Honoring those memorialized in family trees everywhere...and the ones yet to be discovered. Sharing inspiration, information & opinions for the journey finding family.
Recently, Thomas MacEntee wrote about Newspaper Finder in his post Newspaper Finder: The Free Tool Every Genealogist Needs to Find Historical Newspaper Archives Online. The site has the potential to be very useful. But it's new. And new generally comes with some growing pains. I'll most certainly be keeping an eye to see how it expands and develops. They currently include 32 databases (all the major subscription sites like Newspapers, OldNews, NewspaperArchive, Genealogybank, and more). I have no doubt they'll be expanding their offering as time goes on. The site is entirely free to search. If you'd like to read another great user review of the site, head on over to Marian B Wood's post Checking Out Newspaper Finder on Climbing My Family Tree.
The one issue I had was the search results. Upon clicking on a pin on the map, they show as a list of the newspaper names, years included, and the website where the repository is located. It would be most intuitive to click the website (but those aren't hyperlinked). It took me a moment to realize you have to click on the publication name instead. Those are hyperlinked, but they don't really stand out. Once you click the publication name, you are taken to the site so you can do a more detailed search.
However, the location I needed in my research tonight wasn't coming up. To be fair, it only means this new site doesn't have a database where the particular location and potential titles I wanted are included. And to be extra fair, no one site is ever going to have 100% of anything. It's not really a limitation of the site....just a limitation based on the specific area I needed to search. So I did some more Googling and discovered another fantastic resource.
Talk about not being intuitive...the site is the Montana State University Billings (MSUB) library site. I know right?! How can a Montana college website be a great newspaper reference?! Well, under their History resources, they offer Historical U.S. Newspapers Online. The Home page for this section includes not only the option to search by state, but a section on other pages linking to websites with newspapers from many states. While some of these additional resources appear to be a little more specialized, it's still good information. Clicking on a letter in the menu bar takes you to the states, and each state shows an alphabetized list of newspapers with years. Clicking the link takes you directly to the site where you can do further searches. This site is also free to use.
I'm sure there's overlap between the 2 sites. But there are also differences. On the MSUB site, I was able to find a publication more suited to the data I was looking for...but sadly the years did not encompass the ones I need. But whenever I discover new tools (especially free ones) the time spent is never wasted. Both of these sites will be a great addition to your toolbox, and speaking of toolboxes, I've added both to my Genealogy Toolbox under Indexes/Databases/Newspapers.
Note: While both sites are totally free to search, some results are to subscription sites where you would need a membership to do further research.
Census records are a goldmine of information. As I've mentioned before, I like to mine all the details. This takes time. For a big family, it can be quite a bit of time. Often, I find myself zipping past census hints, in favor of something I can work on more quickly.
Recently, I decided to set out on the task of getting through some of those census records. They're important, and I need to stop glossing over them. I'm starting with the 1850 census. Using the Ancestry Hints By Specific Record Collection I previously wrote about, I'm able to see all the hints I'll be working with - only those hints (so I'm not tempted to bypass them). My only current goal is to make it through all the 1850 census hints I have. Then, I'll move on to 1860. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I'm not worrying about how many other hints this is adding on my main hints page. I'm simply plugging away at a concrete goal I've set for myself. While I'm making progress, I haven't been spending as much time checking out new features, updates, tools or websites. However, I was reminded recently about a handy feature on Ancestry I either never really paid much attention to, or forgot about - and it's a big time saver for my census journey. Let me explain the backstory...
I use a spreadsheet to transfer all the data from a given family on a census record. I like a standard way of formatting (using the concatenate function to string data together). Then I copy this data into a document before I begin updating each person in Ancestry. It leaves me with a list of all the facts I need to add, and a full summary to paste into my transcription field in the citation for each person. This is the simplified version. I have a few other steps in the process to get it to work just so, but you get the idea. I'm more than a little OCD about how I work with a census record. Certainly not everyone would want to go through my whole process, but I'm betting some of you have a process you like to follow.
In order for my spreadsheet to do its magic, I need to list each family member in their own column, not rows as a census is presented. I can't tell you how much time I've spent diligently transferring the contents of each row into the necessary columns (flipping back and forth endlessly between tabs as I entered the data in columns). And here's where I can't believe I've dedicated (but not wasted) so much time I didn't need to!
If you open the image of the census record, at the bottom of the screen is a little toolbar. We've probably all used the filmstrip view at some point. And I'd imagine everyone has used the arrows on the sides of the image to move forward and backward through pages....but how often do you use the index panel? Here's where to find it:
You might recall, I work on a small screen, so this next screenshot is not all the data. But it gives you the general idea of the format you'll see. Each line of the census is already transcribed!
The hard work is already done! Because I already have all the headings for each field in my spreadsheet, I just need to highlight, copy and paste all the family members into my spreadsheet. I do spot check fields like occupation, attended school, etc, just to be sure all the data is there - but most of the time it's very complete. I occasionally find a name transcribed incorrectly like "Susah" instead of "Sarah", but all in all, this saves me a ton of transcription time.
