I would add to the comments on your difficult client by saying that when only 4 hours research is authorized for the amount of work you describe, you probably need to either walk away from the client or educate that client about the amount of work involved. You won't be a satisfied professional until you believe you are being paid fairly. Mara Fein, PhD, CG(SM) mfein@ancestrywest.com www.ancestrywest.com 310-487-5150 Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation and used under license by the Board's associates.

Reminds me of the client who wanted a marriage certificate but wanted me to leave out any info on the bride, to save money. Israel Pickholtz Jerusalem (blogging weekly at http://allmyforeparents.blogspot.com ) On 19 Dec 2012 at 1:00, transitional-genealogists-forum- request@roTRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 6, Is wrote: > After our meeting, she sent me an email that stated, in no uncertain > terms, that she was not > interested in children or siblings, and that > she wanted birth and death certificates.

On a serious note, I would make sure her requirements are expressed in writing (or even in an email). I have seen many experiences like this - not just in genealogy - where specific, and slightly unusual, requirements were only expressed verbally, and then disputed by the client after they been given the results/services/whatever. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "IsraelP" <IsraelP@pikholz.org> To: <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [TGF] writing a report for a difficult client > Reminds me of the client who wanted a marriage certificate but wanted me > to leave out any info on the bride, to save money. > > Israel Pickholtz > Jerusalem > (blogging weekly at http://allmyforeparents.blogspot.com ) > > > On 19 Dec 2012 at 1:00, transitional-genealogists-forum- > request@roTRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM Digest, Vol 6, Is > wrote: > >> After our meeting, she sent me an email that stated, in no uncertain >> terms, that she was not > interested in children or siblings, and that >> she wanted birth and death certificates. > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message

We may also be missing another key element of this client request/report issue. The client appears to have asked for straight-line information for BMD events. Piecing together direct and indirect evidence of BMDs would be relevant to the client request. Weaving historical content and adding "meat to the bones" narratives may not be. best regards, Dee Dee King

