FamilyTreeNow.com Offers Up More Free Public Information

In the past, I've written about finding those living relatives using FamilyTreeNow.com. This is a 100% free site to use. In recent months, they've expanded the displayed information. For anyone born after 1920 or so, and who died after about 1980, or is still living, there's a reasonable chance of finding them on the site. I should point out this site only provides information about those in the United States. I certainly don't rely heavily on the specifics they provide, but I use it as something of a "confirmation tool".

Derived from public records, FamilyTreeNow.com typically shows a considerable amount of data. Not only does it display addresses, but other names a person has used, month and year of birth (critical to verifying you have the right person), possible phone numbers and email addresses, as well as potential family members and associates. These sections have been the backbone of their offering, and for most entries, you'll find this basic data.

I've noticed some additional enhancements recently. First, more entries show a Google map for the current address, and potentially property details. "Possible Primary Phone" has been added as well. They've also started indicating "Potential Spouse" in the Possible Relatives section. While some of these spouse suggestions have turned out to be helpful, I've also noted they don't necessarily distinguish between a current spouse and an ex spouse. In one person I spot checked, his ex-wife is listed as a possible spouse, and his current wife is simply shown as a possible relative. This definitely doesn't replace doing your own research....but it could provide breadcrumbs to work with when the trail is otherwise cold.

Today, I noticed they've added Employment History and Current Neighbors. In my own record, employment history was accurate. In the case of my ex, it's absolutely wrong! My current neighbors appeared fairly accurate. Historically, neighbors might have been worth knowing about. But today, this information is far less valuable (if it has any value at all). I don't really consider it useful, but who knows? Maybe someone out there has a need for it.

Not every entry has all of the more recent additions displayed. It seems to be hit or miss as of now. And while I value the potential information as a whole, I'm not about to take the time to enter so much unconfirmed data in my tree. I don't even print a copy to save. First off, the information changes as more public information becomes available. More importantly, there's too much room for error. Names may be conflated and there's no easy way to verify the accuracy of any of the data presented. I don't know about you, but when faced with unnecessary intrusive questions, I'm not beyond putting 555-1212 as a phone number or "123 Any Street" as an address (especially if I'm creating a login for a website I probably won't ever use again). Further, many people keep a "disposable" email they use specifically to avoid giving out their real email. This random information can and does show up. 

Still, I did create a source for FamilyTreeNow.com, on Ancestry, and I will link it solely to the person's name fact. At some point, for more recent relatives, I generally pop over and do a quick check to see if a person is on FamilyTreeNow.com. If I can find them, I save the link in my citation so I can refer back if I need to. This is the extent of data I choose to save from this site in my tree. You could also use Web Links on Ancestry, but those don't sync to Family Tree Maker, whereas a source will. 

Another valid reason to use the site is disproving records on Ancestry. Quite often, I come across public records where the given and surname appear correct, but there's no middle name the address seems a little off (the state may be okay, but maybe the city is one with no other known records). Most often, if I can find the person on FamilyTreeNow.com, I'll discover they have a completely different middle name. It's not a slam dunk for disproving, but I have found it useful quite a few times.

Final Thoughts: FamilyTreeNow.com is a tool, but one best used with an abundance of caution. Always keep the pitfalls in mind, and when in doubt "throw it out". Breadcrumbs can be valuable research starters, but relying solely on unverified public information is no better than copying without verifying. 

Seeing Double

I previously wrote about James Miles LeRoy, my 1st cousin 2x removed, who seemed to have 2 distinct social security numbers. I realize it was an unusual anomaly, but there may have been a legitimate reason it happened. I just accepted it's one of those things I'll never quite figure out, and moved on. It's not important enough (at least right now) for me to send off for official copies of the records. Now I'm seeing double again - on marriage records!

I'd like to start by saying, I thought I had 3 cases of this. But in writing this post, and going back to double and triple check all my facts, I actually resolved 2 of them! One appears to be a marriage-divorce-remarriage situation (only discernable by the fact both the parties were listed with the same surname and both were shown as previously divorced - by a mark in a teeny-tiny checkbox). Though it doesn't appear either married anyone else in between the divorce and remarriage. The 2nd one, was an odd indexing issue. Ancestry showed nothing but 2 names in a state I didn't think made sense. I went to FamilySearch and looked up the wife (she had a somewhat unusual given name), and found complete indexing of the record (not just 2 names as presented by Ancestry). Turns out, it's just parents being named on their daughter's marriage record. No clue why Ancestry didn't mention at least the daughter's name. Still, mystery #2 solved. 

