> Among my assorted ancestors are a number of cabinetmakers and a > living cousin does antique restorations. > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> Cheryl, I am so thankful for your ancestors! Other than your reply I have found no information whatsoever other than that brief statement obtained from Google. Thank you for your time and help. ### From: AEP <aepalmer@a-znet.com> > Anyone who uses a lathe can be called a TURNER. As such, the > occupation could be related to either wood or metal working. If > WOOD, it could be the making of architectural millwork such as > spindles for railings, etc. If METAL, it would be in conjunction > with a machine shop. This reply, too, just came in. Thanks to you, too, for the response to my query. Fran powell@closecall.com

Here's my question: Ancestor X born in 1773 is considered to be the son of Y & Z based on published histories in the 1800's. He certainly lived and married alongside this family (but there were others of his surname in the area). According to the published sources, X was the 3rd of 4 sons born to Y & Z, after a string of girls all living. All three sons other than X die before the age of 5. When the last of these sons dies, X was 2 years old. I have tombstone inscriptions of all three other sons. They agree with the published birth/death dates. However, on the 4th son's tombstone, he is identified as "the third son of Y&Z". (The first two tombstones just say "son of ...") How much weight should I give this seeming descrepancy? Could the tombstone possibly be interpreted as "the third son of Y&Z to die"? What that sort of "ordering" ever a custom to anyone's knowledge? I am new at this, and I would greatly appreciate any help from more experienced hands. Marti Ford mford@moscow.com

singhals@erols.com writes: > Since Z is the only one designated "minor", it implies (doesn't it?) > that X and Y are both 21 or older. Cheryl- I think so. > Since the known wife isn't mentioned, how safe is it to assume she's > dead in 1836? I definitely think (even without knowing what Illinois' dower laws were at the time) that you can assume if the man was free to sell/ transfer property to anyone without the wife's permission/signature that his wife was no longer living. > Does the absence of any further record (land, probate, marriage, > census) in that county for grantor, X, Y, or Z imply they left? > (The county did not subdivide thereafter.) I'd only give you a maybe on this one. If not, how could they > not-leave any other record, before or after? If grantor and/or X > and Y died, shouldn't there be some sort of estate settlement, even > if not a probate? Should be, but I'd never say you will always find that info. Sometimes things don't get recorded or become lost. :) Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

"L. Witzig" <lwitz1967@hotmail.com> wrote: > Do any of you have a short list of (a) books or (b) net sites that > would cover the basics of internet genealogy searches? I am loathe > to pay Ancestry.com $30 for an intro genealogical research on the > internet course. Hello all - The National Genealogical Society in the U.S. has a new series of genealogy books, published by Rutledge Hill Press. Two of the books are now available. I have copies here and I highly recommend them both. See the details for both books below. Cyndi -------- Genealogy 101: How to Trace Your Family's History and Heritage by Barbara Renick http://www.rutledgehillpress.com/store/product_detail.asp?sku=1401600190 ($15.99) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1401600190/ ($13.99) Barbara Renick, a nationally-known lecturer on genealogy, tells the uninitiated researcher the steps needed to find out who their ancestors really were, and brings together for even the more experienced genealogical researchers the important principles and practices. She covers such topics as the importance of staying organized and how to go about it; where and how to look for information in libraries, historical societies, and on the internet; recognizing that just because something is in print doesn't mean it's right; and how to prepare to visit the home where your ancestors lived. Online Roots: How to Discover Your Family's History and Heritage With the Power of the Internet by Pamela Boyer Porter, with Amy Johnson Crow http://www.rutledgehillpress.com/store/product_detail.asp?sku=1401600212 ($15.99) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1401600212/ ($13.99) Pamela Boyer Porter, a Certified Genealogical Records Specialist, explains how to search effectively on the Internet, how to assess the value of what you find, and the best way to make full use of the resources of the Internet to trace your family's history and heritage. Topics covered include: --Judging your sources --Checking modern lists and resources --Finding clues to primary sources --Researching military records --When an ancestor has a criminal record --Locating photographs on the web ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Cyndi Howells Edgewood, Washington cyndihow@oz.net Cyndi's List of Genealogy Sites on the Internet http://www.CyndisList.com/

