> > F'instance, woman still living says her name is Axxxx middlename; her > > marriage record gives her as Ayyyy differentmiddlename. Good thing her > > husband had a HIGHLY recognizable name or I'd never have found them! > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > A year ago, I met a first cousin once removed, who had original > family group sheets handwritten by my great-grandmother. He knew > their provenance, and I recognised my great-grandmother's > distinctive writing. The documents confirmed much of what I've > researched back to my gg-grandparents. However, my mother's middle > name was "wrong", which made me skeptical of everything else my > g-grandmother had written. When I asked her, my mother told me that > she'd been born at home in a rural area, and no birth certificate > was created. During WW II, Mom needed a copy of her birth > certificate to enlist in the WAC, and the doctor who'd delivered her > created a delayed birth certificate. I have seen this birth > certificate, and it has the appearance of a regular, and not a > delayed certificate. The doctor asked my mother for her given > names, however Mom had never used her middle name and wasn't sure > what it was. She knew what she'd like it to be, and decided this > was her golden opportunity to get that name. Maybe your woman did > the same :) > > "Cheryl Freeman" <cheryl@genattic.com> I don't mind the middle name nearly as much as I do the given name. The lady is strong-willed enough to be called whatever she wants (g), and for all my life she's been Axxxx. She's also old enough that Axxxx fits the popular names of her era which Ayyyy is not-uncommon in the county. Good for your Mom! You be sure to put that in your family history on her! It's things like that that make the rest of it worthwhile! (g) Cheryl Singhal singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> > I went off to an on-line database, created and maintained by a > > state's own government. I scoured it for a fairly uncommon surname, > > and copied the results into the database I created from a 1980s book > > on the family. > > > > I gotta tell you, there are some SERIOUS discrepancies between > > Marriage Record A and Marriage Record B! > > [snip] > > > Then there's the one where every detail of bride and groom match the > > database -- birthdates & places -- except that the marriage date > > makes him 11 months old at the time. I /don't/ think so. > > > > So, all the info is in the NOTES and discrepancies are marked. Let > > someone who doesn't know the participants figure it out. > > > > Bah. Humbug. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > That difference in age could be from transposing the last two digits > of a year - possible in this case? > > news@picaxe.us Probably not ... I'm looking at a digital copy of the original register. Good thought though, and I'll go double-check to be certain, but I think it was one of the registers where each event had a single line and the entire page was from the year stated at the top of the page. Thanks. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> > I went off to an on-line database, created and maintained by a > > state's own government. I scoured it for a fairly uncommon surname, > > and copied the results into the database I created from a 1980s book > > on the family. > > > > I gotta tell you, there are some SERIOUS discrepancies between > > Marriage Record A and Marriage Record B! > > > > SOME of it is probably due to some data-entry-er (me or them, > > doesn't matter) picking up the date of the license rather than the > > date of the actual marriage -- I figure up to a 30 day difference is > > that. SOME of the discrepancies cannot be explained away. > > > > F'instance, I have a newspaper account of a marriage that occurred > > in a different state altogether; this account is complete with the > > name of the minister and the specific church in that other town. > > Yet -- same marriage appears in these on-line records as having > > happened in THIS state. > > > > F'instance, I've seen a marriage certificate that says the wedding > > occurred on 11 Oct 1869; state records say 29 Nov 1868. Now that's > > just _backwards!_ > > > > F'instance, woman still living says her name is Axxxx middlename; > > her marriage record gives her as Ayyyy differentmiddlename. Good > > thing her husband had a HIGHLY recognizable name or I'd never have > > found them! > > > > F'instance, woman is illegitimate and NEVER used her stepfather's > > surname -- except on this marriage record. > > > > Then there's the one where every detail of bride and groom match the > > database -- birthdates & places -- except that the marriage date > > makes him 11 months old at the time. I /don't/ think so. > > > > So, all the info is in the NOTES and discrepancies are marked. Let > > someone who doesn't know the participants figure it out. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Could the people have had two ceremonies? One religious and one > civil? Or one in another state for one side of the family and one > in another for the second family? Mistakes/mysteries...it is all > fun > > SHARON Zingery Probably not two ceremonies, but I've caught other clerks making an "offsite archival copy" of things that concerned perople from his county but which didn't happen IN his county. I may drop by the other state and see if it's in THEIR marriage records. (g) Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> > F'instance, woman still living says her name is Axxxx middlename; her > > marriage record gives her as Ayyyy differentmiddlename. Good thing her > > husband had a HIGHLY recognizable name or I'd never have found them! > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > A year ago, I met a first cousin once removed, who had original > family group sheets handwritten by my great-grandmother. He knew > their provenance, and I recognised my great-grandmother's > distinctive writing. The documents confirmed much of what I've > researched back to my gg-grandparents. However, my mother's middle > name was "wrong", which made me skeptical of everything else my > g-grandmother had written. When I asked her, my mother told me that > she'd been born at home in a rural area, and no birth certificate > was created. During WW II, Mom needed a copy of her birth > certificate to enlist in the WAC, and the doctor who'd delivered her > created a delayed birth certificate. I have seen this birth > certificate, and it has the appearance of a regular, and not a > delayed certificate. The doctor asked my mother for her given > names, however Mom had never used her middle name and wasn't sure > what it was. She knew what she'd like it to be, and decided this > was her golden opportunity to get that name. Maybe your woman did > the same :) > > "Cheryl Freeman" <cheryl@genattic.com> On the subject of middle names---you just never know. My mother's name at birth was Rebecca Dunn Borton. She was named for a same-name aunt who, in turn, had been named for her grandmother: Rebecca (Dunn) Robinson. When mom was little everyone called her Becky and she grew to hate the name. She told her mother that she hated the name Rebecca because of being called Becky and hated her middle name because it wasn't a name she could USE in place of the first name/nickname she hated. Her mother told her, please don't change your name until Aunt Rebecca is gone because you were named for her and it is an honor...but after she is gone, if you still want to change your name just pick a middle name you like and go by that name. So that is what my mother did...after her Aunt Rebecca died she adopted unofficially the middle name of Helen (picked out of the clear blue sky as far as I know--just a name she LIKED). From that point on she became R. Helen Borton until she married and became Helen Myers. Had I not heard this story (explanation) directly from my mother--I'd never have figured this all out as a genealogist doing research in the future. Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

