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

Judy, You seem to have overwhelming information to the contrary. When I have something that appears not to fit in I simply attach it to the appropriate person(s) siting the source & footnote it with and explanation like you have below. For example: Primary Ancestor* *Bad Source indicates in her Book, A guess at who my ancestors are, that Primary Ancestor had a son, Primary Ancestor, Jr. I believe this is erroneous due the following well documented reasons: Then you cover yourself. Intelligent people can see the weight of your argument and can see Bad Sources' lack of proof. The thing about this genealogy business that bugs me is people's willingness to accept non-documented information for the sake of having numbers in their family tree. My two cents worth. Good Luck. Lou -----Original Message----- From: J.A. Florian <[email protected]> To: LIST: [email protected] <[email protected]>; cageycat <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Nov 28, 2010 1:41 am 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 **** Please visit http://www.chartiers.com/pages-new/pawashin.html for list information, particularly the bottom of the page. ------------------------------- 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 message

Just have to second Lou and Pam's suggestions! Well said! Liz