Could They Be Related to Doc Holliday?

1872 John Henry Holliday**

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.

**Photo is public domain from 1872

New Ancestry Sticky Notes Aren't Small Screen Friendly

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?

Editing Citations: One Ancestry Glitch Is Fixed with the New Update

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? 

Genealogy Life Lessons

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.

********************

Walk with Your Ancestors: Peace, Light and Healing in an Abandoned Medieval Village by Roberta Estes on DNAeXplained

The Ghost in Your DNA: Why You Feel Connected to Ancestors You've Never Met by Marc McDermott on GenealogExplained

I’m Done Being Mad at Genealogy by Will Moneymaker on AncestralFindings

Promptile Dysfunction: Why We Can’t Stop Accidentally Hitting ‘Enter’ on Unfinished AI Prompts by Thomas MacEntee on GenealogyBargains

“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

Updated Privacy Policy 2026

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.

Image by Markus Winkler from Pixabay

A Branch Cut Short (TW: Criminal Violence)

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. 

Snowed In? Perfect Weather for Digging Up Ancestors

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. 

If you're up for an interesting read, check out "20 Ways Your Ancestors Survived Snowstorms That Would Seem Insane Today" by Marc McDermott at Genealogy Explained. I found it really interesting. And if you're in the path of this winter storm - please stay safe!

Image by Couleur from Pixabay

Turning the Unknown into the Known

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?

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

An Unexpected Bud on My Family Tree

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. 

Image by wal_172619 from Pixabay

Welcome to 2026!

 

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!

Image by ArtistyDesign from Pixabay