> F'instance, woman still living says her name is Axxxx middlename; her > marriage record gives her as Ayyyy differentmiddlename. Good thing her > husband had a HIGHLY recognizable name or I'd never have found them! > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Cheryl, A year ago, I met a first cousin once removed, who had original family group sheets handwritten by my great-grandmother. He knew their provenance, and I recognised my great-grandmother's distinctive writing. The documents confirmed much of what I've researched back to my gg-grandparents. However, my mother's middle name was "wrong", which made me skeptical of everything else my g-grandmother had written. When I asked her, my mother told me that she'd been born at home in a rural area, and no birth certificate was created. During WW II, Mom needed a copy of her birth certificate to enlist in the WAC, and the doctor who'd delivered her created a delayed birth certificate. I have seen this birth certificate, and it has the appearance of a regular, and not a delayed certificate. The doctor asked my mother for her given names, however Mom had never used her middle name and wasn't sure what it was. She knew what she'd like it to be, and decided this was her golden opportunity to get that name. Maybe your woman did the same :) "Cheryl Freeman" <cheryl@genattic.com>

> I went off to an on-line database, created and maintained by a > state's own government. I scoured it for a fairly uncommon surname, > and copied the results into the database I created from a 1980s book > on the family. > > I gotta tell you, there are some SERIOUS discrepancies between > Marriage Record A and Marriage Record B! [snip] > Then there's the one where every detail of bride and groom match the > database -- birthdates & places -- except that the marriage date > makes him 11 months old at the time. I /don't/ think so. > > So, all the info is in the NOTES and discrepancies are marked. Let > someone who doesn't know the participants figure it out. > > Bah. Humbug. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> That difference in age could be from transposing the last two digits of a year - possible in this case? John

