This very interesting question was raised on another mailing list and I wonder what our listers views are? -----Original Message----- From: imts.co.uk [mailto:iain@imts.co.uk] Sent: 10 August 2000 10:25 To: CLAN-MACKENZIE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Twisting the evidence Be honest everyone, how many of you have been tempted to establish a link between two people, based on very little documentary evidence, just because it "seemed to fit" or "appeared likely"? Whatever the field of research - life on other planets, global warming, or genealogy - people will always be tempted to manipulate the evidence to fit the result that they are looking for. When there is a Nobel prize or a Noble ancestor at stake, the temptation must be all the greater. My aim in posting this message is to provoke some debate and perhaps establish some ground rules about how much evidence is required before a connection is considered to be "beyond reasonable doubt". Most of us who get back beyond 1750 find the evidence is very patchy and I am sure most of you have reached the situation in which you have a definite birth/baptism record of a definite ancestor and so you look further back for the father named on that record. You then find the marriage record of a man with that name a few years earlier in the next parish. It must be him! Well it's very likely isn't it? And nobody can prove it is not the same man. But there is no other evidence to confirm that it is. It just makes me wonder how many family trees have been falsely extended (even by professional genealogists, on whom the pressure to "come up with the goods" must be equally great), because people cannot bear to admit that they have reached "the end of the line". ==== CLAN-MACKENZIE Mailing List ==== Clan Motto: Cuidich 'N Righ - "Save the King"

Dear All, This is an interesting one especially for those of us researching in the Borders where the records are not as complete as they could be :-) My view, (in defence of my own position obviously) is that it depends on the circumstances. I would suggest that to a large degree the rarity of the surname will determine the amount of evidence you need before you can accept a link between two people. Here is my example to illustrate. My gggg grandfather Andrew STAVERT lived, married and died in the parishes of Ashkirk and Selkirk in the late 18th century. I know, from the parish register entries for his marriage and the birth of his children, that he was a tailor. According to his gravestone in Selkirk kirkyard he was born in 1730. A search of the parish registers showed that no-one of that name, indeed no STAVERTs at all were born in either Selkirk or Ashkirk before the late 1730s. Andrew's son, Walter, my ggg grandfather, although born in Selkirk, settled in Peebles where he was the burgh officer for many years. In all the Borders parishes, there was only 1 Andrew STAVERT born in 1730. He was born in the parish of Lyne near Peebles, the son of John STAVERT, who was a tailor. I have not been able to establish who John's parents were although I suspect that they lived in Peebles, as the parish register does contain birth entries for children born around the time that I would expect John to have been born, but that is far too vague even for me! The Borders naming system is also a factor - my family did not stick to it strictly but certainly names do run in families. Andrew and John are names in my branch of the STAVERTs. However, Thomas, a name common in two other branches does not appear in mine at all. I should perhaps say that there are only 7 branches of STAVERTs in Scotland, and all bar 3 have died out. There are fewer than 500 STAVERTs alive today, anywhere. I would have to say that if I had been researching Andrew KERR, and had found a possible link in Lyne, I would have needed a whole lot more evidence to make the connection. After all, there are lots of Andrew KERRs. What do you think? Do I have enough evidence to make a connection? regards Caroline Stavert researching all Staverts everywhere!