Maybe you aren't asking, but just noting what you'd seen, but Onondaga County was part of the military tract in which NY awarded lands to RW soldiers. Since the land was divied up by a balloting process (The Ballot Book shows which soldiers got which land) and not by choice, many of the soldiers sold their land and bought elsewhere. You can see the Simeon DeWitt map at this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Sue Adams <sueyadams@gmail.com> wrote: > What a gloriously messy history to these lands! I had 'flicked' through > the other pages and found lists of deceased soldiers at the back, so was > wondering what the military connection was. > > Sue Adams > > Family Folk > > Blog: http://familyfolklore.wordpress.com/ > > On 19/12/2012 04:41, unique64 Riley wrote: > > Patricia, > > > > Thank you very much! I am still learning and had not did any land > research in NY before this week. I did wonder if this law was unique to > the state. > > > > I have since found some info which explains what was happening at the > time and why the law was enacted. > > > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nycoloni/cnmtrct.html< > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nycoloni/cnmtrct.html> > > > > Thanks again. > > > > Monique > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Patricia Hobbs<mailto:plhgenealogy@gmail.com> > > To: unique64 Riley<mailto:unique64@msn.com> > > Cc: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com<mailto: > transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [TGF] NY Land Records- Awards > > > > > > Monique: > > > > > > I did not know about this and my ancestors were in a part of Onondaga > that later became part of Preble, so I am interested. Here is the act in > the New York statutes: > http://books.google.com/books?id=qnw4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=new+york+law+an+act+to+settle+disputes+to+titles+of+land+onondaga&source=bl&ots=AmCttMyfdL&sig=3Bq74j_oExT-wuQvE_umlp0FIz8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-z3RUJuLJOjY2gWRuoGIBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20law%20an%20act%20to%20settle%20disputes%20to%20titles%20of%20land%20onondaga&f=false > < > http://books.google.com/books?id=qnw4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=new+york+law+an+act+to+settle+disputes+to+titles+of+land+onondaga&source=bl&ots=AmCttMyfdL&sig=3Bq74j_oExT-wuQvE_umlp0FIz8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-z3RUJuLJOjY2gWRuoGIBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20law%20an%20act%20to%20settle%20disputes%20to%20titles%20of%20land%20onondaga&f=false > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, unique64 Riley <unique64@msn.com > <mailto:unique64@msn.com>> wrote: > > > > Could someone help me understand what exactly these records are > documenting? They are at familysearch.org<http://familysearch.org/> and > listed as Awards, 1798-1802 for Onondaga County New York. I am guessing > that they are a type of court record granting land when there was a > dispute. Are they from a federal or county court? > > > > > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > < > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > >< > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > < > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > >> > > > > > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > < > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > >< > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > < > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > >> > > > > Thank you, > > Monique > > > > > > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a > supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they > transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions > of this list. > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com<mailto: > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com> with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Get the money up front. (smile) This one sounds like a case of client education but perhaps that should have been done before the research. Many people believe in vital records as "the" authority when we know that they can lie. Educating people on the value of following the evidence to tell the story can be difficult if they don't realize this. Did she need this for Lineage Society proof? Sometimes that is what puts clients in the mindset of vital records as all-important, not realizing that probate, deeds, and other documents can give the evidence of direct (or indirect) relationship that they seek. The client interview is the toughest thing to do sometimes if the client is not forthcoming with what they really want. Sometimes they don't know what they really want and we have to help them along with that definition. Only when their expectations realistically meet the time and budget will they be satisfied. If you can recognize any mismatch way up front, it is sometimes better to walk away. Another alternative is to work pro bono and chalk it up to a learning experience. Best wishes, Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG, CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are Service Marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations by the Board and the board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. > -----Original Message----- > From: On Behalf Of Claudia Breland > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:28 PM > > I'm doing research (unfortunately limited to 4 hours) and writing a report for a difficult > client. We met in person, and she told me what she wanted, which was to trace her > paternal ancestry back to the immigrant ancestor. > After our meeting, she sent me an email that stated, in no uncertain terms, that she was not > interested in children or siblings, and that she wanted birth and death certificates. <snipped> > I'm fairly sure she won't be happy that my 4 hours didn't find the answer she wanted, and > I don't think she has the resources to have me do more research - which will obviously > have to be with documents that are not online, but are on microfilm or in archives.

The quote, "double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity," is taken from p. 138 in George L. Findlen's article, "The 1917 Code of Canon Law: A Resource for Understanding Catholic Church Registers," NGSQ 93 (June 2005.) The couple in the case had received permission for marriage "of an impediment of the 3rd to the 4th degree of consanguinity." Subsequently they sought for and received clearance of the "double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity," The cause of the impediment in this case is somewhat confusing. Detail of the common ancestor(s) is not set forth. If words are missing perhaps the entry in the parish register was semi-abbreviated. Elizabeth I am embarrassed that I don't remember the Trichel-Grappe problem. Thank you all for the explanation. LeRoy

