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.