Hi Bill, >This very interesting question was raised on another mailing list and I >wonder what our listers views are? I've seen many examples of people unwittingly 'twisting' the evidence in this way - in the Scottish Borders context - over the last 15 years. The key word is 'unwittingly' I think. Sometimes the 'twisting' happens because they are unfamiliar with the records/indexes they have used, perhaps not checking a record that would have been obvious to check, other times it is because they fervently want the link to be true. Genealogical records that we use are rarely 100% reliable or 100% complete in their coverage. Using indexes compounds the difficulty because indexes commonly provide even more incomplete coverage of what were already very incomplete and unreliable records. Yet there are often paths that can help guide us to the answers we seek (this sounds terribly religious, but is not intended to): logical steps of records and procedures to follow, which minimise the chances of a wrong link. I fear also that many people need to open their eyes (or rather their minds) to the pitfalls that lie in records in the past. If all you want to do is gather names and don't mind if they are your names, then fine, use creative genealogy (as the term is often called) to your hearts content. If you want to research your own family tree you may have to work that bit harder, and have a much more sceptical attitude. I'm currently writing a 'Pitfalls in Scottish Borders Genealogical Research' series of articles which will be linked from GENUKI in future. They may be a bit controversial in places, but I've seen too many people spend lots of time and money researching the wrong lines, only to find years later what they've done. I want to try to help people avoid that. Best wishes. Viv Dunstan Fife, Scotland (but originally from Hawick and Melrose in Roxburghshire) http://www.vivdunstan.clara.net/

Dear Bill and Vivienne, A hardy, "Amen!" to both of your postings. As we all know the borders diaspora had several stages historically. For those of us who left the borders in the 1600's the problems of documentation are extremely acute. We envy those who left only 100 to 150 years ago to Canada, NZ or Australia. For us, the trail is old and the signs are difficult to follow. For this reason, the ubiquitous "Family Genealogy Book" has served in lieu of fact and solid documentation. Just about every family has one and they're both a blessing and a curse. Cousin Vivenne [I did find our common Traquair/Rutherford ancestor by the way] I can't thank you enough for all of your hard work in the area of Borders genealogy. Thank you again for making my first copy of "The Rutherfords in Britian, a history and guide" by K. Rutherford Davis available to me. This work has changed my entire outlook on the family genealogy. Everyone I've talked to has nothing but praise for this work both as a Rutherford family study and, perhaps more importantly, as an example of uncompromising scholarship in the face of genealogical fantasy and "tweeking". Here's a posting from the Rutherford list on the problem Bill and Vivienne have addressed and how it relates to one borders family; the Rutherfords. - - - - - - - In North America, the major sources of Rutherford genealogical data have come from two works; "The Rutherfurds of that Ilk and their Cadets" by Thomas H. Cockburn-Hood and a self-published work called "The Genealogical History of the Rutherford Family" by William Kenneth and Anna Rutherford. William Kenneth Rutherford's work drew heavily from Cockburn-Hood which was published in Scotland 80 to 100 years earlier. So what's the problem? The problem is that Cockburn-Hood's work has been shown to have many mistakes and, more disturbingly, out and out fabrications. All of which, were absorbed into William and Anna's work and have become "sacred cows" among Rutherford researchers ever since. Through documentation [or the lack of it] much of this data/history has been shown to be untrue. Sadly, this bunk is still accepted as fact. For example, there are at least 5 Rutherford family webpages that come directly out of Cockburn-Hood's fantasies. I have also posted using materials from the same source. Well, who in the heck has been rocking our boat? It's an Englishman!! Be calm my cousins he's a Rutherford, so let's hear him out. :-) His name is Kenneth Rutherford Davis and his scholarship is very highly respected. He skeptically went into the original Scottish records and found many examples of Cockburn-Hood's mistakes and "mythologies". Whole Rutherford lines were invented. Rutherford connections with historical figures were concocted and William and Anna Rutherford, bless their hearts, used this baloney as gospel. As a result, the Kenneth Rutherford Davis book, "The Rutherfords in Britian, a history and guide" has caused a stir among North American researchers of the Rutherford family. By in large, William and Anna Rutherford's work is excellent when it deals with North American data and got much better with it's Scottish materials after they and Davis discovered each other's work and began to communicate. We Rutherfords all owe a great debt to these three folks. William and Anna Rutherford's major contribution was in ferreting out many of the colonial Rutherford records and documenting well established Rutherford emigrations from Scotland and Ireland. William and Anna Rutherford were then able to verify the presence of Hunthill, Edgerston, Chatto/Nisbet and Castlewood Rutherford groups in early colonial Virginia and Pennsylvania. They also documented, as well as they could, the survivors of the Reverend Samuel Rutherford's family here in America following his death in 1660. Here in the USA, Samuel Rutherford [not John Knox] is called the "father of the Presbyterian Church". William and Anna Rutherford's work however had problems when they tried to connect the immigrant