Now, if you've followed along this far, you might say..."Uh, Doris, you said you put each person in a column. You just copied rows." And you'd be right! I plop the copied data in my spreadsheet below where I want it. Then I right-click and copy it from within my spreadsheet, navigate to the first column for the data, and I paste-special (Excel) transposing rows and columns. This gives me exactly the layout I want to make my spreadsheet provide the specific formatting I use - all without having to do any (or very little) transcription myself. I'm going to hazard a guess and say this is saving me at least 50% of the time I spend working with census records.
I won't bore you with any more of the details on my personal process. But if you'd like to see a little more on how to grab all this information, I found this video very helpful. (I've added it to my Genealogy Toolbox under "Articles, Tips/Tricks, Guides".
While I still have to tweak a little for my own process, this is a huge timesaver! And as always, verifying is important. This isn't a substitute for making sure the transcription is correct (but it sure makes it a lot faster and easier to do). This feature is available on other images as well. And while I can't say for certain if every record set is as detailed as census records, you can be sure I'm going to start checking....right after I've finished my 1850 census project (and hopefully a few more years as well). Let me know if you already use this feature, or if you think it's going to help you in your own research.
Disclaimer: All thoughts & opinions are my own. I do not receive compensation or consideration for posts. I've subscribed to AmericanAncestors for several years. I've found there are some great benefits to being a member. I do all of my research online, so having extra resources beyond those found on the big 4 websites (Ancestry, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, FindMyPast) always interests me.
Ho-hum perks of being a member: They offer the ability to build your tree on the site, But, I didn't find the interface to be anything special - certainly not as good as Ancestry. They also offer a quarterly magazine, but I'm not a big fan of magazines (digital or otherwise) so this wasn't a big factor for me. They also feature additional publications and tools you might be interested in checking out. I haven't used these myself, but they are on the site.
The perks I DO really like are:
Access to 10 billion searchable names and records in the AmericanAncestors database
Free access to partner databases
Let's break it down a little. As far as the searchable records on the site, they offer access to hundreds of databases. The search screen shows they currently have 507 databases. Some of these are not necessarily different from databases you may already have access to via the big 4 sites. But 224 are touted as being unique to AmericanAncestors. They also have a Digital Library & Archives containing digitized materials from three repositories: the Wyner Family Jewish Heritage Center (highlighting records for New England's Jewish community) R. Stanton Avery Special Collections (including family bibles and genealogies among other select records), and the Brim-DeForest Library (a book collection including family and local histories as well as other books). Not all of these collections will be of interest to every family researcher, but certainly these additional repositories could be beneficial to some.
Let's start with a site currently experiencing some issues. NewspaperArchive is normally about $140 per year (I used to subscribe, but stopped when the National Genealogical Society offered it as a free perk of their membership.) I noticed today AmericanAncestors also offers access with their membership. Currently the site is recovering from a service disruption, but hopefully it will be back online soon. Is this newspaper site better than Newspapers.com, OldNews or GenealogyBank? It's hard to give a solid answer. Your research needs may be different than mine, and newspaper coverage can vary widely by site and area. I haven't had the best luck with NewspaperArchive, but I like having the option to search at no additional cost!
In the past, I also subscribed to Genealogical to access their eBooks in the Genealogical Publishing Company (GPC) eBook Collection. Their current subscription rate is $135 per year. Their digital collection is fully searchable, both within titles and text. You can now access this collection for free with an AmericanAncestors subscription! This is an absolutely awesome perk! I had been waiting to renew until I needed to use the collection, so this was a fantastic surprise.
Additional third party partner databases include:
Archives Unbound
Gale OneFile: Diversity Studies
The Gale OneFile: Fine Arts & Music Collection
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy
Informe Academico
Irish Newspaper Archives
HistoryGeo.com
The HistoryMakerss
19th Century U.S. Newspapers
Early American Newspapers Series 1
The New York Times
Parchemin Notarial Database
Genealogy Quebec
I haven't added up the value of having all these databases available, but certainly, the value far exceeds the cost of membership to AmericanAncestors.
I used to pay for an individual membership at AmericanAncestors at a cost of $99.95 per year. This level also includes (in addition to the features listed above) free admission to American Ancestors in Boston, discounts on programs and services, and exclusive offers - including 10% off a Tier 1 membership to GEDmatch (the value of this is about $12). If you live in the area and want to access in person, it's still a very good deal. But I don't live nearby and am not planning on visiting - so I didn't really need the bells and whistles. When it came time to renew this year, I was on the fence. I was cutting back a little on my subscriptions and I was just going to let this one lapse until I needed it. And then I received the email there was a subscription level I didn't see displayed anywhere when browsing the site...