Mystery #3 is a different story. Hal Kenney-Inez Howe: They were initially married January 12, 1909 in St Louis, Missouri, by a Baptist minister. I viewed the document on FamilySearch to be sure I had my facts straight. The date is line with the birth of their 1st child in November 1909. Together, they had 3 children, the last being born in 1919.

Then, on March 28, 1930 they were married by a Reverend in Malden, Dunklin, Missouri. I was also able to view this document on FamilySearch. The only odd thing was it references Hal Kenney and Inez Kenney and the record was from a location a few hours drive from their known residence at the time...almost as if it was being kept under the radar. In fact, I have no other known records for Malden other than this. There was nothing on the document to indicate they were previously divorced, and searches (including a full text search) produced no evidence their initial marriage was ever dissolved. It doesn't mean they weren't divorced. All I can say is I haven't been able to locate a divorce record.

Another family member enlisted the help of a local FamilySearch Center, but they were equally flummoxed and could find no documented explanation. Inez was married to someone else, but the earliest record I can find with her 2nd husband, Karl Bosmyer, is a 1934 veterans document showing her as a dependent. Since Hal Kenney didn't pass away until 1949, it certainly seems clear they must have divorced at some point, even if I can't find a record of it. But why the 2 marriages??

I decided to do a little research on why a couple might be legally married more than once. Here's a synopsis of the findings:

• Multiple ceremonies, such as civil and then religious. Separate certificates might be required to prove the validity of each event. And if the events were in different locations, it could explain having more than one record.
• Unrecognized marriages. A first wedding may not have been legally recognized. Perhaps it was done in a rush and they never got the required paperwork, but had a ceremony anyway. To legalize the union, they might have to have another marriage with correct documentation.
• Religious/family reasons: May have had more than one ceremony to satisfy all parties. I know a couple who were married once in a Christian church, and then again in a Hindu ceremony in another state. 
• Specific to genealogical research, it could be incorrect indexing, name twins, or changes in how legal marriages were recognized. Not sure how often the last one would actually be an issue, but I suppose it could happen.

I do know the Kenney family were Catholic. It's possible they didn't "approve" or "recognize" the Baptist minister's marriage. Maybe, just maybe, it was a 2nd ceremony and required another document because it was a different location? It's the only logical reason (absent any divorce record) I can come up with.

My biggest takeaway is: sometimes giving the problem a little time will clear the cobwebs and help you see something new. I'm thrilled to have worked out 2 of the 3 mysteries! And it's a very good reminder not to take indexed records at face value. Always try to find the original record if possible. Have you encountered two marriage records in your family tree? If so, how did you work out the reason? Or does it remain a mystery? 

Image by Tom from Pixabay

2025 Ancestry DNA Update Coming Soon

Users have been eagerly awaiting the 2025 DNA update on Ancestry. Based on the post "2025 Ancestral Origins Update Coming Soon" we may not have to wait too much longer!

This will be an interesting update. It sounds like there's been quite a lot of work going on behind the scenes. They've expanded their reference panel significantly by utilizing both genetic and genealogical data. This should, in theory, translate to more precise locations - but there could be a caveat. If they're using data gleaned from user trees as the basis for the "genealogical data", there's always the possibility the same inaccuracies we already see in numerous trees and Thru Lines® will be represented in the regions. There's no real explanation on where the genealogical data is coming from. Hopefully, they've taken care in the data they'll present to us. 

Also rolling out will be Macro-Regions. Think of theses as "umbrella" regions, These will be broader regions with less change over time. In the post, they use "Nordic" as an example. Below this umbrella region will be specific sub-regions (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc). As always, the percentages shown for the sub-regions will likely change as reference panels grow and more people test. Ancestry says these sub-regions will be "super-specific". From the graphics in the post, it's hard to tell just how true this will be. I'll be far more impressed if the sub-regions have "sub-sub-regions" with cities or towns. So if a Macro-Region were to be shown as Great Britain (as an example), just having sub-regions England, Scotland and Wales isn't really super-specific in my mind. But if England had more specific regions nested under it, such as Wiltshire, or even Little Somerford, Wiltshire - we might genuinely find this change tremendously helpful in pointing to new research avenues. 