> I went to the LDS familysearch site to find who widow Mary A Firth > was living with in 1880 (New York). Fortunately I knew her birth > year. > > Here is the LDS "transcription": > Household: > > Name Relation Marital Status Gender Race Age Birthplace = > Occupation Father's Birthplace Mother's Birthplace > Mary A FIRTH Self W Female W 72 PA At Home = > PA PA > Thomas W DAWSON FatherL D Male W 56 ENG Truckman ENG ENG =20 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Source Information: > Census Place Brooklyn, Kings (Brooklyn), New York City-Greater, > New York > Family History Library Film 1254845 > NA Film Number T9-0845 > Page Number 315A > > > Later I made a request for a lookup on the > NY-CENSUS-LOOKUP-L@rootsweb.com a kind member sent me the actual > image(s) privately. The Census images (bottom of pg 314D and top of > 315A) revealed that there was a large Firth family in household #115 > headed by one of Mary's sons and Mary A. FIRTH was listed as Mother > (not Self, as the LDS site said). > > "Linda McDowell" <limcd@cox.net> I found something as well. My William Peoples was listed as Willian. A typo that held me up for a great many months! amie

"Linda McDowell" <limcd@cox.net> wrote: > I went to the LDS familysearch site to find who widow Mary A Firth > was living with in 1880 (New York). Fortunately I knew her birth > year. > > Here is the LDS "transcription": .... That's unusual, but not out of the question. The Church has never claimed 100% accuracy, but they sure do a super job miminizing errors. They use a double-entry system (two different people are supposed to enter the same data separately), then the two entries are compared, and discrepancies are resolved if they exist. Is it possible for some to fall through the cracks? Certainly - any time there is manual copying of one set information to make a "duplicate." Everyone should always double check anything that is not a primary source, and even those aren't always 100% (even original census records). When human beings get involved, it's never 100%. <g> Chris bogus.1@mindspring.com

> Some days ago I came across an Internet company that researches/ > sells Coats of Arms via the 'no cure, no pay' principle. Since my > last name, Meulie, is very rare (only 4 living people in the whole > world) I thought it was worth the 'risk'. Great was my surprise when > I received an email, with attached to it the coat of arms of the > Meulie family, or so they say... > > Is there any way I can verify that the coat of arms I received is > actually that of the Meulie family, and not something that has been > made by some random coat of arms generator program? ;) > > For who is interested, the image received is visible at: > http://www.meulie.net/CoA/ > > Anyone who can give me any info on this matter: yes, please! :) > > evert@meulie.net (Evert Meulie esq.) Having checked your URL, I see you now know that the Coat of Arms sent to you is probably not for your family.

"Hugh Watkins" <hugh_watkins@net.dialog.dk> wrote: > for word definitions see the online dictionaries Not to worry, Hugh. I checked all of the dictionaries you listed and some others before I sent off my response to you. I know how to do Google searches, too. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

Bob: Yes, there is more material in the LDS 1880 "census records" (the FHL's description) and even more than what I said was there. I discovered after sending my earlier message that occupation and "married" (apparently not divorced or widowed) for the HOH is also included. And, yes, the items included are "the important ones." But that are not "everything, as you originally claimed, and further they cannot always be relied on to be accurate. I never said the LDS didn't have important information, nor did I say that it was a great piece of work - which it is. What I did say, and I repeated this to Austin earlier, is that you should not rely on the "index," "transcription" or "abstract" as your source of information unless _absolutely necessary_. It has errors, just like any other similar work - fewer than most, thank goodness. Reliance on "derivative sources" rather than "original sources" can profoundly affect the quality of your research, including your research in the 1880 census. Regards, Richard who bought his set of the 56 1880 CDS the first day they were available and who has used them almost every day since then, often claiming that it is the best bargain ever when it comes to genealogy finding aids. "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

"Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net> wrote: Austin, we seem to have a semantics battle going when the issue is elsewhere. The LDS calls its 1880 "opus" and those for Canada and UK "census records." Obviously they are more than a "mere" index and not a transcript, so I'll settle for "records" and return to my original point, which was this: > > ... you shouldn't rely on it as the source of your > > information for you genealogy or cite it as the source unless the > > original is quite unavailable to you. Even the LDS "finding aid" has > > errors. A good example of this was posted in this thread by Linda McDowell. > I think it is more properly termed an abstract. O.K. And it should be treated as any other abstract. A place to locate specific information which you can then verify against the original, if available. > My point was that before you can delve into the films (under any > catalog except FHLC) or the images, you need the ED range. For > that, FHLC remains an indispensable companion to the census > database. Luckily, the latter's output includes film numbers linked > to FHLC's description of that film's contents. Thanks for that information. I have been using the NARA descriptions, which need to be looked up seperately. > Besides, any time > you resort to guessing, your first guess has only a random chance of > being more accurate than the result of a diligent search. You got > lucky with ED 83. That's simply not true, Austin. Each roll of census microfilm has a series of stamped numbers in the upper right hand corder of the odd numbered images. There is only one of each number from 1 to about 400 (perhaps someone can give us the exact number, as I have read what that is). Once you know the page number and the contents of the film (e.g. the EDs on the film), it is quite easy to locate which of the EDs contains the desired number. In the case I cited, the film contained ED 69 through a portion of ED 88. I did a mental calculation that page 264 would be in ED 83; it turned out to be on 82. But that surely was not a lucky guess. It was based on sure knowledge and had I taken more time, I likely could have picked ED 82 the first time. (Admittedly, this can vary because the number of images in an ED can vary slightly.) And once you know the first sheet number in an ED you can precisely calculate which image contains the desired page (assuming no pages are missing from the image set). Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

> > I am > > assuming he and his wife died during that 20 year period. Should I > > try to narrow the dates down further or should I write to the county > > asking for a death record based on a 20 year window? > > > > "Frank Cullison" <fcullison@yahoo.com> > > That might depend on the State. Here in Alabama, statewide > reporting of births and deaths wasn't required until 1908, if memory > serves, with full compliance taking some years. For the most part, > counties don't have records of deaths at all prior to that time, > though there may be some exceptions. So you should probably check > to find out the situation in the area of interest. > > "Steve W. Jackson" <stevewjackson@charter.net> Steve, I learned long ago never to assume that certain records aren't available. Ancestry's RedBook says this about vital records in Alabama: --- quote of scanned material ---- An act of 1881 provided for a county health officer with whom all births and deaths were to be registered. It became mandatory for every physician, midwife, or birth attendee to report to the county health officer all births, specifying the name of parents, the date of the birth, and the sex and race of the child. It also became mandatory to report all deaths specifying the name, age, sex, race, date, place, and cause of death. Later legislation required that these registrations be made within the first five days after the birth or death and required that the county health officer's registry books be deposited with the county probate judge. Unfortunately, few such records are actually found today in the county courthouses. ---- end quote I glanced at the list of counties and the starting date of death records and it appears that one our of every five or six counties has birth and death records predating 1900, most back to 1882 in accordance with the 1881 law. A great many, if not most, states did have laws of some sort requiring county official to keep birth and death records well back into the 1800s (to the 1870s usually). Unfortunately, compliance was often spotty or, as in Alabama, the books simply can't be found. But it never hurts to check! Those who don't have a RedBook or Everton's Handy Book (at least one of these is almost mandatory if you are doing a lot of research) can usually find similar information on USGenWeb sites, particularly those of the counties. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

"Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net> wrote: > Try narrowing the dates first. Directories and local newspaper > items may help with this. If successful, you may then have a window > much smaller than 20 years to give to the county clerk. If you are > really lucky, there will be obituaries and you can give the clerk > exact dates after all, if official death records are what you want. Austin: Several days ago I sent this email to the original poster: --- copy --- Frank, the estate records in most counties are fully indexed, so "after 1880 and before 1900" should be sufficient for them to locate a possible estate record. Also inquire to see if they have one for the wife. ----- end copy ----- There's always a first time, I guess, but I have never encountered a county in the U.S. that didn't have an index of the probate-estates file. The only time you would need to be closer than 10 years either way of, say, 1890, would be if the person's name is Joseph Smith or some such - and even then you would likely only have a couple. I would at least check for the estate record before embarking on a quest to pore through 20 years of newspapers looking for an obit or news item. If it turns out that you do need a more precise date (and I would be greatly surprised if you did) or there is no estate record (not unusual if there was no real estate) then the next stop is to check the local library to see if it has a collection of obits or death notices. A great many of them do. There is also the chance that death records were kept in the county, even though not required on a state-wide basis until after 1900 in most states). You can usually find out what records are available in a county by checking the county GenWeb site. Two I checked yesterday had the index to estate records for the entire 1800-early 1900 period. I say go for the probate record first and if that fails, then go the more complicated path. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