It's a digital subscription only. For only $49.95 per year, I replaced 2 subscriptions - NewspaperArchive AND GPC library (worth $275 if I subscribed direct) AND I still have access to all the other partner databases. It was a no brainer for me. I did lose the free in person access (though passes are available at $20 per day if needed), the discounts on programs and services and the exclusive offers (but the GEDmatch discount wasn't terribly substantial anyway).
So, if you like to have a lot of other database options, for $49.95 per year AmericanAncestors is truly a fantastic value. If you aren't yet convinced, you can sign up for a free guest membership to access a limited number of databases, and get a feel for whether you'd like to upgrade to a digital or individual membership. I believe the digital membership is by far the best value if you do the majority of your research online.
I like to have my tree on multiple sites. A few times a year, I've been creating a GEDCOM from either Ancestry or Family Tree Maker (FTM) and uploading it to MyHeritage and Findmypast. These are simply the sites I choose to use. If and where to upload GEDCOMs is a personal preference, depending on your specific needs.
There are numerous other sites and software where GEDCOMS are accepted. Reasons one might want to upload could include:
My #1 reason - having easy access to hinting from the sites I subscribe to
Keeping multiple online backups
Searching for more DNA matches
Collaborating with relatives and family groups
Utilizing specific research tools provided by software or websites
GEDCOM files generally contain a lot of information, most often including citations and facts, and potentially media depending on the program used to create the file. I've long wanted to be able to create a minimal GEDCOM, since all I'm interested in is hinting. I wanted a GEDCOM with only name, birth date/location, death date/location, marriage/location and divorce/location. I only want the basics...just enough to provide sufficient data to prompt the algorithms for hints.
My preferred desktop software is FTM. I can absolutely export a GEDCOM, but the options for filtering the contents are slim. Ancestry provides a one-size-fits-all download solution, no editing options there. GEDCOMs can be manually edited, but it's simply not a viable option for trees with large amounts of people and data. At one point, I found a website where they used to offer a program with the ability create exactly the file I was after (called The Complete Genealogy Builder). Sadly, the software has been discontinued and is no longer available for purchase. I didn't want to have to buy (or learn) new software specifically for creating these GEDCOMs. With a little persistence, I found a way to do it reasonably easily with RootsMagic. While not my preferred software, I do have the most recent paid version (RM11). According to Google, you very may be able to do this process with the free version, RootsMagic Essentials, as well. It does take a few minutes of setup each time you want to create this type of GEDCOM, but it's by far the easiest way I've found to do it. Here's are the detailed steps.
First, export your GEDCOM from your preferred software, or download from your preferred site, such as Ancestry. (Note: If you're a RootsMagic user, I'd still recommend exporting and working with the GEDCOM separate from your main research tree. If anything goes wrong or you make an error, you don't want to risk messing up all your hard work!) Since the main sites I upload to already privatize living people, I don't worry about doing it in my GEDCOM. But it's important to double check how the uploaded file is handled on each site. As an example, GEDmatch requires you to privatize your own file. Be sure you check each site's requirements so you don't encounter any unexpected surprises or problems.
Once you have your initial GEDCOM, import it into RootsMagic by selecting File > Create a New RootsMagic File > Import > GEDCOM > and select the location of your GEDCOM file.
Then, open your newly created file and select Tools > Fact Tools > Add or Modify Fact Types. Then Run the Selected Tool. You should have a screen like this:
Next is the most time consuming part. You'll need to edit each fact you don'twant in the GEDCOM. Select the Fact Type and click Edit. You'll want to UNCHECK Include When Exporting GEDCOM Files. Then click OK. (Facts have this box checked by default).
For facts you are keeping in the GEDCOM (especially if you use custom facts) be sure to check each one to determine if Use Description Field is included by default or not. You may wish to make adjustments to include or exclude them, depending on the purpose of your GEDCOM, and the information you're entering in the field. As an example, I have custom Marriage and Divorce fields to record timeline events for additional spouses I'm not researching or including in my tree. These facts are set up as individual person facts (not family or shared facts as the standard Marriage and Divorce facts are). In these cases, I include the name of the additional spouse in my description. Even on a minimal GEDCOM, I want to have the names visible when I upload to another site, so I must ensure those facts are using the Description.
You'll have to go thru every fact type one by one. When you're done excluding all the facts you don't want, and verifying the description use on the fields you do want, click OK on the bottom of the Fact Types screen.
This is where I wish there was an option to save, but unfortunately, there is not. You'll have to repeat this process each time you want to create a minimal GEDCOM. CAUTION: Your fact changes will be lost after you exit the file you're working with, regardless of whether you save it or not. It's critical you do the GEDCOM export prior to closing the file you're working with. The good news? Now, you're ready to export your modified GEDCOM!
Click on File > Export Data > GEDCOM
From here, you can specify where you want the file exported. I recommend reimporting the file into RootsMagic (or your preferred software) to double check and make sure everything looks just as you want it. Once you've verified, you're ready to upload to the sites or software where you want to use this GEDCOM.
