was appropriate and it confirmed this appears to be consistent behavior.

**It's more common to see others marking someone deceased temporarily to try and cajole the algorithms into a few new hints. I'd like to point out, this is not recommended since it potentially makes details of a living person visible to others if you don't have a private and unsearchable tree. While it's not best practice, if you choose to do this, please be sure you set the person back to living to protect their privacy. 

The original issue, the improperly displayed header, was more than likely a hiccup. But if you accidentally mark a deceased person living, it certainly appears your death fact will be quietly deleted. It may seem like a small issue, but if you've attached multiple sources or records to the death fact, restoring everything could become a bit of a chore. And let's face it—oopsies can and do happen. It's not outside the realm of possibility someone (especially new users or those who are technologically challenged) might accidentally make a mistake. 

While unlikely to cause any widespread issues, it does highlight there are still some hiccups happening with all the recent changes. It's good to be vigilant. Sometimes we notice things we never noticed before. And sometimes, especially in the absence of a user facing change log, we find unexpected changes in logic. As I said, I can't say this didn't happen before—but it's certainly the first time I've noticed it happen.

Image by Thomas from Pixabay

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist in titling and creating a description for this post. All content is my own.

Searching for Abijah LeCroy: A New Lead Through Nancy Williams

Typically, I don't add people in my tree unless I'm pretty darn sure they're correct. But being stuck on Abijah LeCroy/LeRoy, or any other name he may have gone by, has been frustrating me for over a decade. Yesterday, I decided to see if adding any potential relatives of Nancy Williams (his wife) would magically make anything appear. I currently have no records of Nancy prior to the 1850 census showing her as married, with her children—but her presumed husband Abijah is nowhere in sight.

I recalled seeing a person I believe may have been Nancy's brother in the 1850 census, living next door to her. His name was....wait for it!...Abijah! Abijah Williams. Since the 1850 census doesn't indicate relationships, I made the assumption he's shown with his wife Malissa and their children. I've seen references to Malissa's maiden name being Meeks, and indeed, just a few houses away were several Meeks. Does any of this mean I'm right? Not necessarily! But I'm willing to take the chance for now (and I know who I added so I could easily delete them again should I decide I'm wrong.) I also added Nancy's father as "_____ Williams", using 5 underscores so I don't mess up any hints the algorithms might decide to serve up. I didn't get any immediate new hints for Nancy (disappointing) but I still have hope! It's not a total guess. Unless she was adopted, it's fairly safe to assume her father's surname was Williams.

Recently, Ancestry suggested Nancy's father may have been Edward. I added his name and searched, but didn't find any supporting records. Another person's tree shows his name as Alexander. Again I searched, but I've not found anything to support this either. This doesn't mean either is wrong, I just can't prove either is correct. So for now, the elder Williams will remain with an unknown given name. But as I was searching for Abijah Williams I found a marriage record. It's for Abijah Williams in Habersham, Georgia (correct location) and Malissa Meeks! I'm one record closer to....a discovery?....something?....anything?!

After adding this record, I now have 13 hints for Abijah Williams and 11 for Malissa Meeks. One interesting twist I'll have to figure out is the 1860 census showing them as surname Harper. It appears the enumerator just used a ditto mark for the family prior to them. Was this an oversight? Did they actually claim to be related? Did they intentionally use another surname for some reason? I'm not sure, but I do know there are Meeks family members shown just a few houses away—and Abijah and Malissa aren't exactly common names. So I'm pretty sure the record is correct, but the surname shown may not be.

Also in my new hints is a legal record where Nancy LeCroy filed against Thomas LeCroy for the value of some fabric. Also mentioned is Abijah Williams. This is a good omen. I'm feeling pretty confident this is Nancy's brother! Who was Thomas LeCroy? I'm not sure yet. There's also a Revolutionary War Pension record for Abijah, so I now have even more threads to follow. Perhaps I'll find some military records, or maybe a DAR application with even more information? Don't burst my bubble! I have hope I might actually be on to something.

 

Of course, this all hinges on the name Nancy Williams being correct. She's shown as the mother on the same death certificate indicating Abijah LeRoy was the father. Everything hinges on a single death certificate. And while we'd all like to believe legal documents are correct, during a time of loss and grief, people do make mistakes. Still, I feel somewhat energized from the finds. Maybe I won't find Abijah LeRoy, but maybe I'll push a bit further back on the Williams line.

Image by marcelkessler from Pixabay

Disclosure: I used ChatGPT to assist with a title and search description. All content is my own.