evert@meulie.net (Evert Meulie esq.) wrote: > Some days ago I came across an Internet company that researches/ > sells Coats of Arms via the 'no cure, no pay' principle. Since my > last name, Meulie, is very rare (only 4 living people in the whole > world) I thought it was worth the 'risk'. Great was my surprise when > I received an email, with attached to it the coat of arms of the > Meulie family, or so they say... yeah, sure. these places are ALL scams. 99% of the families that emigrated to america were peasants without any coats of arms, because they weren't nobility. you've been scammed. NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)

"Dick" <hr*delete*lilien@att.net> wrote: > Additionally, an individual not receiving payments gets put in the > records only if the SS office is notified. That was generally true for many years. At this point, however, practically all deaths get put in the SSA death master index. First of all, most funeral homes automatically notify SSA (I have read this is a requiremtnt but haven't been able to confirm it). Second, the SSA has a working relationship with most state VR departments under which the agency automatically gets notified of all deaths. This may not be universal throughout the US. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

Evert Meulie esq. fed this fish to the penguins: > Is there any way I can verify that the coat of arms I received is > actually that of the Meulie family, and not something that has been > made by some random coat of arms generator program? ;) Very simple -- Arms WERE NOT GRANTED TO FAMILIES. The coat would have been granted to one individual and, traditionally, inherited by the eldest son (though even that inheritance had to be confirmed by the government body in charge of arms). So... you would have to prove direct descent via the eldest sons to the person to whom the arms were originally granted. What these companies rely upon, in the US, is that US law does not grant arms, nor does it consider arms to have any significance. In the US, one is free to assume whatever arms one wishes. One could run into problems if they were to travel to the country that originally issued the arms these companies are selling and encountered the person with the right to bear them. Most such dealers, in an attempt at honesty, will only state that the arms had been granted to a person of that name, with no explanation of the rules applicable to the bearing of them in the society in which they were granted. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com>

> Some days ago I came across an Internet company that researches/ > sells Coats of Arms via the 'no cure, no pay' principle. Since my > last name, Meulie, is very rare (only 4 living people in the whole > world) I thought it was worth the 'risk'. Great was my surprise when > I received an email, with attached to it the coat of arms of the > Meulie family, or so they say... > > Is there any way I can verify that the coat of arms I received is > actually that of the Meulie family, and not something that has been > made by some random coat of arms generator program? ;) > > For who is interested, the image received is visible at: > http://www.meulie.net/CoA/ > > Anyone who can give me any info on this matter: yes, please! :) > > evert@meulie.net (Evert Meulie esq.) Here's where to look: http://www.cyndislist.com/myths.htm -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=- Webmaster: Cynthia Van Ness, MLS -- roots@bfn.org Roots: The Buffalo NY Genealogy Forum -- http://www.bfn.org/~roots With obits, vital records, city directories & hundreds of local links

Critique, please: In 1836, a man in Illinois makes out deeds to "my son X", "my son Y", and "my minor son Z" (three separate deeds made the same day). "et ux" is not mentioned in these deeds. Later in 1836, My Minor Son Z is granted court permission to convey the land in his deed. Since Z is the only one designated "minor", it implies (doesn't it?) that X and Y are both 21 or older. Since the known wife isn't mentioned, how safe is it to assume she's dead in 1836? Does the absence of any further record (land, probate, marriage, census) in that county for grantor, X, Y, or Z imply they left? (The county did not subdivide thereafter.) If not, how could they not-leave any other record, before or after? If grantor and/or X and Y died, shouldn't there be some sort of estate settlement, even if not a probate? Cheryl singhals@erols.com