Here are links on how to import GEDCOMs to the major websites:
I've also updated my Genealogy Toolbox to include these links, under GEDCOMs, in case you'd like to reference them in the future.
There are any number of reasons you might want to create a minimal GEDCOM. The facts you wish to include may be completely different than those I use. But the creation process is the same! It only takes 1/2 hour or so to create a minimal GEDCOM using RootsMagic. Perhaps in the future more software or websites will offer easier ways to do this, but this process accomplishes the goal without the need for time consuming manual editing or purchasing additional software. If you've long wanted a way to do this, or if you've found other easier ways to do it, let me know!
It's tempting to assume a spouse is dead when we wee someone listed as widow or widower. Such was the case when I found my 1st cousin 3x removed listed as a widow in the "St Joseph, Missouri, City Directory" in both 1911 and 1912. Though the addresses were different (but near one another), the message was the same. Amanda was, sadly, a widow.
Amanda Hortense James (1844-1932) married Fred Smith Lathrop March 29th, 1882, when she was 38 years old. It was her first marriage. Due to her age, it wasn't surprising they had no children. I felt a bit sad for her. She finally married, only to lose her husband. But this wasn't really the full picture!
When I got around to adding the 1910 census for Amanda, imagine my surprise to see her listed not as a widow - but divorced (and living with her sister).
Year: 1910; Census Place: St Joseph Ward 8, Buchanan, Missouri
But, in the 1920 census, she was once again listed again as a widow.
Year: 1920; Census Place: Chicago Ward 23, Cook (Chicago), Illinois
There were clearly two versions of the story. It wasn't unusual at the time for a divorced woman to say she was widowed, or perhaps even still married. Divorce still had quite a lot of stigma attached to it at the time. I tended to lean towards divorced since the 1910 census was the earliest mention of it, but with conflicting information, I had to set out in search of more records.
Fred Smith Lathrop (1852-1927) wasn't really high on my research priorities list. But this glaring difference in the records made me go back and give him a second look. Turns out, I found another marriage record for him from August of 1905, when he married a woman by the name of Josefa. I also found him in the 1910 and the 1920 census (though he was misrepresented as Ted instead of Fred in 1920). But, in both cases, the unusual name of Josefa made it clear I was looking at the same couple. Fred and Josefa remained married until Fred's true death in December 16tn, 1927.
Amanda never remarried. She continued to use the Lathrop surname until she passed away in April 1932. I'll never know if she claimed to be widowed to avoid social stigma, she was embarrassed, or because the divorce had been so painful she preferred to say Fred was dead. I still haven't located a divorce record to shed light on the reason for the split, or exactly when it happened. But it was clearly between the 1900 census, when Amanda and Fred were still together, and his next marriage in 1905.
This really reminded me not to make assumptions, and not to take everything at face value. Whenever possible, it's always best to have more than one source for the most important facts of birth, marriage, divorce, and death. Granted, there are time periods when finding even one record can be challenging. And it may not always be possible to verify every date. In some cases, we just have to make an educated guess. In these cases, I try to use "about" "before" or "after" to help remind me to watch for more information, and to indicate to others I'm not 100% sure - so they will hopefully be equally cautious and perhaps locate a record I've not yet found.
I was talking with a coworker (we'll call him Tom to protect his identity) at lunch on Friday. He asked if I ever do genealogy for others. I shared I had done some volunteer research for another co-worker, in search of his father's biological parents. He was interested to hear we believed we'd found solid leads in the right direction, but needed DNA confirmation before moving forward again. (Will the DNA test ever be done? I'm thinking probably not....but if it is...I'll be happy to pick back up where I left off).
Anyhow, Tom went on to share his family story of potentially being related to Doc Holliday. He's always been interested in trying to prove the connection. As a follow up, I asked if he was interested in actually doing the research, or just interested in finding out if it was true. As I suspected, it was the latter.
He provided me the name of his grandfather, from whom the family story had been shared. (This turned out to be an important stepping stone later.) I told him when I get frustrated working on my tree, maybe I'll give it a go for him. I realize, being related to someone famous is typically more family story than family truth. But still, I thought it might be a nice diversion at times to poke into the history (without feeling like I need to do the level of detail I maintain in my own tree).
So, I started a tree on Ancestry where I could begin to flesh out Tom's family tree. I easily found him in public records, and his parents from a newspaper article. And then hints stopped. Normally, the more hints I save the more hints I get. It didn't hold true in this case. But the all-important name and birth location of his grandfather came in handy! I plugged it in, and voila! I was back in business.
I spent an evening deciding the main facts I'd save, and just who would make it into this tree (vs. just being listed for reference in the notes field). It's not quite a "quick and dirty tree" since I may want to share the results (and have them be a useful jumping off point if anyone wants to do further research), but it's also not an incredibly detailed tree. I'll hit the basics (birth, marriage, divorce and death) as well as the added facts of residences, military service, and burial locations (just in case anyone ever wants to visit cemeteries). I'll certainly save all applicable records, but I won't take the time to mine all the facts. It should be more than enough information if anyone in his family has an interest to take it further in the future.
