> bcombs@efn.org wrote: > > > Why not Victor? > > I would encourage readers to at least <sigh> take a look at the link > I posted earlier: > > http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/simpson/catstane/catstane.html > > in which it says in describing a pedigree: > ""Cujus pater fuit Wihtgels avus Wicta ; proavus WITHER, atavus > Wothen," &c." > > and where the "avus Wicta" means "Grandfather Wicta". The article > is all about a mixture of Latin, Angle, & Saxon talk, but the name > Wicta and its spelling variations has validity. Is it really all > that too much to ask that people take a look at evidence that has > been presented? > > Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> So a person familiar with the name Wicta could hear the name Victor pronounced in a different way and misunderstand it. In the interest of considering all possibilities, your e-mail was way out of line. [ Folks, I'd encourage a lot of tolerance of each other's ideas. Sure, some are more likely to be correct (and some are just flat wrong (: ), but clueful readers will separate the wheat from the chaff and the simple-minded can't be helped in any case. - Mod ] Barbara Combs <bcombs@efn.org>

Dear CindyKay (and list) Since it appears you know a fair amount about your "half-aunt" already (assuming you are a child of one of the brothers), I believe you should leave her without contact. Especially considering you have no desire to "lie" about your connection. Sometimes a white lie is better than bald-faced truth. Allow the woman her own perception of her family, but be ready to share if ever _she_ contacts _you_, exhibiting some real interest in her ancestry and extended family. Accept the fact that not everyone has interest in their genealogy. And realize that your grandfather probably had his own reasons for maintaining the perceptions of his second wife. (This second marriage could have great implications in some religious families, especially in Roman Catholics, who would believe that a second marriage is illicit and any children from the marriage are illegitimate while the first, divorced spouse remains alive.) You suspected as much in your closing sentence: "I do not think I should." Thomas Kohn Tgkohn@aol.com

Of these 3 paid programs which do you folks like the best? I have ancestry census and so far not a very big fan. Thinking of trying one of the others but want your opinions. Genealogy.com, Heritage Quest, and Ancestry indexes. BANDGMETAL@aol.com

cecilia wrote: > > Glee wrote: > > > ...... the Master > > Genealogist by Wholly Genes software that allows you to enter > > unlimited sources for the specific piece of data, assigning sureties > > for each one of them............. > > Can you give the same source a surety for one fact and a different > surety for another? The sureties are part of the source citation and not the source so each citation connected to a tag/event/fact has its own sureties. Most Tags in TMG has 2 Principals, Date, Place and Memo and a surety with a range of 0 to 3 and - ( = erroneous) can be assigned to each. bob gillis bob gillis <rpgillis@bellatlantic.net>

>> In an old (1934) family letter there is reference to "Uncle Wicta". >> It is written quite legibly, but it certainly seems like an unusual >> first name. So I'm wondering if it is right, or if I'm mis-reading >> it somehow. If not actually 'Wicta" what could it be, or is it some >> kind of nickname? >> >> "Uncle Wicta" was born Abt 1820 and came from Prussia Bef 1850. >> >> jsents@stny.rr.com (John Sents) > > >It's certainly not a common name, but is a name in its own right and >has some spelling variations. See: > >http://www.cyberstudia.com/ogmios/texts/simpson/catstane/catstane.html > >for some information. > >Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> Bob-- I've read the reference you cited several times now... and don't know quite what to make of it. One thing that makes me wonder is that the name 'Wicta' (and it's variations) refers to a surname. In my letter, I believe the "Uncle Wicta" refers to a given name (because of the context in which it and other family members' names were written). 'Tho I admit Wicta is unlike any of the other family names, which were more common (like, Casper, Jacob, John, Peter, Adam, etc.). And, whereas the more common names were passed-down to descendants, Wicta, was not! This is what makes me think I may be mis-interpreting the handwriting, tho it seems quite clearly written. But, as your other replies seem to infer I shouldn't, I'm not ready yet to just assume that Wicta == Victor. :-) Thanks. --John. jsents@stny.rr.com (John Sents)

