Hi Judy, Read your note with great interest. I too have sort of the same problem going on as I'm sure others have experienced this also. I say "Show me the FACTS" that is Show me the documentation of facts that lead to that conclusion. What are your sources? used to prove this info. When I first started my search back in the late 70's (makes me feel old) but one of my cousins had done alot of researching on the tree & shared some of her work with me. It was a basic outline of names & dates of our line leading back to Brooke county VA. wonderful - so excited to get some names & dates & a place to start my searching. She is mormon & had done temple records on these folks but when I started "digging" for the facts I found there were a few mistakes & esp on one of the wife's surnames. When I wrote off for a copy of the wife's father's will in another county & in it -it clearly states his daughter was the wife of Nathaniel __(surname). Not the wife of the one my cousin had listed. SO I learned very early on not to just take someone's word for a connection but to dig out the FACTS myself to see if it held water. I want the meat between the dash of dates on my ancestors. I want to know more about them that the dates on the tombstones. My cousin had hired a researcher (before 1977) who gave her that last name of the wife & he had skiped a generation or two? in the lines. She believed that the researcher was right untill I shared my finds with her & she then asked another hired "researcher" to look over my documentation on the family & He then said "by preponderance of the evidence" he said I "could" be right. I "hired" a lady who lived in the area to help dig up records where my ancestors lived & she sent me a few things that helped but also sent me off it the wrong direction by sending me info from a "book" that someone had done but it was for a different family of the surname who lived in a different county many miles away in PA from my bunch & showed no connection to my bunch of Brooke county. money wasted for all the copies of this book. but she did make contact with one local fellow who got in touch with me who was related to my bunch & he was a super help in gathering up land deeds, marriage records, etc...in the courthouse of actual documentation of our surname records there in the county for me. His help has been a treasure. So another lesson learned that even "hired" researchers can be wrong or make mistakes. My problem was that there were 2 brothers who each named 4 sons the same names. Which son was MY line from? My cousin thinks it's one & My research points to the other son. then just for fun.. there are 3 of the same name guys all abt the same age in the 1830 census & 2 of those both married wifes named Elizabeth. 2 of these guys moved away from the area & My GGG stayed there on the farm land he got from his father who also had the same name as him. oh what fun to sort out all these fellows. I gathered all the data I could get my hands on & put it in date order of events WITH documentation of the sources & did a timeline to help sort out all the different guys with the same names & that has been a great help. I hired a fellow who works in the area on land records & he traced the land ownership of my GG's land back to his purchase of the land from his father who got the land from the dower land of his mother. So that's my proof on my line & I keep digging for more info to prove or disprove it. So now I have another research problem; there is 1 guy who shows up living with our bunch who we can't figure out who his parents were yet. There are now 19 trees on ancestry.com showing him & his large family. 11 of them listing the parents as Robert (surname) & 7 of those list wife as Mary Elizabeth Elliot & 2 with wife as Elizabeth, & 2 list wife as Elizabeth Plance. No documentation on source to show proof of where they got the parents names. & No response to my ? asking for their source for the connection. Census records show that this Robert & Elizabeth had a son named James but he was born 8 years (& b. in Ohio) after the one we are looking for whose obit says he was born in PA. This isn't my direct line but I'm still interested in finding out who his parents were & how he connects to our bunch. When I asked one of the submitters his source for the parents names - he said he found it on ancestry.com. Well ha.. ancestry.com is not a source. ? is it? several more say they just copied the info from someone elses tree.. oh my... my thinking is the actual listing of birth records or death records of the county are sources not someone elses tree as a source. right? & just because it's on ancestry.com doesn't mean it's true unless it has some documention of where the info came from.. such as birth, marriage, death records from the county records that are recorded at the time of the event. ? Even obits & County histories can be wrong. I want to see the actual document that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that this fact is true.. not someones guess as to who the parents were. I shared a photo of this family that my distant cousin shared with me with a couple ladies, & they put it on their ancestry tree & they did list where it came from. But others have copied the photo into their tree without listing their source for the photo. sadly they lose that documention of it, because the back of the photo listed the kids names from a newspaper clipping of the couple's anniversary. do i want to share other photos that were shared with me? not so sure? Do i want to hord the other photos & data? well maybe but that won't help me find other "cousins" who might be out there either. One of the ladies who I shared the photo with has taken the time to write off for the death certificate of the wife of this guy & it listed her "real" parents names. YEA! That