A quick Google told me Doc Holliday (born John Henry Holliday) was born in 1851 in Georgia. He had no living descendants of his own. He had one biological sister and one adopted brother, who both died young. Tom's family lore places him as the great-granduncle of Tom's grandfather (if the story is being relayed correctly). Given Doc Holliday's one biological sibling (the one potentially making him any kind of uncle, grand or otherwise) is known to have died young, it's already a big red flag. It doesn't mean there's no possible distant connection, but I'm not holding my breathe.
After just one evening, I'm at Tom's great-grandparents (born 1898 and 1902). I'm going to need to go back quite a bit further. I'll likely need to be able to reach into the 1700's (not always easy, or even possible, to do). Thankfully, others have researched Doc Holliday's ancestry, and I was able to find some names to watch for. Will they match up to anyone in Tom's tree? Not likely, but it's still a fun exercise for me. I just hope Tom won't be disappointed when/if nothing turns up.
No matter the results, it's still a fun family story. Stories shape families in imperceptible ways. There's nothing wrong with passing them down (but preferably with the caveat they may or may not be true). And who knows? Maybe the genealogy bug will bite someone new and they'll take the tree and run with it! For me, it would be a successful outcome if this helps inspire just one new family historian.
I finally got the new Ancestry Stickies feature today....and I am not a fan. In a world where lots of people have big screens and/or multiple monitors, small screen users are often overlooked when it comes to ease of use. Recent Ancestry changes have NOT been user friendly for small screens....and I would bet it holds true for iPad users who access via the web, and not the app. My laptop is an ultra portable with a 13.3" screen.
I'm a big user of the Notes field. I use it to track extended family members of people married into my family, multiple spouses and other children I may not want to research - but I need to know who they are, and the info needs to be visible so I can properly assess new hints. And equally as important, the regular Notes field syncs to FTM, so it's the best place to add notes that need to be in both places.
Stickies essentially obliterate my view of all of this information. As you can see in the screenshot, you can't even see my Notes if I start to add one. Even in the default view, the feature takes up 1/2 of my Notes field and I now have to scroll to see all my data because Stickies are at the top of the field. To be able to see Stickies AND Notes, I'd have to scale down to less than 75% of my already small screen size, and I literally can't even read the text.
It was bad enough when they changed Quick Edit and the slider closes the Notes/Tags/Comments and they have to be reopened every time. I tried to roll with the punches on it, I know change is inevitable. But now, Stickies are compounding the problem. If we could move them to the bottom, toggle them when we want to use them...or better yet...give them their own heading like Comments, Notes and Tags!! (instead of slapping then on top of the Notes field)...it would be amazing, and potentially one of the best new recent features. But as it stands, the implementation is absolutely awful for small screens.
Introducing changes in a thoughtful and meaningful way for users is just as important as dumping a whole lot of new features onto the site. Making sure changes work for those using various types of devices is an extremely important part of website design (for all websites). If, like me, you use a small screen and find these new changes frustrating, be sure to submit feedback on Ancestry's site. Occasionally they listen and sometimes even make changes as a result of user feedback. I don't really want this feature to go away (I'm just frustrated), but it would be really nice if it had been implemented in a way not rendering a widely used field almost useless for a subset of users. How do you feel about the new feature? Have you encountered any challenges with the recent site changes?
I'm not always a fan of change, especially not with websites I use day in and day out. The seemingly endless roll-out of changes at Ancestry is no exception. I'm just as frustrated as many other users are. Getting used to changes takes a bit of time, and can make research feel a little more cumbersome for a bit. And when changes seem to roll-out day after day after day, it can be overwhelming! Beta features contribute to this, as they may come and go during the testing.
But, at least one of these changes actually fixed a problem I blogged about back in October 2025. For a long time the collection "Web: Obituary Daily Times Index, 1995-2016" wouldn't properly save an edited citation. With the new updated edit citation screen (shown below) I can once again enter and save data with no errors! And, I no longer have to edit special characters (like the ~ tilde) and change them to something else. OCD or not, I won't be going back to change these in my older citations. It will just be nice moving forward not to have to remember to edit them.
The fields are actually the same, they're just in a different order and new layout. After about 2 days, I got used to how the new screen is populated. It still feels a little odd, but the fact I'm not encountering errors any longer makes the learning curve worthwhile.
However, if you add your own sources on Ancestry (and I use this frequently) the new layout on this screen is a little less intuitive. It defaults to creating a totally new source. It's fine if indeed you want to do this, but if you just want to use one of the sources you've added in the past, you'll have to choose "Select existing source" to get to the dropdown of all your sources (as shown below). Fear not! All your sources are still there, just another click away.