> I went off to an on-line database, created and maintained by a > state's own government. I scoured it for a fairly uncommon surname, > and copied the results into the database I created from a 1980s book > on the family. > > I gotta tell you, there are some SERIOUS discrepancies between > Marriage Record A and Marriage Record B! > > SOME of it is probably due to some data-entry-er (me or them, > doesn't matter) picking up the date of the license rather than the > date of the actual marriage -- I figure up to a 30 day difference is > that. SOME of the discrepancies cannot be explained away. > > F'instance, I have a newspaper account of a marriage that occurred > in a different state altogether; this account is complete with the > name of the minister and the specific church in that other town. > Yet -- same marriage appears in these on-line records as having > happened in THIS state. > > F'instance, I've seen a marriage certificate that says the wedding > occurred on 11 Oct 1869; state records say 29 Nov 1868. Now that's > just _backwards!_ > > F'instance, woman still living says her name is Axxxx middlename; > her marriage record gives her as Ayyyy differentmiddlename. Good > thing her husband had a HIGHLY recognizable name or I'd never have > found them! > > F'instance, woman is illegitimate and NEVER used her stepfather's > surname -- except on this marriage record. > > Then there's the one where every detail of bride and groom match the > database -- birthdates & places -- except that the marriage date > makes him 11 months old at the time. I /don't/ think so. > > So, all the info is in the NOTES and discrepancies are marked. Let > someone who doesn't know the participants figure it out. > > Bah. Humbug. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Could the people have had two ceremonies? One religious and one civil? Or one in another state for one side of the family and one in another for the second family? Mistakes/mysteries...it is all fun Sharon Zingery Mediator szingery@sbcglobal.net 773.262.7699

I went off to an on-line database, created and maintained by a state's own government. I scoured it for a fairly uncommon surname, and copied the results into the database I created from a 1980s book on the family. I gotta tell you, there are some SERIOUS discrepancies between Marriage Record A and Marriage Record B! SOME of it is probably due to some data-entry-er (me or them, doesn't matter) picking up the date of the license rather than the date of the actual marriage -- I figure up to a 30 day difference is that. SOME of the discrepancies cannot be explained away. F'instance, I have a newspaper account of a marriage that occurred in a different state altogether; this account is complete with the name of the minister and the specific church in that other town. Yet -- same marriage appears in these on-line records as having happened in THIS state. F'instance, I've seen a marriage certificate that says the wedding occurred on 11 Oct 1869; state records say 29 Nov 1868. Now that's just _backwards!_ F'instance, woman still living says her name is Axxxx middlename; her marriage record gives her as Ayyyy differentmiddlename. Good thing her husband had a HIGHLY recognizable name or I'd never have found them! F'instance, woman is illegitimate and NEVER used her stepfather's surname -- except on this marriage record. Then there's the one where every detail of bride and groom match the database -- birthdates & places -- except that the marriage date makes him 11 months old at the time. I /don't/ think so. So, all the info is in the NOTES and discrepancies are marked. Let someone who doesn't know the participants figure it out. Bah. Humbug. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

Our research note for January is a 'back-to-the-basics' with links to free indexes and information to help Minnesota researchers. You can find it at <http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/res_2009.html> Other notes can be located through the main page at <http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/research.html> Happy New Year and pleasant, successful research! Mary Bakeman Park Genealogical Books www.parkbooks.com Mary Bakeman <mbakeman@parkbooks.com>

