In a message dated 6/27/02 6:49:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, XxGenealogyxX@aol.com writes: > In my situation, my great-grandmother lived with us for the last six years > of > her life and died when I was nineteen. We were extremely close, and I can > easily recall twenty or more specific references that she made to her > childhood, her family, her mother's full maiden name, as well as stories of > > her maternal grandmother and her family (which is important since both of > these women are the Mayflower "line carriers"). > > What's crazy with the way the Mayflower Society works is that I could write > > down everything she told me first hand in a spiral notebook, and 5 > generations from now, someone could join on the basis of this information! > I > also have to say that the fact that none of the representatives of the > Mayflower Society subscribed to this list have stepped forward with an > explanation for these inconsistencies in policy only assures me that there > probably is no explanation. > While I am not an official rep of the Mayflower Society and certainly don't presume to speak for them, my two cents is that it would seem to me that the "explanation" is that they strictly adhere to the "If it can't be read, it ain't been said" rule for documentation, and furthermore, it must be "read" in some "official" source. Since they are (and always have been) very clear on that point, I think that's probably why they have remained silent at this time. Meanwhile, I would NEVER fully discount anything that's "family tradition," especially that which is told to you by an older family member. My own experience has been that no matter how difficult it may be to prove such stories, there is always at least a kernal of truth to them, even when there are those who have told me they are total fabrication along the way! However, also keep in mind that human nature makes even the most well-intentioned, honest person tend to imbellish these stories, and so you might notice that with each telling, the story gets more detailed -- but are those details "real" or imagination?? Up to you to prove, I guess...and that would seem to be the point here! By the way, MY understanding of the policies on documentation is that even if you DID now write down all your g-grandmother's stories, they still could not be used as official proof by GSMD standards, even by future generations. Since they still aren't "first hand" to you (while these stories may have been told to you, they didn't happen to you...or your g-grandmother, either, if they are about her parents!), wouldn't they still fall under the category of undocumented hearsay, no matter how many years go by? I think so...However, don't let that stop you from doing it! Even better would have been to tape record your g-grandmother telling these stories herself! Perhaps the day will come (hopefully sooner than 5 generations from now...) when new information will somehow surface and someone can officially verify your "missing links." Perhaps those family stories will be just the clues someone will need to look in the right places for that documentation! Good luck! Kathy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself...but I think I have a right to object to libelous statements about my dog." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt Check out my genealogy web pages! http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/f/e/n/K-Fenton/index.html ~AND~ http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=twigsandbranches Recycle yourself! Tell someone you want to be an organ and tissue donor!

Here comes another "long one!" I have been monitoring this question on the documentation policy, and the responses that have been posted, but have stayed out of the issue until now. (I have also been extremely busy for the past week, because I am getting ready to have hand and wrist surgery on July 5th.) Kathy is correct that there is no hard and fast rule on using documentation of this sort. She is also correct with the statement that, if you did write it down now, it still would NOT be acceptable as documentation some 5 generations (or even 75-100 years) in the future. Old family records, statements and letters can be used under certain circumstances, if there is NOTHING ELSE AVAILABLE and if they fall under the "ancient document" rule of evidence. Anything more recent is considered "hearsay evidence" because the person giving the information was usually not present at the "event" and has no personal knowledge of it ever having happened. They've only been told it happened and that, as Kathy pointed out, is also from someone else's recollections, which is even more hearsay evidence. Even if the person WAS present at the event - this can certainly happen with marriages and deaths and each of us was certainly present at our own birth although we do not really REMEMBER IT- there are far BETTER sources of documentation that are available and should be used. Since what we do accept is really considered OLD hearsay evidence, maybe we should change some more and not accept that either. We 're not likely to change, because it is really no worse than accepting some of the old published genealogies (or locval histories) that never cited any sources. Without some of those references, probably no one would ever be able to join anything. We are certainly living in an era where vital events ARE recorded. This was not the case 100 years ago. Even in those States that kept vital records very early (the New England States in particular) it was still not MANDATORY that vital events be recorded. We have all struggled with family lines where births, deaths and sometimes, even marriages, weren't ever entered into the civil records. Marriages were more apt to be recorded by families that never recorded anything else, because there was usually a LEGAL issue at stake. (Think of all those Military widow's pension applications you have seen where the widow had to PROVE she was married to the soldier!) The rules for genealogical documentation have changed and all lineage societies (not just the "Mayflower Society") have changed their requirements for documentation. That change began some 20 or more years ago, when some of you were probably still children. There are still a few lineage societies that require less proof than others do, but they may also decide that they will need to change in the future, if they want to keep up with "the times." That's entirely up to them. When I was still taking client work (I stopped doing that about 5 years ago because my work with the Mayflower Society was taking almost all of my time), I did a lot of applications for many other lineage societies and their requirements were no different that "ours" are. There are some Family Associations (and PLEASE don't confuse them with lineage societies!) that require little or no documentation for your family line. That's just one reason why the Newsletters that the Family Associations put out are not normally acceptable as documentation for lineage society applications. Often, no one has provided any real proof for the information that is being published in a family newsletter. I can certainly attest to that personally, having been the Editor of two such family publications in the past. With one of those (the one I didn't "inherit" after many years of publication), I began each issue with a statement that the information provided had NOT been documented by me, that it should either be used for clues or the submitter of the information should be contacted for any documentation that might exist. I also forwarded a lot of letters for people who found new relatives! The fact is that if someone wants to join a lineage society, the burden of proof is, and always has been, with the applicant. If you cannot (or don't want to) provide that proof, then you probably aren't going to be able to join that society. There are also some lines that might lead to membership in one or another lineage society that are simply UN-provable, because our forebears didn't leave us enough information while they were living. That is unfortunate, but it is true. They should have been more considerate of our future "needs." I sure wish some of my ancestors had left better records! Even a little "family tradition" would have been helpful to me! Bette Innes Bradway, CG Assist. Historian General (and out-going NY Society Historian)