This is a bit like how they changed the media gallery a while back, requiring different steps to see user uploaded content and images from Ancestry hints. You have to make a choice you weren't used to making. Once you do it a few times, it's no big deal, but the first time you go to use it, you may have a brief moment of panic (as I did) wondering where all your custom sources went!
While I'm not always a fan of change, I am a big fan of fixing broken features. In this case, I'm super glad I can go back and deal with my hints from the collection "Web: Obituary Daily Times Index, 1995-2016", since I've been skipping them for about 6 months now. I was convinced I had hundreds of hints waiting for me in this collection, but in reality, it was only about 60. I'm working my way through them and hope to finish this weekend. This project is also consistently generating a few new hints for each person. It's a double win and I'm eagerly anticipating going back to check the new hints out (after I finish with this collection).
So, while you may find the plethora of new beta features and GUI changes (graphical user interface - fancy words for how the screens look), frustrating....give it a little time and it will become second nature again. Especially if you're returning after an Ancestry break, you may be visually overwhelmed. Just give it a few days and I bet you'll find you're zipping around as quickly as ever. Let me know how you feel about the new changes. Do you wish they'd leave well enough alone? Have you found a new feature you really love?
Every so often, a quote or post resonates in the deepest crevices of my mind. It whispers to the very depths of my genealogy loving soul. When I hear this little voice, I know I need to save the words to re-read time and time again. I affectionately call these my "Genealogy Life Lessons".
Below are my favorites. I hope you'll read and enjoy these as much as I do.
“We all grow up with the weight of history on us. Our ancestors dwell in the attics of our brains as they do in the spiraling chains of knowledge hidden in every cell of our bodies.”
~~Shirley Abbott
"We are braver and wiser because they existed, those strong women and strong men...We are who we are because they were who they were. It's wise to know where you come from, who called your name."
~~Maya Angelou
“The world is shaped by two things – stories told and the memories they leave behind.”
~~Vera Nazarian. Dreams of the Compass Rose
“If you don’t recount your family history, it will be lost. Honor your own stories and tell them too. The tales may not seem very important, but they are what binds families and makes each of us who we are.”
~~Madeleine L'Engle
“History remembers only the celebrated, genealogy remembers them all." ~~Laurence Overmire, One Immigrant's Legacy: The Overmyer Family in America, 1751-2009: A Biographical Record of Revolutionary War Veteran Capt. John George Overmire and His Descendants
With recent changes as Google transitions to data processor for reCAPTCHA (something I don't really understand, but Google keeps sending me emails about an upcoming deadline) I started poking around to see if I needed a more robust privacy policy.
While this is a personal blog, and I do not receive compensation or consideration for posts, nor do I use any third-party advertising networks, affiliate links, analytics tracking, marketing pixels or other forms of monetization - I decided to err on the side of caution.
I've added a more detailed Privacy Policy page to my main menu. You can also access it from the Privacy Policy section in my footer.
I also made some additional minor tweaks to my footer. In this day and age, there are more rules and regulations about...well...almost everything! I'm just trying to cover my bases, protect my original content, and be as transparent as possible.
Thank you for being a reader, and if you ever have any privacy concerns with my site, please reach out to me.
TRIGGER WARNING: This post mentions criminal violence. No names or newspaper links are included to shield the living (even if it may be undeserved).
I've seen tv shows, and read about, people who uncover disturbing stories in their family tree as they set out on their journey to discover family secrets. Yet somehow, I wasn't fully prepared to find this in my own tree. I was taken aback when I started reviewing a newspaper clipping from spring of 1986 (just a few short months before I graduated high school) to find a 3rd cousin 1x removed, in my paternal line, at the center of a horrific story.
The initial article (a photo hint from another Ancestry user) only mentioned a father, mother and son had been found dead in their home. Their oldest son had been arrested for murder. In almost all cases, murder is a senseless and selfish crime, pointing not to any form of self-preservation, but to someone who decides extreme violence is an acceptable response to conflict.
After an additional search on Newspapers, I found the story was worse than I first expected. Maybe I could have rationalized if there was some indication of ongoing family violence, or if the son had mental challenges, rendering him truly incapable of understanding his actions. And while not an excuse, I could have wrapped my brain around a drug fueled spree. None of these were the case.
The eldest son, just 18 years old, had been in trouble before for robbery and theft, spending time in a juvenile facility. He certainly had issues, but from those meager facts alone, I wouldn't have inferred he was an imminent danger to anyone. Yet, on Easter morning 1986, he broke into his family's home, brutally stabbing his parents and younger brother - killing them while they slept. The reason? An argument over using a sports car.
He was sentenced under the terms of a plea agreement, confessing to 3 counts of second-degree murder and 1 count of crime of violence. He received 48 years for each count of murder, to run concurrently. He was eligible for release after only 24 years (in 2010). Another search on Ancestry found him living in an apartment, and as a registered voter, in 2022. I personally find his release deeply troubling.