> I have recently received a well documented and researched GEDCOM > family tree, complete with source citations. I want to merge it in > my own family tree, but have some doubts on how to deal to some of > its own sources. I can think of two ways: > > (1) Source all the information as "Family Tree XXX by nn", with his > own sources moved to the notes section. > > (2) Source the information according to the level it can be > independently verified: For example, a Census record is verifiable, > thus I can keep the original source, disregarding the fact it came > from a third party family tree. On the other hand, an email or an > oral testimony to my friend is not verifiable (unless I have a copy > of it), in which case I could source the data as "Family Tree XXX by > nn" with the rest of the information detail in the notes. > > What are our preferred methods to deal with situations like this? > > Yaacov Slizak at yslizak@yahoo.com 1. If I may, some musings about using another's GEDCOM: 2. 3. You indicate up front that the file you received is well documented and researched, I for one would take the data provided at face value until proved otherwise. (Consider yourself extremely fortunate to obtain the source data as many people are wary of divulging such information.) 4. Assuming you can fact check 5 to 10% of the data in the file, and find it to be accurate, other data gathered by the same researcher is normally performed with the same care and patience for accuracy. This reliance on the accuracy of another's work can be justified providing you clearly state that some of the data has not been unverified. 5. Depending on the number of sources contained in the new file, you should consider adding a "free form" note to each source indicating the level of confidence you have in the data. The more verified sources, the higher the confidence level. 6. It is also possible to add a single "universal" source to the file at the time of import, and indicate your confidence level just once. 7. Always! ALWAYS! Import this new data into a new BLANK data file. NEVER import it directly into your work file!!!!!! Regards, Arnold -- <><><><><<><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <surveyor999 AT a-znet.com> <><><><><<><><><><><><> I prefer the earth beneath my feet to be less TERRA and more FIRMA! AE Palmer <surveyor999@a-znet.com>

> Well, since it's Joan sayin' that this time, I'll complain a bit > about it. > > I'm a little puzzled about the concurrent desires of genealogists to > make sure their resarch results outlives them AND to verify > personally every thing they're given. > > singhals@erols.com Cheryl- Actually, I wasn't implying that you MUST check/verify EVERY bit of information you have been given although I generally attempt to do so when possible. What I DID intend to say is that what you have seen for yourself and what you have used (possibly only someone else's research) should be noted as your source--what you have used as evidence of the name, date, or place in your tree is YOUR source--whether you have viewed an original record or accepted that one exists from another researcher's files -- your source is what you used/checked for yourself. Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