Monique: I did not know about this and my ancestors were in a part of Onondaga that later became part of Preble, so I am interested. Here is the act in the New York statutes: http://books.google.com/books?id=qnw4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=new+york+law+an+act+to+settle+disputes+to+titles+of+land+onondaga&source=bl&ots=AmCttMyfdL&sig=3Bq74j_oExT-wuQvE_umlp0FIz8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-z3RUJuLJOjY2gWRuoGIBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20law%20an%20act%20to%20settle%20disputes%20to%20titles%20of%20land%20onondaga&f=false On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, unique64 Riley <unique64@msn.com> wrote: > Could someone help me understand what exactly these records are > documenting? They are at familysearch.org and listed as Awards, > 1798-1802 for Onondaga County New York. I am guessing that they are a type > of court record granting land when there was a dispute. Are they from a > federal or county court? > > > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > < > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > > > > > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > < > https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462 > > > > Thank you, > Monique > > > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Patricia, Thank you very much! I am still learning and had not did any land research in NY before this week. I did wonder if this law was unique to the state. I have since found some info which explains what was happening at the time and why the law was enacted. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nycoloni/cnmtrct.html<http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nycoloni/cnmtrct.html> Thanks again. Monique ----- Original Message ----- From: Patricia Hobbs<mailto:plhgenealogy@gmail.com> To: unique64 Riley<mailto:unique64@msn.com> Cc: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com<mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:11 PM Subject: Re: [TGF] NY Land Records- Awards Monique: I did not know about this and my ancestors were in a part of Onondaga that later became part of Preble, so I am interested. Here is the act in the New York statutes: http://books.google.com/books?id=qnw4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=new+york+law+an+act+to+settle+disputes+to+titles+of+land+onondaga&source=bl&ots=AmCttMyfdL&sig=3Bq74j_oExT-wuQvE_umlp0FIz8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-z3RUJuLJOjY2gWRuoGIBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20law%20an%20act%20to%20settle%20disputes%20to%20titles%20of%20land%20onondaga&f=false<http://books.google.com/books?id=qnw4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=new+york+law+an+act+to+settle+disputes+to+titles+of+land+onondaga&source=bl&ots=AmCttMyfdL&sig=3Bq74j_oExT-wuQvE_umlp0FIz8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-z3RUJuLJOjY2gWRuoGIBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20law%20an%20act%20to%20settle%20disputes%20to%20titles%20of%20land%20onondaga&f=false> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:22 PM, unique64 Riley <unique64@msn.com<mailto:unique64@msn.com>> wrote: Could someone help me understand what exactly these records are documenting? They are at familysearch.org<http://familysearch.org/> and listed as Awards, 1798-1802 for Onondaga County New York. I am guessing that they are a type of court record granting land when there was a dispute. Are they from a federal or county court? https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462><https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462>> https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462><https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462>> Thank you, Monique The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Leroy, in your first phrase "double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity," something appears to be stated wrong. Double impediment means that there was an impediment in two different ways. Either could be an impediment of consanguinity (blood kinship) or affinity (kinship by marriage). In your case, you're explicitly told that it's a blood kinship. The statement that you quote would describe a double-impediment if one or another word was changed. For example: - Double impediment of the 4th *AND* the 4th degree. (i.e., 4th degree kinship, 2 different ways) - Double impediment of the 4th to the *5TH* degree (i.e., a third-cousin-once-removed relationship, in two ways) - Double impediment of the *3RD* to the 4th degree (i.e., a second-cousin-once-removed relationship, in two ways) Or a couple of words might be missing: - Double impediment of [say] the 4th degree *AND* the *3RD* to 4th degree (i.e., 3d cousins in one line and 2nd to 3d in another) (Do you, incidentally, remember the Trichel-Grappe slave/fpc problem we worked through in Course 4 and the diagrams that charted out the "double impediment of consanguinity in the 3d-to-4th degrees"? Same situation.) Elizabeth --------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for daily tips on records and records usage: www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of LeRoy Atkins Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:12 PM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Consanguinity and Canon Law: Relationship Between Marriage Partners Please help me understand the phrase “double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity.” Do I understand that if my wife and I had a common 2nd great grandparent we would be 3rd cousins? Does a “double impediment” in the first instance indicate having two 2nd great grandparents in common? What does “of the 4th” mean? Does that mean four generations away from me? If my wife was “of the 3rd” would she be 3 generations way from our common ancestor? >From the quote below it sounds if my idea is too simple? Thanks, LeRoy The following is from a Catholic Encyclopedia accessed 18 December 2012 