In hindsight, it was probably just a matter of time before I discovered something like this. If we look hard enough, there are secrets hiding under rocks just waiting to be uncovered. Newspapers record the happenings of the time...good, bad, and everything in between. We look through them to find clues to our family history. Just because I don't like this particular find doesn't stop it from being a part of my family's past. But I still wish it weren't true. I wish this small branch of my tree hadn't been cut short, leaving only the perpetrator to carry on.
The reality is, our family members live, and they die. The circle of life weaves the very fabric of the history we seek out - even when it's ugly.
A major winter storm will impact more than half of the United States this weekend. My home state of Maryland is no exception, with 12-14" of snow forecast for my city. And, to make it even better (said facetiously), it appears it'll be served up with a generous side of ice and extreme cold for at least the next 10 days.
Being a mid-Atlantic state, we simply aren't used to significant snowfall, and clean up will almost certainly take several days, if not longer. So, this is a perfect weekend to hunker down, dig into the records and focus on finding some new ancestors!
This past week, I added a new set of 3rd great grandparents to the maternal side of the family tree. By looking at Ancestry's ThruLines®, backed up by the 1850 census and a North Carolina marriage record, I was finally confident enough to add David Oakes (or Oaks) and Polly Lovell to my tree. Both were born about 1797-1800. I'm anxious to start expanding this line forward towards some of the 203 DNA matches I have from this ancestral couple. I'm particularly tickled to work on their daughter. I can't help but giggle when I see her name - Gooley Oakes.
I've tried to find information on where the name Gooley comes from, and it appears to be more of an Irish surname. I can't help but wonder if this is a quiet pointer to my 8% Irish origins, shown as coming solely from my maternal side. Thus far, I've yet to push my maternal line outside of the United States. Perhaps it's an homage to another direct ancestor I've yet to discover. If so, I'll be pushing solidly back into the 1700's, a time where handwritten records become much harder for me to decipher. Thankfully, AI is reasonably good at this task. When the algorithms stop serving up as many hints, I'll head over to FamilySearch for some full-text searches.
I wasn't feeling particularly motivated to work on records yesterday evening, so I decided to set off in search of....well....the unknown! I had 3 people in my tree I knew were married into the family, but absolutely no clue at all as to their names. Since using 5 underscores doesn't mess up the algorithms, all 3 were listed as "_____ _____" in my tree. Those underscores peered back at me every time I opened my tree. I wanted....no...I needed to know their names. After quite a bit of searching, I've managed to identify all 3!
For the first, it was the husband of one of my 1st cousins 1x removed, who's living so I won't include names. I know she's married because her aunt (my cousin) filled me in on some family information a couple of years ago. My normal jump to FamilyTreeNow only provided some historical data. No clue as to her husband, married surname or where she may be living now. Ancestry wasn't giving up any secrets either. I know I could have just asked my cousin, but sometimes it feels a little awkward when it's not someone I talk to on any kind of regular basis. Not everyone understands just how much we family genealogists have a burning need to place everyone in our tree! I was hopeful I could find the information on my own. I tried Newspapers with no success. Since newspapers (in general) can be goldmines, I have subscriptions to several other sites. I'll be honest, my hopes weren't high. But as it turns out, I was able to find a marriage record in a newspaper from 2017 on GenealogyBank. While it didn't contain anything more than the names and ages, it was enough! Thanks to an uncommon spelling of her given name, I was confident I had the right couple.1 down, 2 to go!
The second was for the 2nd great-grandfather of my ex-husband, William Berendes (1835-1913). I've long known he had more than one wife. His oldest 2 daughters were born 10+ years before his other children, and the age of his 2nd wife eliminated her as a potential mother of these 2 daughters. Further, his will mentioned 2 deceased wives. Many trees show the first wife as Theresa Rawtermundt. The problem was, I wasn't finding any records for a marriage with this name. In fact, searches were only brining up his 2nd wife. William was born in Germany, but he arrived here in the US in 1852. His daughters were born 1861 and 1863. Based on his age at the time of arrival, it was likely the first marriage took place somewhere in the US. I decided to widen my search a little. Using wildcards in William's name did the trick. Instead of using William Berendes, I used Wil*m Ber*des. Using the * allows the algorithm to look for other potential spellings. I was actually expecting to find him listed as Wilhelm, but I turned up a record for William Berandes (with an a not an e) and a Thureza Rodermond. Now to be fair, the indexes may have been transcribed from records where the names were inadvertently spelled incorrectly. But I'm comfortable this is the right couple, and it's a starting point. I'm on the right trail! 2 down, 1 to go!
The final push was for a cousin, also still living so he shall remain nameless in this post, who was married previously, as per the record of his 2nd marriage. Of course I started with his name and year of birth (not helpful on its own), then narrowed only to marriage/divorce records from the US, and then further narrowed to the state of Ohio. The number of results returned wasn't 5 or 10, but I was in the zone and I went through quite a few pages. Finally, I was able to find both the marriage and divorce (even though they stubbornly wouldn't come up on their own when searching by name only). It was by sheer determination I was able to find the 3rd out of 3!