is proof & documentation to me. I'm so glad she took the time to search out the actual record & share it with me. since it's not my direct line - should I care or do I want to find the truth? You bet i do. I had thought it was the guy who was related to my line but it was the wife. happens when 2 of the same surname married, cousins married cousins.. kind of like... "who's your daddy"? ha. I hope you can work with the lady who claims to connect to your family lines to prove the right lines. I guess when it comes down to it.. all you can do is show your documentation of FACTS & let the Fact's speak for themself. I love the saying "Genealogy without documentation is just mythology". Thanks for letting me vent. & Happy Trails on your researching too. Kim > From: "J.A. Florian" <[email protected]> > Subject: [PAWASHIN] HELP! Placing ornaments (ancestors) on the wrong > tree?? > I'm turning to the List with a problem I'm not sure how to handle. I'd > appreciate your comments (or even a draft of a letter I could send ;-) > > Someone contacted me saying that my one of my direct ancestors had moved > or > visited a different State (4 States -- hundreds of miles away) in the > 1850s > and her ancestor is some long-lost son of my ancestor. She has NOT given > a > tree or names/dates to make any comparison. I hate to just say "your > family > is not my family" since MAYBE she knows something *I* don't know. But she > found a photo of MY ancestor (which a cousin put online with names & > dates) > and the lady is writing a book, she says. > > Here are my dilemmas: > > I don't want to shut down "a possibility".... if it expands our tree that > is > great. > versus > I don't want my family stuck into the wrong family. > > > My ancestor had known children - a "cousin" descends from one son; I > descend > from another son. My "cousin" and I have been researching the "family" > AND ALL BRANCHES since 1980. > versus > The lady who emailed me has been researching a year & a half. > > > The picture the lady cites was my cousin's photo, put online to hopefully > get leads. It shows 3 known children and 2 unknown children (who we think > died young). We have proofs for every known/named person in our tree. > versus > The lady who emailed says one of the unknown children in the photo "looks > just like" her relative. > > > We have proof of how each person is related in families between 1780 to > 1850 > (the period she's referred to). > versus > She says "family stories handed down" and that before her relative died he > said he was related to ("a") John Lane. There were at least 20 men by > that > name that *I* found in a small area of SW PA --- none related to "mine". > > > I have exact dates for all the common names in my tree in those 2 > generations. > versus > All the first names she has mentioned are common names (John, Joseph, > Daniel) and she has given no birth and death dates. > Finding matches of FIRST + LAST names does NOT automatically mean "these > fit" especially with COMMON NAMES (John, Joseph, Mary, George, Thomas) > PLUS > a COMMON SURNAME (Thomas, Baker, Tree, Lane, etc). > > > I have our family's in-law names and in most cases the parent names for > in-laws; she did not have any reaction to my list of surnames. > versus > None of the surnames she has mentioned fit our family. NONE (except the > ones she found online - see next point). > > > We have details on the major 3 surnames in question, through (30++ ?) > years > of research by my cousin, my grandmother, and me. > versus > Those surnames were posted online by my cousin and those are the only > surnames the lady gives that match ours. > > > She cites a man, first name Clement. "Clement" is used in English and > French speaking countries. > versus > Our family possibly were Scotch-Irish (history bio) or German (religious > sect). We have not even a mere mention of a Clement or any variation > (Clem, > Clemens) in ANY branch of our family! NONE of our families fit English or > French lines. > > > She states Clement is a long-unknown late-born son of the primary > ancestor, > or of the primary ancestor's son. > versus > The primary ancestor's wife died 6 yrs before the birth of this > "lost-unknown" (b. 1828). The primary male never remarried. > The son of the primary ancestor was not married in 1828. This man was > born > 1810 so he COULD have fathered this kid at age 18, though UNmarried. It's > possible.... but... how likely is it if nothing else fits?? > > > She states Clement was born in Ohio. > versus > The people she's linking to in my family never lived in Ohio. If Clement > was born in 1828 in Ohio, the mom would have been pregnant in 1827 and > possibly part of 1828 (depending on month of birth). Which means the son > in > my line would have been 17 years old and in Ohio -- alone, without his > dad. > ALSO, my 3rd born son of my primary was brought up in a strict religious > community (where he became a reverend by his 20s). None of "my" women > were > in Ohio either. > > > She only gave the 1828 date. > versus > My dates go like this: > Primary: born ca. 1780 d. 1844 > Primary's wife died abt. 1822 > > first male born: b. ca. 1804 - m. abt 1830 - moved to Ohio - no mention of > any Clement in a County Bio (grandson of this 1st born son) > 2nd male born b. ca. 1806 - m. about 1830 - moved to Indiana - no Clement > 3rd male born b. 1810 - (the one she cites) - married early 1830s (first > ch. > b. 1833), stayed in same county of his birth (so an age of 21 yrs at > marriage sounds appropriate for the times, for a 1st marriage!!) > 4th (a girl) born b. 1818-20 - m. about 1840s > > > It is not unknown though as early as 1837 in another related family to > have > an out-of-wedlock birth.... > > > She sent me a picture that had the same names as my 3rd born male & wife, > supposedly taken