> I went to the LDS familysearch site to find who widow Mary A Firth > was living with in 1880 (New York). Fortunately I knew her birth > year. > > Here is the LDS "transcription": > Household: > > Name Relation Marital Status Gender Race Age Birthplace = > Occupation Father's Birthplace Mother's Birthplace > Mary A FIRTH Self W Female W 72 PA At Home = > PA PA > Thomas W DAWSON FatherL D Male W 56 ENG Truckman ENG ENG =20 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= > > Source Information: > Census Place Brooklyn, Kings (Brooklyn), New York City-Greater, > New York > Family History Library Film 1254845 > NA Film Number T9-0845 > Page Number 315A > > Later I made a request for a lookup on the > NY-CENSUS-LOOKUP-L@rootsweb.com a kind member sent me the actual > image(s) privately. The Census images (bottom of pg 314D and top of > 315A) revealed that there was a large Firth family in household #115 > headed by one of Mary's sons and Mary A. FIRTH was listed as Mother > (not Self, as the LDS site said). > > "Linda McDowell" <limcd@cox.net> No one, including, me has said that the 1880 Census transcription by the LDS is perfect. However I looked at the entry and Linda is correct. However if I saw that a 58 year old man was listed as the Father-in-Law for a 72 year old woman, I would think something was wrong. I went to the Previous Household and there found Lambson Firth and his wife Julia and Thomas Dawson must have been her father. When a family went from one page to the next, there is a better chance for error, where in the 1880 Census or and transcription. bob gillis bob gillis <rpgillis@bellatlantic.net>

>:> > What types of records should I search to find an eighteen year old >:> > single male? >:> > >:> > jonesn8@attbi.com >:> >:> I'm afraid I don't understand your problem. Why do you need to know >:> where he was living when he was 18 years old? >:> >:> Patscga@aol.com > >Why not? If you don't find a direct ancestor in a census, aren't >you the least bit curious? Is there some reason why we should NOT >care to learn all the details that are available about the lives of >our ancestors? > >= Steve = (Steve W. Jackson) Amen, Steve! What you do and how far you go to research only depends on your personal reason for and definition of "genealogy." Some people only define it in terms of one's "lineage," with names and vital statistics dates being all that's important (much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle). Some, however, regard genealogy in an all-encompassing context that includes lineage plus history, biography, medical history, psychology, sociology, and much more...virtually anything and everything that has in some tiny way gone into making us the individuals we are today. Then there's the full range of interest in between. The approximate age of 18 has always been a fairly significant time in a person's life, as they move from childhood and the control of their parents into adulthood, responsibility for themself, and making decisions that can affect them and their descendants for eternity. Even if your interest lies only in determining basic lineage, why wouldn't you want to know where your ancestor was and what he was doing in the census when he was age 18? If nothing else, it's a common marriageable age and might lead to marriage records. Then as now, age 18 was a common age for a child to "stretch his wings and leave the nest," to "seek his fortune," or at least to reasonably establish himself on his own in life before marrying. In many instances, it was a necessity or requirement that they leave. Regardless of the reason, human nature and other circumstances being as they are around age18, a nationwide census search may be very rewarding when someone is missing at that age. It seemed like I had every possible important detail of my g-grandfather's entire life very well-covered, all in WV, and including up to a couple of years before and a couple of years after the census year, except that for some reason I just couldn't find him on that one census at about the same age18-20 (I forget exact age without looking him up). I looked in every county in the state, with no reason or suspicion whatsoever that he would have been elsewhere, except that I couldn't find him in that one year inWV. Absolutely everything else in his life occurred in WV. I eventually just set that problem aside (for years) figuring that hehad probably been missed in the census and it wasn't all that important anyway, and I went on to work on other people and lines. Years later (just a few months ago, in fact), when I was working on someone else entirely, I stumbled onto my g-grandfather in that year's census out in Illinois, living as a boarder in the home of the uncle of his future wife, and working as a well driller for oil and gas. Apparently he'd gone out there to spread his wings, sow a few oats, and make some money before taking a wife and settling down to a more stable, family-oriented life taking over his wife's WV family farm, but nobody in the family living in my time ever had a clue about those adventurous years. I certainly wouldn't want to omit such important "rights of passage" and added dimension from any of my ancestors' life stories! Diane genmail@1st.net

"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > My grandmother was Canadian, married to a US citizen in 1905 (in > Canada). They lived their entire married life in the US. I know > she voted after women won the right to do so. Before 1919, I > believe was no advantage to citizenship for her, and in any case, > she was married to a US citizen. I don't see anything anywhere that > she would have had to go through a citizenship process and therefore > have left a paper trail. Still, if there is one someplace, I'd like > to have it. Anyone? Thanks to everyone for your input. My question was only whether she would have had to go through some sort of citizenship process in order to vote, so you've indicated there is nothing more for me to find. Elizabeth Richardson "Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net>