>> > I have recently received a well documented and researched GEDCOM >> > family tree, complete with source citations. I want to merge it in >> > my own family tree, but have some doubts on how to deal to some of >> > its own sources. I can think of two ways: >> > >> > (1) Source all the information as "Family Tree XXX by nn", with his >> > own sources moved to the notes section. >> > >> > (2) Source the information according to the level it can be >> > independently verified: For example, a Census record is verifiable, >> > thus I can keep the original source, disregarding the fact it came >> > from a third party family tree. On the other hand, an email or an >> > oral testimony to my friend is not verifiable (unless I have a copy >> > of it), in which case I could source the data as "Family Tree XXX by >> > nn" with the rest of the information detail in the notes. >> > >> > What are our preferred methods to deal with situations like this? I >> > will appreciate your comments on this matter. >> > >> > Yaacov Slizak <yslizak@yahoo.com> >> >> If YOU have verified the evidence by checking an original record >> referenced in the GEDCOM, the original record or source document >> has then become your source. If you only have the GEDCOM creator's >> word for the evidence then his GEDCOM is your source. >> >> So, option TWO is better. For the information you have verified you >> don't really even need to indicate where you learned of the evidence >> -- the GEDCOM. That became irrelevant after you checked the >> original source and verified the information for yourself. It is a >> courtesy, though, to include in your notes that this was how you >> found the evidence to begin with--but it isn't absolutely >> necessary. It might also help you to keep your research in order to >> make note of it. >> >> Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> > > >Well, since it's Joan sayin' that this time, I'll complain a bit >about it. > >I'm a little puzzled about the concurrent desires of genealogists to >make sure their resarch results outlives them AND to verify >personally every thing they're given. > >Let's dwell on the very untidy results of various wars throughout >Western Civ -- even after The Holy Catholic Church decreed that >priests would record baptisms, marriages and burials, it took a >while for the word to circulate. And once the parish was in >compliance, even the Pope could not control the damages of war, the >weather-related damage to buildings, or the simple senility of >priests who managed to lose a 25-lb 18x24 book. > >Some things cannot be verified and often some can't even be refound >(I agonized with a researcher who was and working to double-check >her source citations prior to publication ... one simply was not >where it should have been. It had been recorded twice, fortunately, >so we found the duplicate entry, but the one she'd seen (and printed >off) the first time just wasn't there). > >Seems to me, in a way, if there's even ONE item in there that cannot >be checked (say, a family Bible which burnt in a house-fire 4 years >ago, or the infamous Virginia Burned Counties), you've got to take >that one on faith; and having done that, may as well swallow the >rest of it whole, since there's no telling whether that one >uncheckable item is the key that locks/unlocks the rest of the >chain. > >Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Just for the sake of discussion, seems to me like you are discussing absolute verification. I have never thought of it that way. The census is a good example. If a person uses a census as a source I use him as the source until I see the census - then I eliminate him as the source. Since the census name is often misspelled or illegble I rarely attempt to verify what the original record SHOULD have said (but I record a note) Same for tombstones... Side by side stones have a couples last name spelled Sullivant and Sullivan. Worse, in Alabama they still pronounce it with a "t" at the end regardless of spelling. I agree with your idea of beyond a doubt verification when possible but I think the average bear often sees verification as "Well, you read/interpreted that correctly." Isn't this even more true when many our "Facts" are being upset with DNA testing? Or did I not parlez vous avec la LA Lady? Hugh ------- End of Forwarded Message Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > I have recently received a well documented and researched GEDCOM > > family tree, complete with source citations. I want to merge it in > > my own family tree, but have some doubts on how to deal to some of > > its own sources. I can think of two ways: > > > > (1) Source all the information as "Family Tree XXX by nn", with his > > own sources moved to the notes section. > > > > (2) Source the information according to the level it can be > > independently verified: For example, a Census record is verifiable, > > thus I can keep the original source, disregarding the fact it came > > from a third party family tree. On the other hand, an email or an > > oral testimony to my friend is not verifiable (unless I have a copy > > of it), in which case I could source the data as "Family Tree XXX by > > nn" with the rest of the information detail in the notes. > > > > What are our preferred methods to deal with situations like this? I > > will appreciate your comments on this matter. > > > > Yaacov Slizak <yslizak@yahoo.com> > > If YOU have verified the evidence by checking an original record > referenced in the GEDCOM, the original record or source document > has then become your source. If you only have the GEDCOM creator's > word for the evidence then his GEDCOM is your source. > > So, option TWO is better. For the information you have verified you > don't really even need to indicate where you learned of the evidence > -- the GEDCOM. That became irrelevant after you checked the > original source and verified the information for yourself. It is a > courtesy, though, to include in your notes that this was how you > found the evidence to begin with--but it isn't absolutely > necessary. It might also help you to keep your research in order to > make note of it. > > Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> Well, since it's Joan sayin' that this time, I'll complain a bit about it. I'm a little puzzled about the concurrent desires of genealogists to make sure their resarch results outlives them AND to verify personally every thing they're given. Let's dwell on the very untidy results of various wars throughout Western Civ -- even after The Holy Catholic Church decreed that priests would record baptisms, marriages and burials, it took a while for the word to circulate. And once the parish was in compliance, even the Pope could not control the damages of war, the weather-related damage to buildings, or the simple senility of priests who managed to lose a 25-lb 18x24 book. Some things cannot be verified and often some can't even be refound (I agonized with a researcher who was and working to double-check her source citations prior to publication ... one simply was not where it should have been. It had been recorded twice, fortunately, so we found the duplicate entry, but the one she'd seen (and printed off) the first time just wasn't there). Seems to me, in a way, if there's even ONE item in there that cannot be checked (say, a family Bible which burnt in a house-fire 4 years ago, or the infamous Virginia Burned Counties), you've got to take that one on faith; and having done that, may as well swallow the rest of it whole, since there's no telling whether that one uncheckable item is the key that locks/unlocks the rest of the chain. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> I have recently received a well documented and researched GEDCOM > family tree, complete with source citations. I want to merge it in > my own family tree, but have some doubts on how to deal to some of > its own sources. I can think of two ways: > > (1) Source all the information as "Family Tree XXX by nn", with his > own sources moved to the notes section. > > (2) Source the information according to the level it can be > independently verified: For example, a Census record is verifiable, > thus I can keep the original source, disregarding the fact it came > from a third party family tree. On the other hand, an email or an > oral testimony to my friend is not verifiable (unless I have a copy > of it), in which case I could source the data as "Family Tree XXX by > nn" with the rest of the information detail in the notes. > > What are our preferred methods to deal with situations like this? I > will appreciate your comments on this matter. > > Yaacov Slizak <yslizak@yahoo.com> Hi, Yaacov- If YOU have verified the evidence by checking an original record referenced in the GEDCOM, the original record or source document has then become your source. If you only have the GEDCOM creator's word for the evidence then his GEDCOM is your source. So, option TWO is better. For the information you have verified you don't really even need to indicate where you learned of the evidence -- the GEDCOM. That became irrelevant after you checked the original source and verified the information for yourself. It is a courtesy, though, to include in your notes that this was how you found the evidence to begin with--but it isn't absolutely necessary. It might also help you to keep your research in order to make note of it. Joan JYoung6180@aol.com