Hi Cindy, I'd lean toward treading lightly in the beginning. Write her a letter rather than calling. She'll have some time to compose herself after reading it, instead of being forced to respond immediately on the phone. I wouldn't mention any adoption right away. (Nor would I assume from an obituary that she didn't know about her brothers, but I digress.) Tell her you were searching for an obituary for your grandfather and found her name. Share the FACTS, no emotion, about when and where his sons were born etc. Let her know you are interested in learning more about this man, keeping in mind her relationship may have been more positive than that of his sons. Let her have the option of responding or not. She may be thrilled to have siblings, or she may resent the contact. Either way it's her call. The information concerning her adoption can come up in it's own time. We'll keep our collective fingers crossed for you - good luck! Just another limb, Laura search for fallen leaves at http://home.attbi.com/~branchingout "Branching Out" <BranchingOut@attbi.com>

> My Grandfather had 2 Sons, He & My Grandmother Divorced, there was > little contact with His Sons after the Divorce, As Young Men He > actually asked that they stop contacting Him. He had Remarried & > Moved away, Him & His new Wife adopted a little girl. > > My Grandfather never told His adopted Daughter that She was adopted > & that He was previously Married or had 2 Sons. Now both Him & His > Wife have passed away (about 1 year ago) & their Daughter is an > Adult Woman & Married. > > The Obituary I found on My Grandfather just about confirms that She > has no knowledge about Her Brothers but I am still unsure as to Her > being told about the Adoption. If I were to Contact Her I would > never Lie about My connection (She is My Aunt) But I do not want to > be the one to Upset Her. > > I would Love to contact Her except I do not think I should. > > "CindyKay" <paulmac5@bellsouth.net> It depends very much on the individuals and their interaction But facts is facts and IMHO finding out those facts from someone who is attempting to be sympathetic to your situation is better than from a stranger or just uncovering it some time in the future. My Daughter age 14 Just met her 2 half brothers in the UK, only one of whom talks to me and it seems to have been a very positive experience for the three of them. I'm hoping her full brother will visit there later this year or next and also meet them. Just an opinion which if nothing else is more than likely to prompt other reactions in this group. -- Mick Gurling CT USA "Mick Gurling" <No.Spam.mickg@toto.com>

> My Grandfather had 2 Sons, He & My Grandmother Divorced, there was > little contact with His Sons after the Divorce, As Young Men He > actually asked that they stop contacting Him. He had Remarried & > Moved away, Him & His new Wife adopted a little girl. > > My Grandfather never told His adopted Daughter that She was adopted > & that He was previously Married or had 2 Sons. Now both Him & His > Wife have passed away (about 1 year ago) & their Daughter is an > Adult Woman & Married. > I would Love to contact Her except I do not think I should. > > "CindyKay" <paulmac5@bellsouth.net> Cindy- What would be the reason to contact her? Just to complete your tree, or satisfy your curiosity? Unless there is some compelling reason, like a medical emergency where information might be needed, I'd leave this alone. If all of your data is verified, then I would include it in your records, however you need to think carefully about who will receive this information [like don't publish it on line!] What about the brothers - are they still living? If they have a desire to find their sister, then give them the information and let them deal with it. Your last sentence sums it up > I would Love to contact Her except I do not think I should. Lisa llepore@juno.com

> > I'm working some personal property tax lists. I can't find the > > boiler-plate that tells me the tax rates. I've got the one for the > > 1860s, but not the ones for the 1700s. :( > > > > I'm noticing something I think is VERY strange: from information on > > the tax lists, I can deduce the tax rate for a white tithable, for > > one horse, and for one "cattle". However, where the tithable owns > > many horses and/or cattle, the rates multipled by the number of > > animals don't work out to the amount of the tax. > > > > Opinions -- would these be math errors on the part of the assessor, > > ceilings on the number of horses/cattle taxed, variable rates for > > quality of animal, or what? > > > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> > > I am familiar with three modern day scenarios that might give you a > clue to the strange tax behavior you reported. > > 1.) Inventories are often reduced or moved before "tax" day. > > 2.) If the taxpayer was responsible for the count, it was often > under reported. It was never over reported. > > 3.) If the tax man came out to the farm to see for himself, he > would often round down. > > But I doubt that any of this kind of thing happened during former > times <g> Nah > > A. John Birkholz (G) I see your point, and I must not have been clear (What? Who? ME!?) The problem is, in several instances, the tax charged didn't cover all the reported assets (nemmind the unreported ones!). Tax rates extrapolated from other listings (where each was the SOLE charge) show the tithable to be a 10-shilling charge; each horse 3 shillings and each cattle 3 pennies. F'instance, if a man was charged one tithable, 24 horses, and 73 cattle tax should have been 5L, but was less than half that. Cheryl singhals@erols.com