generations with Rutherford cadets in Roxburghshire. They were using Cockburn-Hood's mistakes and "mythologies" and, as a result, many Rutherfords have bought into these mythologies as fact. As you might expect, Davis' scholarship has not been all together welcome in some quarters! Having a nice neat "verified" line back to Robertus Dominus de Rodyrforde was the best thing since sliced bread. However, Kenneth Rutherford Davis hasn't found any evidence at all that "Lord Robert" [the mythical Rutherford progenitor] ever existed?? The following is my theory and only my theory: It looks like Davis and William and Anna Rutherford struck some kind of de facto genealogical bargain, or at least, made a division of labor. [William passed away at about the same time as Davis - Anna still survives] The deal appears to be that Davis wouldn't venture into the world of American Rutherfords and this was reciprocated. William and Anna would reprint new editions of their works, in part to "purge Cockburn-Hood" and bowed to Davis' work when it came to "Rutherfords in Britian". Which sounds like a logical thing to have done, considering. However, they should not have been so trusting. So even the champion of the "Anti-tweekers" K. Rutherford Davis was caught tweeking. Here's only one example: I'm investigating a slight slip by Davis, Anna and William, which in America is more than a minor problem. If you look on page 88 of Davis' book you'll see General Griffith Rutherford listed as the son of John Rutherford, a descendant of the Reverend Samuel Rutherford - many references disagree. Griffith Rutherford was actually from the Edgerston Rutherfords. This error has thrown much of Davis' work into doubt by Americans "addicted" to Cockburn-Hood. Ironically, Davis clearly states on page 88 that the materials [and mistakes] are not his, but William and Anna's!! Mistakes are only human but, my point is simple, if Griffith's line has problems, then your's might too. If you live outside the southern USA or are new to "Rutherfordolgy", you may be asking, "What's the big deal with this Griffith?" Well, he was a famous Revolutionary War hero and a friend of George Washington's. Oops!! He also has 3 counties in 3 different states named after him in North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. This was the wrong guy to make a mistake with?! All of his descendants are fit to be tied or have been using William and Anna's data for so long that they could care less!? It just goes to show that one work on the Rutherfords or even all 3 can't substitute for original research and solid documentation. - - - - - - - sources: 1 - "Genealogical History of the Rutherford Family" by William Kenneth Rutherford and Anna Clay Zimmerman editions from 1969 to 1986 2 - "The Rutherfurds of that Ilk and their Cadets" by Thomas H. Cockburn-Hood published in Edinburgh - 1884 later additions and corrections 1899-1903 by C.H.E. Carmichael 3 - "The Rutherfords in Britain: a history and guide" by Kenneth Rutherford Davis published by Alan Sutton Publishing of Gloucester - 1987 -- all three are currently out of print --

I agree with your comments. I am recording as " possible or probable " parents or Siblings. Then when I can no longer research, & there may be some new as yet unsighted material come out from a cupboard, or from under someones bed, then I hope that an adult child of mine will become addicted to this hobby, & note that the marr. in 1740, was not actually prooven, & work on the next step. I have found that there is a tendancy for some people to submit names & there is no link to their own family. Just happened that the family was in the same geographical area, so were claimed. I have written to 2 separate people, asking for information, to satisfy my curiosity, & received no reply. Mary from New Zealand ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill McKenzie" <Bill@Petrobras.com> To: <BORDER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:33 PM Subject: FW: Twisting the evidence > This very interesting question was raised on another mailing list and I > wonder what our listers views are? > > -----Original Message----- > From: imts.co.uk [mailto:iain@imts.co.uk] > Sent: 10 August 2000 10:25 > To: CLAN-MACKENZIE-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Twisting the evidence > > > Be honest everyone, how many of you have been tempted to establish a link > between two people, based on very little documentary evidence, just because > it "seemed to fit" or "appeared likely"? > Whatever the field of research - life on other planets, global warming, or > genealogy - people will always be tempted to manipulate the evidence to fit > the result that they are looking for. > When there is a Nobel prize or a Noble ancestor at stake, the temptation > must be all the greater. > My aim in posting this message is to provoke some debate and perhaps > establish some ground rules about how much evidence is required before a > connection is considered to be "beyond reasonable doubt". > Most of us who get back beyond 1750 find the evidence is very patchy and I > am sure most of you have reached the situation in which you have a definite > birth/baptism record of a definite ancestor and so you look further back for > the father named on that record. You then find the marriage record of a man > with that name a few years earlier in the next parish. It must be him! Well > it's very likely isn't it? And nobody can prove it is not the same man. But > there is no other evidence to confirm that it is. > It just makes me wonder how many family trees have been falsely extended > (even by professional genealogists, on whom the pressure to "come up with > the goods" must be equally great), because people cannot bear to admit that > they have reached "the end of the line". > > > ==== CLAN-MACKENZIE Mailing List ==== > Clan Motto: Cuidich 'N Righ - "Save the King" >