On Mon, November 10, 2008 1:30 am, Linda H. Gutierrez wrote: > Brian wrote: > >>Bavaria is just so far out there, it is highly improbable an Alsatian >> would claim to be Bavarian. > >>Alsace and Lorraine were a part of Prussia for a period of time. > > > > Brian, > > The Rheinland Pfalz, also known as the Palatinate, was for a long time > part of Bavaria, so there was in fact a part of Bavaria that was near to > Alsace. I disagree. Rhineland-Pfalz and the Palatinate are not interchangeable. You cannot rely on modern day designations, which were created by (predominately) the American forces post WWII (1946), and has no particular relationship to the real historical boundaries. Certainly, the Palatinate does touch the northern border of Alsace-Lorraine. However, Rheinland-Pfalz is a modern designation that includes the Palatinate, Parts of Hesse-Darmstadt, Hesse-Nassau and Oldenburg. Neither does the current day Rhein-Pfalz Kreis have any necessary relation to the Palatinate, although it is a part of the Palatinate. Modern day Germany was a hodge-podge of literally hundreds of little to big kingdoms, eventually all absorbed into Prussia. If you are going to correct my generalizations with specifics, please use the proper specifics. I was trying to make a point, although you do have a valid one also. If her ancestor had come from the Palinate, and not really Bas-Rhin, he might have considered himself Bavarian. The original poster has not told us which census records indicate he may have been from Bavaria or Prussia, but that the earlier ones listed France. I know we are talking about the mid to late 1800s. So I am confused as to how she can be certain that that her ancestor is the one always giving the answers. I know no way of verifying that any particular piece of data in a census was given by a particular person. Certainly if he came over before the 1860s, then Alsace would have been French, and later be part of Prussia. He could certainly have been confused as to whether it was part of Prussia or Bavaria. Or it could be as simple as he didn't answer where he was from and the census taker filled in the location based on others living in the area and/ or his accent. It may even be that the census taker filled in the information incorrectly or the transcriber who made the copy made a mistake, etc. My point was that one should NOT rely on the census data to reflect the actual information that may or may not have been provided by the original person. Censuses are NOT Primary sources of data and should not be given such status, as there are many mistakes in them and equally so the IGI data. If you have three censuses that say France, one that says Bavaria and two that say Prussia, and you suspect your ancestor came from Alsace, then in all probability your ancestor came from Alsace and looking in Bavaria is likely to prove fruitless. I was trying guide our researcher into making the most logical and profitable use of her time, rather than chasing shadows. If I over generalized in my attempt, forgive me. I am a careful researcher and am not simply trying to collect names and dates to fill up a family tree. Since our researcher has been searching for thirty years, I assume she is also. Still if after thirty years you have not found your relative in Bischwiller, Bas-Rhin, then there is a proportional likelihood that you should in fact look at the records of Bischwller-les-Thann, Haut-Rhin. Have you in fact looked at the records in Bischwiller? Have you contacted the clerk in Bischwiller? I received a response within weeks of contacting the clerk there. My result in Bischwiller was negative, but not in Bischwiller-les-Thann. However, if you have not exhausted your options in Bischwiller, then by all means do that first. Sorry for the length. Brian