I'm always excited to see how my results change with each update. If the new and expanded regions are truly "super-specific" it may well position us at our brick walls with a sledgehammer in our hands. On the other hand, to use a phrase one of my friends once said - we may only find we truly are "Heinzer's"....made up of 57 varieties, or in this case, 57 countries. And if the state of Thru Lines® recently (a hot mess, changing from day to day, with long proven ancestors simply disappearing while their spouses and ancestors remain, and predicted DNA relationships of matches changing willy-nilly) is any indication - this update could be a huge fail. I'm going to try and stay positive. If nothing else, seeing the changes is always interesting for a couple days. 

My ChatGPT Obituary Experiment

Disclosure: This post contains results from ChatGPT 5, The content is clearly identified and presented without edit.

I'm well aware AI is best used as a supplement to regular research. It can certainly do some nice things. I use it extensively for formatting, transcriptions, and even providing a list of the important genealogical facts from newspaper articles, wills, and obituaries (though I still double check it hasn't missed anything). I do not use AI for actual research. The vast majority of records are simply not available to AI. Many data sets require logins and quite often, subscriptions. But even if AI can't answer a question directly, it doesn't mean it can't be helpful in pointing me in a useful direction.

Just for fun, I recently decided to see if ChatGPT could help me locate an obituary. It had been some time since I requested this type of information and I was eager to see the improvements in results. FindAGrave contained the text of an obit for my granduncle, John Burton Leroy. As shown on FindAGrave:

Mr. Leroy was a son of John Leroy and his first wife, Cynthia Cunningham Leroy. John Burton Leroy was survived by his stepmother, Mrs. Addie Leroy, Dalton, Georgia; and his siblings, Ben Leroy, George Leroy, Bertha Henry and Eliza Fowler. 

I previously found and verified everything contained in this snippet, with the exception of one piece of data....his mother's maiden name being Cynthia Cunningham. I know her name was Cynthia from a census record, but I haven't found any other proof of her maiden name. If I could put eyes on the obit, and not just a transcription, I'd happily add this fact to my tree.

So I asked ChatGPT 5, "Can you find any public newspaper articles containing this exact wording 'John Burton Leroy died at his residence on Gadsden Route 4'" the phrase at the beginning of the transcribed obituary. I actually did this search two different times, a couple weeks apart just to see the differences.

For the first response, AI thought for 19 seconds, then replied:

Doris — I searched for that exact string and didn’t find any public newspaper page that matches it verbatim.

What I found

No hits for the quoted phrase “John Burton Leroy died at his residence on Gadsden Route 4” in open web results.

There are near-matches showing the style you’re expecting (Gadsden Times obits often read “Gadsden Route 4, died … at his residence”), e.g.:

“J.A. Pankey, 69, Gadsden Route 4, died … at his residence …” (Find A Grave transcription of a Gadsden Times obituary). (Find A Grave)

Similar phrasing appears in other Etowah County obit transcriptions noting “Gadsden Rt. 4 … died … at the residence.” (Find A Grave, Geni)

You likely have the right person/place: there’s a FamilySearch profile for John Burton LeRoy (1878–1949) tied to Gadsden/Etowah research, but it doesn’t quote an obituary. (FamilySearch)

Why you may not see an exact match

Obituary lines commonly read “at his residence, Gadsden Route 4” (comma, not “on”) or “Rt. 4 / “Rte. 4,” and the surname appears both as LeRoy and Leroy in indexes. Any of those small differences will prevent an exact-phrase hit.

 
Next steps I recommend

Try these exact-phrase variants (including punctuation/casing):

"John Burton LeRoy" "Gadsden Route 4"
"John Burton Leroy" "Gadsden Rt. 4"
"at his residence, Gadsden Route 4" Leroy
"LeRoy" "at his residence" "Gadsden"

Check the Gadsden Times around his death year (likely 1949). Most images are behind paywalls:

Newspapers.com (Gadsden Times) — strongest coverage.

Google News Archive sometimes has scattered issues.

Alabama Dept. of Archives & History and the Alabama Digital Archives indexes occasionally include Etowah items. Wikipedia

Local help: Etowah Historical Society or the Gadsden Public Library microfilm desk can do a lookup if you provide name + month/year of death.

If you want, tell me the exact death date you have for LeRoy and I’ll target the Gadsden Times issues for that week and craft precise queries (and, if you have access to Newspapers.com, I can give you copy-paste search strings to run there)

For my second attempt, AI thought a bit longer at 37 seconds, then replied:

Hi Doris — I searched for that **exact** wording and couldn’t find a publicly viewable newspaper page that contains the phrase “**John Burton Leroy died at his residence on Gadsden Route 4**”. Nothing matching that string (including the trailing double-apostrophes) turns up on the open web or in free Alabama newspaper repositories.