in the 1850s. It shows a "worldly" dressed man and wife; > he has a gold-tone watch fob/chain. i think his suit is pin-striped. > Woman's hair is NOT covered. > versus > My 3rd born male was a minister / preacher / Reverend in a very strict > German religious group who shunned worldliness and forbade things like > dancing, smoking, etc. They wore plain clothes, all black, NO buttons. > Women wore head coverings at all times (similar to Amish today). > > > She says my 3rd born male & wife were in Iowa in the 1850s, maybe visiting > relatives. (That's POSSIBLE, I guess. There MAY have been a Church Elder, > IF the Elder went to Iowa that early that my guy could have visited.) > That > is the picture she sent of them "in their 50s". > versus > My 3rd born male was a poor farmer, running a 100-acre farm at home and > was > preaching every Sunday at one of 2 churches. > He is in the 1850 Census at home. He had young children -- in 1850 ages > were: a girl age 17; a boy age 8; a boy age 5. I cannot see him traveling > anywhere to "visit" anyone with little money and heavy home/church > responsibilities. (When did trains go to Iowa? I don't think it was > 1850s-- that early-- was it??) No way would he have left with his wife > and > presumably his kids in a wagon to go 4 States away -- then come back ! > > > Census - My primary and his son are right where they are supposed to be in > each Census (1800 on up). > versus > She says the 3rd male son of my primary "raised" this boy Clement. Naaa > Awww--- he is NOT in the "3rd male son's" household AT ALL -- even the > people in the house in 1830 & 1840 we can account for given the ages of > his > children from Bible records matching the Census. There is NO extra boy! > > > Again, she says her Clement (b. 1828) is maybe the son of my "3rd born > male" > (b. 1810 so he would have been a father at 17yo) and she says "by a > previous > marriage" or a son of the 3rd born male's WIFE. > versus > (1) We have NO evidence for a previous marriage for the "3rd born male". > And > (2) We have the *exact* date of birth for this man's wife and for her to > have birthed Clement (b. 1828) she would have had to be pregnant at age 13 > (THIRTEEN) and given birth at age 14. Today, these ages are more accepted > as "possible" and biologically yes a woman in 1827 could have maybe been > biologically capable of getting pregnant and giving birth---BUT it is > highly > improbable too. (1) The strict German background (2) females in early > 1800s > did not have the influence of external hormones as additives in cow's > milk, > fish, and processed foods like we have today; today, girls as young as 7 > or > 8 years old are showing signs of physical maturation and puberty (3) A > girl > normally got 1st period around age 12-14 in the 1900s; now that age lowers > to age 10-14; it is logical to question whether menstruation might have > occurred a year or so later than the 12-14 time frame of the 1900-2000 > era. > > > The lady references Virginia and southern routes (VA, KY) as my surname's > origins as well as MA. > versus > We've never found ANY connection to the southern families of the same > (very > common) surname. I'm never one to say "never!" without researching, BUT > my > cousin and I researched our surname through VA, and KY and NO connection > was > made. > > > The lady references some French surname and says our Surname goes back to > that major figure in history. She further claims connections to 1800s & > 1900s politicians of the same surname in Iowa, including someone connected > to a past President. > versus > We've never found that our families were anything more than dirt-poor > farmers and preachers living plain, religious lives. Period. > > > > Without this lady giving me more details, I can't compare hers & mine very > well. But she's afraid I will steal her work; she's writing a book. I > told > her I've already written 2 books and have no interest in stealing > anything. > > So HOW do I communicate to her that "hers" does not fit "mine"? She won't > give details, which I've asked her to do. > > This is like someone walking up and saying "I have the same pair of shoes > as > you have" simply because both pairs of shoes are the same color. One > thing > my grandma taught me was to ALWAYS make a chronological list of dates WITH > ages. It is not enough to list a birth date, marriage date, and "kids" > birth dates if the kids' birth dates don't fit the ages of "maturation" > for > the (supposed) parents. I once read a family history that had a "woman" > (girl) giving birth at age 9 --- if you compared the kid's birth years to > the supposed "mother". Or births "before" the woman was even born! > > > Genealogy is too precious to be treated with the rush of life we've all > endured. Genealogy needs patience, careful consideration, precise working > of figures (even if it makes "sense" by dates only), and putting ages > beside > dates as well. It is a disservice to "claim" anyone as a relative--you > wouldn't open a phone book today and "pick" someone to be in your family-- > so be careful when determining who your ancestors are/were. You should > only > want family on your tree, not ornaments to make it look good. > > So back to my question.... how would you handle this ? I don't want to > sound nasty & every way I've written it as a draft sounds nasty or like > I'm > being possessive of "my" family ! What do I do? > > Is there anything faulty in my thinking as I listed the individual points > I've made here?? > > Judy > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the PAWASHIN list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the PAWASHIN mailing list, send an email to > [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of PAWASHIN Digest, Vol 5, Issue 271 > ****************************************