Hello Everyone, I have never used this List Before & I am not sure I am on the Correct List for this type of Situation. Please Be Patient with Me & Let Me Explain. Maybe Some of You have had a Similar Situation. My Grandfather had 2 Sons, He & My Grandmother Divorced, there was little contact with His Sons after the Divorce, As Young Men He actually asked that they stop contacting Him. He had Remarried & Moved away, Him & His new Wife adopted a little girl. My Grandfather never told His adopted Daughter that She was adopted & that He was previously Married or had 2 Sons. Now both Him & His Wife have passed away (about 1 year ago) & their Daughter is an Adult Woman & Married. The Obituary I found on My Grandfather just about confirms that She has no knowledge about Her Brothers but I am still unsure as to Her being told about the Adoption. If I were to Contact Her I would never Lie about My connection (She is My Aunt) But I do not want to be the one to Upset Her. I would Love to contact Her except I do not think I should. Thank You For Your Patience & Any Advice At All Is Greatly Appreciated! CindyKay Florida "CindyKay" <paulmac5@bellsouth.net>

cecilia wrote: > > Glee wrote: > > > This information has certainly created some homework for me, for my > > database has the information that the person for whom 'do not issue > > father's name', subsequently was married and had a child !!! > > Subsequent to being born or subsequent to the "do not issue" being > added - ie, subsequent to his death? Perhaps I'm mything the point, but -- most deaths are subsequent to being born ...??? (DG&R) Cheryl singhals@erols.com

> > Heritage Quest Online is only a subscriber service for > > 'professional' institutions, such as libraries (free for you if you > > find a library with it). It may also be accessible from your home > > computer by signing on with your library card through your library > > website, if your library has it set up for remote access. Check with > > your library and work on them to get it. They haven't finished > > indexing the 1920 or 1930 census, but I've encountered far fewer > > mistakes in Heritage Quest than in the other two, and it offers all > > the census images. It also has over 25,000 family and local history > > books available online. > > > > genmail@1st.net > > A good summary of the indexing approach for Heritage Quest (summary > deleted). Two additional points: > > 1. If your library does not have access to ProQuest / Heritage > Quest, you can gain access to it (both the census images and the > book images) by joining the New York Genealogical and Biographical > Society ($60 a year). > > 2. The Heritage Quest indexes do not have fewer errors than > Genealogy.com - the indexes at Genealogy.com ARE the Heritage Quest > indexes. <g> > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> I find that Godfrey Library in Connecticut is cheaper at $35 a year for Proquest. Pretty good bargain. Of course after I got my subscription to there I found out my local library had just subscribed. Oh well Roxanne Koelpin "Roxanne Koelpin" <r.koelpin@verizon.net>

Joan Best wrote: > Bob, > > To put it more succinctly: Legal terms tend to persist in legal > documents long after the word is no part of the common vocabulary > AND long after the reason for using the term has lost its legal > validity. > > Black's Legal Dictionary includes archaic terms such as > intermarriage. I believe that Black's said, in 1951, that it was > "sometimes used" because it was a term that was nearing the end of > the following-out-of-usage process and was not "always used" or > "often used". It was "often used" in the time period inquired about > [1800-1860] and would have had a strict legal meaning, and therefore > "always used" with a precise legal meaning probably 200 years before > that. This is my [pretty well] educated guess, to answer another of > your questions. And by the way, "inter" is Latin, a demonstration > of one of the marvels of our language: we can easily combine words > of entirely different origins and create new meanings, one of the > great benefits, in the past, of studying Latin. It is true that our modern English has many Latin (among others) roots , but many thanks for your further expansion & elucidation on this whole matter. quod erat demonstrandum<g> > "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net> Bob [ OK, let's not have any further "intermarriage" posts unless someone has some startling new information on the subject. (: - Mod ]

> is there a way that I can work back from the name I have now to > find what it was originally? Prior to civil registration in each state, people changed their names "at will". There was no process or legal requirement to register a name change. My G-Grandfather changed the spelling of his name from Sutherland to Sutherlin and back again nearly yearly for a decade. He also changed his residence frequently. Perhaps he was staying one step ahead of the rent and/or bill collector. I dunno. His brothers, in other states, did the same. They also lied about their dates of birth. I think that in our pursuit of ancestors, we must always view events from their time frame/perspective. Today, you would have a hard time unilaterally changing your name. In the 19th century, there was no impediment to that. Sandra SGordon817@aol.com