However, context strongly suggests the obituary you’re after would be in **The Gadsden Times** around **December 14–16, 1949**, which aligns with FamilySearch listing **John Burton LeRoy**’s death as **December 13, 1949** (Etowah Co./East Gadsden). ([FamilySearch][1])

### Where it’s most likely hiding (paywalled/onsite)

* **The Gadsden Times** archive (hosted on Newspapers.com / Gannett) for mid-December **1949**. The Times is the local daily that routinely printed “Route 4” addresses and “died at his residence…” language in that era. The paper’s history and coverage area are documented here. ([Wikipedia][2])

* **Northeast Alabama Genealogical Society (NEAGS)** at the Howard Gardner Nichols Memorial Library in Gadsden — they maintain obituary clippings and local indexes; staff/volunteers can usually pull a specific death notice by date. ([Wikipedia][3])

### How to zero in on the exact string

OCR in newspaper databases often renders **Route 4** as *Rt. 4*, *Rte. 4*, or “Route 4’’” (double quotes from inch marks). I recommend trying these exact-phrase variations in the 1949 Gadsden Times:

* `"John Burton LeRoy"`, `"John B. LeRoy"`, and `"John LeRoy"`
* `"died at his residence"` and `"died at his home"`
* `"Gadsden Route 4"`, `"Rt. 4, Gadsden"`, `"Rte. 4, Gadsden"` (with/without comma)
* Search the **issue dates 12/14/1949 through 12/16/1949**; if no hit, expand a week either side.

If you’d like, give me any subscription screenshots/clippings you have (or a narrowed date window), and I’ll transcribe/verify whether the line appears verbatim. Or, if you prefer a librarian route, I can draft a concise request email to NEAGS specifying the date range and phrasing you want confirmed.

[1]: https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/LHDR-BP9/john-burton-leroy-1878-1949?utm_source=chatgpt.com "John Burton LeRoy (1878–1949)"

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gadsden_Times?utm_source=chatgpt.com "The Gadsden Times"

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Gardner_Nichols_Memorial_Library?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Howard Gardner Nichols Memorial Library"

I was actually pleasantly surprised with the results. It had been a year or so since I last asked ChatGPT any questions like this. Previous attempts did not provide citations or links. This time, ChatGPT acknowledged it could not find the exact search phrase I entered (and did not appear to make anything up.) But it provided reasonable and solid direction I could take to attempt to locate the information on my own. And most important to me, it provides references, links and citations so I can double check the data presented, and to assist me in trying to find the information I'm after. Both results were helpful, and the slight differences highlight the importance of trying again when you're still staring at a seemingly impenetrable wall. 

While AI is still imperfect, it's starting to become significantly more useful. Over the coming months and years, I fully expect we'll see incredible progress in how it can aid us as researchers, and its integration into websites and programs we already use. I fully realize not everyone is on board with AI. And yes, there are definitely environmental concerns to be considered as larger and larger data centers are required to handle the intense computing demands of AI. But the reality is - AI is here to stay. And in my very limited experiment, it provided useful research direction. In addition to the ways I already us it, I'll continue to check from time to time to discover new advancements in this powerful technology. 

James Oliver Fowler's Last Sleep

By now, you know the little angels who passed away too soon tug at my heart. James Oliver Fowler is no exception. His brief existence, and this solitary post-mortem photo, a haunting reminder of just how challenging times were during the depression.

James was born approximately June 1930. I say "approximately" because his father, who was the informant on his death certificate, wasn't sure of his exact date of birth. The family had seven other children at the time (ranging from 1 year old to 17) and, understandably, during the stressful time of losing a child, it isn't surprising he may not have been able to recall the specific date. His birth date is shown as "don't know" and his age "about 4 mos."

1930 was toward the beginning of the Great Depression. It heralded a particularly difficult time in the poor communities of Georgia where James was born. It was an area of tremendous poverty and a scarcity of food and resources. Children (as well as adults) often suffered from infections and malnutrition. Families may have delayed seeking medical care for financial reasons. And even when they did make the call for the doctor, or a trip to a hospital, the level of care was far different than today.