Hi, I have recently received a well documented and researched GEDCOM family tree, complete with source citations. I want to merge it in my own family tree, but have some doubts on how to deal to some of its own sources. I can think of two ways: (1) Source all the information as "Family Tree XXX by nn", with his own sources moved to the notes section. (2) Source the information according to the level it can be independently verified: For example, a Census record is verifiable, thus I can keep the original source, disregarding the fact it came from a third party family tree. On the other hand, an email or an oral testimony to my friend is not verifiable (unless I have a copy of it), in which case I could source the data as "Family Tree XXX by nn" with the rest of the information detail in the notes. What are our preferred methods to deal with situations like this? I will appreciate your comments on this matter. Thanks, -- Yaacov Slizak, Ennis, Ireland "Yaacov Slizak" <yslizak@yahoo.com>

> > > > These then passed to his estranged wife who soon remarried but > > > > tragically died young. > > > > > > > > Tony Proctor > > > Sorry, Tony, but if she was estranged at the time of his death, I'd > > > think there'd be considerable question about whether she ever had > > > physical possession of the things, unless there was a common child, > > > which evidently there wasn't. That all being true, there'd be > > > little to no reason for the 2nd husband or his family to keep track > > > of 'em even if she DID have them in a box in the closet. > > > > > > The phrase Lost Cause keeps passin' through my mind. > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > > > Technically speaking, she was still his wife Cheryl, and she > > received all his personal effects. I have copies of the letters and > > the inventory. I was too young to remember anything from that time > > but I suspect personal possessions and pensions may have caused a > > rift in the family and that must have reduced the chances of > > recovery even further. > > > > "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com> > > I can think of two possible routes they'd have gone. One would have > been in a house clearance. If it weren't so long ago (from what you > wrote it seems that his wife would have died in the 50s or early > 60s) it would have been worth contacting the local auction house who > would have known who their regular local medal collectors were. By > now of course those collectors and maybe the auction house are > probably no longer active. The other possibility is that they have > been donated to his regiment. Have you tried contacting their > musem? > > Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> > > Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard > at nildram co uk His wife died in the 60's. I believe the house passed to her brother - also now deceased. There was a house clearance quite recently and her brother's step-son moved the remaining family away from the area. I did get an address for him and wrote a letter but got no response, which may be because it was incorrect or because he didn't like the idea of me contacting him. I may never know. My first thing to check here must be whether the medals were personalised at all (i.e. name and number of any of them). This was the main reason for me chasing them down Thanks for everyone's inputs Tony Proctor "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com>