With these 3 names identified, I have no more "_____ ______" staring at me from my tree. I do still have plenty of first or last names still unidentified, but those will wait for another time. So, no matter how many times you've searched before, you never know when one more search will turn up the record you're looking for. Don't assume using the correct name is going to bring up all the records. Be creative! If you don't already, learn to use wildcards. Ancestry has a very helpful page of Search Tips. I've added this link to my Genealogy Toolbox so it's easy to find if you ever need it. How have you managed to find completely unknown names? Do you have any tricks you can share?
The other day, I was checking Ancestry's ThruLines® for my 3rd great-grandfather, Jacob Shelly (1772-1853). I randomly decided to check the DNA matches listed for his daughter, Ester Shelly (1800-1888). Although I don't have many records for her, I've long known she was married to David Alleman (1796-1864). So imagine my surprise when I also saw 3 potential children with the surname Call.
I poked around on Ancestry, doing several different searches, but wasn't coming up with anything helpful in terms of a marriage or births of children. I also did a quick survey backwards from the DNA matches, but ran into roadblocks when it came to actually matching the children to Ester. We're talking 1818-1822 and birth records are hit or miss at best. Trees mentioning Call didn't provide any useful documentation to prove the relationship either.
I was perplexed. But, the next day, I decided to do a full-text search at FamilySearch. I used the name of Ester Call (instead of her maiden name Ester Shelly) and then included the keyword Shelly in my search. I also limited the search to Pennsylvania where Ester was born, even though she ultimately ended up in Ohio. All the known documentation I've seen for her is focused in Ohio, but since the supposed children had birth dates prior to those she had with David Alleman, I figured it would be a likely bet, any previous marriage might have been before she moved. And I struck paydirt!
In the Cumberland. Appearance Dockets 1826–1828, I found where she had appeared before the court, seeking to disentangle herself from her husband Nicholas Call. In part the record reads:
"November 15th 1826 came into Court Ester Call by her father...Jacob Shelly and prefered [sic] a petition therein stating, that in the month of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, this libellent [sic] was intermarried with Nicholas Call with whom she resided and cohabited until the month of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty three..."
Long story short, it appeared Ester married at just 16. By the time she was 23, she had at least 3 children with Nicholas. He abandoned his family, and she appears to have waited 3 years before filing to divorce him. This was about the same time as her father was in the process of relocating to Wayne County, Ohio. Several of his children made the trip with him to establish new roots there. I suspect Ester wanted to do the same (although I haven't come across any concrete records showing her in Ohio until the 1850 census.)
By June 1850, she was married to David Alleman and had 2 grown sons with him, as well as one child who passed away. They did have some younger children enumerated in their household in 1850, but I've yet to determine just where they may fit in my tree. At the time of this Census, David Alleman was shown as having property valued at $5000 in Clinton, Wayne, Ohio.
Then, I found another interesting twist (thank you again full-text search!) In the Wayne. Deed Books 1850–1852, by 1851 Nicholas Call had passed away, leaving 160 acres of land to his son Michael Call. Not terribly unusual for a father to leave property to the eldest son, except the land was in....wait for it!...Clinton, Wayne, Ohio. And to make it a little more strange, his will further specified:
"...the above conveyance is made on the express condition that Hester Alamon [sic] wife of the late Nicholas Call and the Mother of the said Michael Call shall have the use and occupation of said land during her natural life..."
There has always been some confusion if her given name was Ester, Esther, or Hester. I've seen records for all 3 different given names. And the misspelling of Alleman, as Alamon, doesn't give me any pause at all. I'm very confident we're talking about the same person.
Ester filed her initial petition to the courts in late 1826, Her children with David Alleman were born in 1827 and 1828. It's pretty clear she moved on quickly. But given Ester and David Alleman presumably already had property in 1850, it seems very unusual Nicholas specified she should have use of his land. Is it possible the property detailed for David was actually the land owned by Nicholas? I suppose it could be. Census enumerators asked questions and recorded responses. It wasn't their job to make sure the information provided was correct. Or did Nicholas also move, purchasing a separate property to be closer to his children? Equally as possible. For now, it's a mystery.
Ester probably struggled with social stigma in her home state of Pennsylvania. Even though Nicholas left them, being essentially a single mother of 3 young children wasn't the ideal situation for her. Moving to Ohio may have been the fresh start she needed. It's nice to know she found stability with David. I hope in the future, I can tease out more details of her story. In any case, I'm excited to work towards placing the Call DNA descendants in my tree.
May 2026 bring you a plethora of new hints, supporting full-text search results, new ancestors and lots of new DNA cousins! I hope it's a prosperous genealogy year for all!