James Oliver's cause of death is listed as marasmus and diarrhea, with malnourishment as a contributory factor. Together, these were a deadly triple whammy. Marasmus was a widespread and often fatal form of malnutrition. It caused extreme wasting, with loss of muscle and body fat. He may have suffered from other infections, compounding the problem. His mother may also have been malnourished and simply wasn't able to provide him the nutrition he needed to thrive, I can't imagine the terrible loss, and most likely guilt, his mother must have felt. I hope, with time, she knew she did all she could for him. 

When we think of a 4 month old, we think of a round chubby cheeked little cherub, with pudgy hands and soft squishy legs. But in this post-mortem photo of James, generously shared by an Ancestry member on is father's side. he looks almost like a fragile porcelain doll, his little fingers curled in the familiar grasp of an infant. His eyes are closed, as if he's peacefully napping. This was known as "the last sleep" pose, and this is likely the only photo ever taken of James. While we're somewhat unaccustomed to this type of photo today, it was not at all unusual for the time. It was a way for the family to immortalize the child. It was a memento to be treasured. I'd like to think a copy of this photo was kept in their home, and he was never forgotten. But it just as easily may have been tucked away, quietly taken out as his parents worked through their grief - a poignant reminder of the son they lost.

James Oliver passed away on October 7th, 1930 at 9:00am. He had been under the care of a physician for almost a week. From the death certificate, it appears he may have been seen at home. There is no hospital listed and RFD is shown in the address (likely the rented farm they lived on.) By the time he was seen, it was unlikely there was anything the doctor could have done. His death certificate says he was buried on October 8th, 1930 in Bethel cemetery. I did find a Bethel United Methodist Church cemetery in Dalton, Whitfield, Georgia. Sadly, there's no mention of a memorial for James. There were 9 other unnamed infants buried there, but none with the surname Fowler. 

I am grateful to the Ancestry user who publicly shared this photo, and for her generosity in allowing me to use it for this post. This is the essence of genealogy, of sharing the details we learn with others. Were it not for her gracious spirit, James Oliver Fowler, born after the enumeration date for the 1930 census, and not mentioned in the obituaries of his parents, might have been remembered only by his brief entry in a death index and his death certificate. This lone photo reminds us of his short, yet precious life.

Sleep in peace little one. You will not be forgotten.

Photo courtesy of Melissa Hunter, graciously shared on Ancestry

The Photo Hint I Wish I'd Never Saved

Ah yes...the bell icon notifications on Ancestry. 

We have NO way to turn them off. NO option to filter the type of notifications we receive. And most annoyingly, it seems  some hints simply repeat over and over again...ad nauseum.

I dismiss 99.9% of these notifications outright without even reading them. About the only ones I find interesting (or useful) tell me how many people I added and how many records I worked with the previous week. Otherwise, they're almost a complete a waste of time for me. However, the very few I do want to see would be buried if I didn't regularly clear all the others. So, I dismiss over and over...and over again. 

But the worst is a photo hint I saved a couple months ago from someone else's tree. I get notification after notification there may be a new photo in hint in their tree. I dismiss the notification several times a day, only to have it keep coming back. I mark it read before I dismiss it....and you guessed it...it comes back. I've clicked and gone to the tree, but no joy. I've probably dismissed the same notification (shown above), 300+ times in the last two months (and I'm not exaggerating.... upwards of 5 times times per research session the same exact notification pops up, day after day after day.) I truly wish I'd never saved any photos from the specific tree in question. It's not even a tree I'm a guest or contributor to - it's just a random public tree I saved a photo from. It's almost like this one notification is stuck in the queue. I've saved many other photos and they don't haunt me like this one does.

Please Ancestry - give us an option to disable or at least filter these notifications. Or even an option to permanently delete or mute specific ones would help. Make it a ProTools feature. I'd pay for ProTools forever if it meant I could get rid of these notifications (or at least stop this one notification from haunting me day and night!)

In general, I love Ancestry. I really do! But this feature is not a help for me and it's not a time saver. Quite the opposite. I fully acknowledge, maybe it's just me and how I work. Maybe others DO find these notifications helpful. I wish I could just ignore them completely. Unfortunately, it's not how my brain works. I need a tidy screen. I have the same challenge on my cell phone. I can't stand badge counts and have to clear them straight away. It's most definitely an OCD thing....but it's a real thing, even if it's not something everyone understands. You never know, with the ability to customize these notifications, I might even embrace them.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe other users truly do find the feature useful. Or maybe, many just ignore the icon completely. I just wish Ancestry would give us options . And now, with my frustrations vented, I shall jump down off my little soapbox, tuck it under my arm and scurry back to my research....right after I dismiss he same photo hint yet again...