>Bob, > >To put it more succinctly: Legal terms tend to persist in legal >documents long after the word is no part of the common vocabulary >AND long after the reason for using the term has lost its legal >validity. > >Black's Legal Dictionary includes archaic terms such as >intermarriage. I believe that Black's said, in 1951, that it was >"sometimes used" because it was a term that was nearing the end of >the following-out-of-usage process and was not "always used" or >"often used". It was "often used" in the time period inquired about >[1800-1860] and would have had a strict legal meaning, and therefore >"always used" with a precise legal meaning probably 200 years before >that. This is my [pretty well] educated guess, to answer another of >your questions. And by the way, "inter" is Latin, a demonstration >of one of the marvels of our language: we can easily combine words >of entirely different origins and create new meanings, one of the >great benefits, in the past, of studying Latin. > >"Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net> Joan, with respect, who cares? This is no Family Law Conference, just a bunch of plain folks seeking practical advice on how to pursue their very interesting hobby of tracing kin. Finding all this intellectual posturing and irrelevancy tossed into my mail box every morning is becoming tedious. Thanks, Gil [ Without intending to comment on Joan's or anyone else's posts, I think we've pretty well exhausted the "intermarriage" topic. I'll approve any posts still in the queue, but in general I will NOT approve any posts on this topic after that. Thanks all, Mod ] Gil Hardwick <gruagach@highway1.com.au>

bob gillis wrote: > > It has been said that the various codes in the SSDI have no meaning > to anyone using the SSDI and are internal SSA codes. > > In looking for someone I found two: XX953 (U.S.Consulate: CANADA) > and VA. > > I wonder if XX953 may tell the location of the conusate that > reported the death and if VA means Vetern's Administration and that > the person died in a VA Hospital. Your first statement is true. The following information can be viewed at the RootsWeb site: <http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson10.htm#numbers> Abbreviations. The following abbreviations or codes, which appear in some records in the "Last Residence" box, usually in parentheses, are internal codes used by SSA and do not mean anything to researchers. Ignore them. (72), (PE), (FO), (HC), (VA) Note: (VA) does not stand for Virginia or Veterans' Administration Gerry email address has two too many dots g.d.wright@earthlink.net

> Just ran across the article > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/start/famgroupsheets.htm?rc=locale%7E&us=0 in LEGACY NEWS that describes the way I started keeping track > of sources 20 years ago. The problem I'm having is trying to find a > practical way of inputing this information into the source > documentation of Legacy or PAF. If all I had was one source for > each piece of information, I guess it wouldn't be overly difficult. > The problem is having perhaps a dozen or more group sheets for an > individual documenting census records, church records, > birth/death/marriage certificates, family interviews, etc., many > with differing dates, names, places, etc. How do you pull all this > information together using the source documentation features of > these programs to document how you arrived at your conclusions for > the names and dates used as well as documenting conflicting > information in case additional data shows that your original > conclusion was wrong? I'd like to have a complete set of electronic > information to make it easier to transmit in one package rather than > having various sets of binders and folders, but haven't been able to > see a practical way of doing that. Seems like I could spend the > next few years just entering data with no time left for further > research. Have the majority of users of the various genealogy > programs actually found it practical to use them for source > documentation? If someone offers an online course for use of these > programs to help me see an easier way, I'd sure appreciate the info. > > "Mark Granback" <NoGranmarkSpam@yahoo.com> The existence of a SOURCE template in your program does not mandate your use of it, you know. (g) If your "source" matches the template, fine, use it. If not, dump your info into the TEXT/More About/NOTES/ Narrative section of your program. Cheryl singhals@erols.com

Glee wrote: > ...... the Master > Genealogist by Wholly Genes software that allows you to enter > unlimited sources for the specific piece of data, assigning sureties > for each one of them............. Can you give the same source a surety for one fact and a different surety for another? myths@ic24.net

Glee wrote: > This information has certainly created some homework for me, for my > database has the information that the person for whom 'do not issue > father's name', subsequently was married and had a child !!! Subsequent to being born or subsequent to the "do not issue" being added - ie, subsequent to his death? myths@ic24.net

Glee wrote: > > http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/ > > If you haven't discovered this site, take a look. The searchable > database includes images for official records of the U.S. > Government War Department War of the Rebellion. Just wanted to second the motion. Because Cornell is in NY state, there are tons of terrific books online about various New York towns, cities, counties, and regions. -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=- 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