> > > These then passed to his estranged wife who soon remarried but > > > tragically died young. > > > > > > Tony Proctor > > Sorry, Tony, but if she was estranged at the time of his death, I'd > > think there'd be considerable question about whether she ever had > > physical possession of the things, unless there was a common child, > > which evidently there wasn't. That all being true, there'd be > > little to no reason for the 2nd husband or his family to keep track > > of 'em even if she DID have them in a box in the closet. > > > > The phrase Lost Cause keeps passin' through my mind. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Technically speaking, she was still his wife Cheryl, and she > received all his personal effects. I have copies of the letters and > the inventory. I was too young to remember anything from that time > but I suspect personal possessions and pensions may have caused a > rift in the family and that must have reduced the chances of > recovery even further. > > "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com> I can think of two possible routes they'd have gone. One would have been in a house clearance. If it weren't so long ago (from what you wrote it seems that his wife would have died in the 50s or early 60s) it would have been worth contacting the local auction house who would have known who their regular local medal collectors were. By now of course those collectors and maybe the auction house are probably no longer active. The other possibility is that they have been donated to his regiment. Have you tried contacting their musem? -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

> > These then passed to his estranged wife who soon remarried but > > tragically died young. > > > > Tony Proctor > > Sorry, Tony, but if she was estranged at the time of his death, I'd > think there'd be considerable question about whether she ever had > physical possession of the things, unless there was a common child, > which evidently there wasn't. That all being true, there'd be > little to no reason for the 2nd husband or his family to keep track > of 'em even if she DID have them in a box in the closet. > > The phrase Lost Cause keeps passin' through my mind. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Technically speaking, she was still his wife Cheryl, and she received all his personal effects. I have copies of the letters and the inventory. I was too young to remember anything from that time but I suspect personal possessions and pensions may have caused a rift in the family and that must have reduced the chances of recovery even further. Tony Proctor "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com>

> These then passed to his estranged wife who soon remarried but > tragically died young. > > Tony Proctor Sorry, Tony, but if she was estranged at the time of his death, I'd think there'd be considerable question about whether she ever had physical possession of the things, unless there was a common child, which evidently there wasn't. That all being true, there'd be little to no reason for the 2nd husband or his family to keep track of 'em even if she DID have them in a box in the closet. The phrase Lost Cause keeps passin' through my mind. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> > > For USA Medals: > > > > > > http://www.archives.gov/veterans/evetrecs/ > > > > > > You may request replacement medals and military records through this > > > site. > > > > > > SHARON Zingery <szingery@sbcglobal.net> > > > > Thanks Sharon. This is for UK medals, though, and the rules are very > > different here. > > > > "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com> > > I'm surprised that some fellow who served in a British Army Unit > in Korea hasn't jumped in here to say something about the Korea > Medal and the UN medal for Korea. I served in Korea with a Canadian > Infantry Battalion, which was part of the 1st Commonwealth Division, > of which the KSLI was a part. My medals, the Korea Medal and the UN > Medal were issued with my Number Rank Name Unit inscribed on the > rims of those medals. Anyone who was "Mentioned in Dispatches", the > bottom award for bravery, at the time, would have a palm leaf as an > attachment to the riband of the Korea Medal. I am NOT going to try > and describe the replacement procedures for these medals for Canada > as any other countries replacement procedures are totally > irrelevant. As for the tracing of the medals in the UK, his unit of > the time, would have published in their daily orders the award of > the medal or medals to which he would have been entitled. He would > then and only then, be entitled wear the riband of the awarded > medal. The physical medal would arrive in his hands from some > central source, his to shine and polish on a continuing basis, in > order that his Army tormentors would stay off his back. > > "Terry Flanagan" <dotterry@accesswave.ca> Thanks for the information Terrence. I think I need to contact the MOD here again to see what the rules were with inscriptions in Britain I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say regarding his entitlement. I already know what medals he had. Unfortunately, he died in 1954 in a training accident. I have a copy of his service record and his medals were in his list of personal possessions. These then passed to his estranged wife who soon remarried but tragically died young. Someone in this thread suggested checking for a possible Will made by his wife. I admit to not haven't tried this yet since - even now - far too many people fail to think about them until later life. Hence, I think the chances of finding one are slim but I must check Tony Proctor "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com>