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationship! is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined. In the direct line the Roman civil and the canon law agree on the principle that there are as many degrees as generations; hence as many degrees as there are persons, omitting the stock or root. A son is one degree from his father, a grandchild two degrees from the grandfather. In the computation of the degrees of the transverse or collateral line there is a serious difference between the Roman civil and the canon law. The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations. The degrees are calculated easily in the civil law by summing up the number of persons in each line, omitting the common ancestor. Except for marriage, the canon law follows regularly the computation of the civil law, e.g. in the question of inheritance. But the Canon law, in the collat! eral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius. This rule holds if the common stock should only be one person; thus half-brothers and half-sisters, tha! t is from either father or mother, are in the first degree. Ch! ildren o f the same father and mother are called german, as from the common germ; those of the same mother and not of the same father are called uterine, as from the same womb; and children of the same father and different mother are called blood-children. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of any member of the series does not modify the relationship as a bar to marriage. The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Leroy, Here are two links to civil law on consanguinty, which may help with part of your question. <http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=relation> <http://www.mystatewill.com/degrees_of_kinship.php> I used to have a Canon law site bookmarked, but seem to have misplaced it. Kathy On 12/18/2012 7:12 PM, LeRoy Atkins wrote: > Please help me understand the phrase “double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity.” > > Do I understand that if my wife and I had a common 2nd great grandparent we would be 3rd cousins? > > Does a “double impediment” in the first instance indicate having two 2nd great grandparents in common? > > What does “of the 4th” mean? > > Does that mean four generations away from me? > > If my wife was “of the 3rd” would she be 3 generations way from our common ancestor? > > From the quote below it sounds if my idea is too simple? > > Thanks, > LeRoy > > The following is from a Catholic Encyclopedia accessed 18 December 2012 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm > > In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationsh! ip is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined. > > In the direct line the Roman civil and the canon law agree on the principle that there are as many degrees as generations; hence as many degrees as there are persons, omitting the stock or root. A son is one degree from his father, a grandchild two degrees from the grandfather. In the computation of the degrees of the transverse or collateral line there is a serious difference between the Roman civil and the canon law. The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations. The degrees are calculated easily in the civil law by summing up the number of persons in each line, omitting the common ancestor. Except for marriage, the canon law follows regularly the computation of the civil law, e.g. in the question of inheritance. But the Canon law, in the coll! ateral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius. This rule holds if the common stock should only be one person; thus half-brothers and half-sisters, t! hat is from either father or mother, are in the first degree. ! Children of the same father and mother are called german, as from the common germ; those of the same mother and not of the same father are called uterine, as from the same womb; and children of the same father and different mother are called blood-children. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of any member of the series does not modify the relationship as a bar to marriage. > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'm doing research (unfortunately limited to 4 hours) and writing a report for a difficult client. We met in person, and she told me what she wanted, which was to trace her paternal ancestry back to the immigrant ancestor. After our meeting, she sent me an email that stated, in no uncertain terms, that she was not interested in children or siblings, and that she wanted birth and death certificates. Well. I've taken her furthest known ancestor (born 1848 in Missouri) back 2 generations, going by census records. That ancestor's grandfather was born about 1785 in North Carolina, but obviously I'm not going to be able to conjure up birth and death certificates. In fact, I'm depending heavily on indirect evidence, such as emigration patterns from North Carolina to Missouri in the early 1800's, on land purchases, and on the grandfather's daughter-in-law's father (also living in the same county in Missouri in 1850) also being born in North Carolina about 1790. Who's to say they didn't know each other before they had children who would grow up and marry? So I'm writing my report, making it as fascinating as I can, and as educational as I can (this is a teachable moment, here), without actually answering her question. One of the concepts I'm going to present to her is that genealogists not only want to know who, and where, and when, but why. Why did they leave North Carolina? Why did they leave Missouri and cross over into Kansas Territory and then to Iowa? I'm fairly sure she won't be happy that my 4 hours didn't find the answer she wanted, and I don't think she has the resources to have me do more research - which will obviously have to be with documents that are not online, but are on microfilm or in archives. What I'm hoping for is that she will get a real sense of who her ancestors were. Just thinking out loud here.. Claudia

I recently purchased a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2.0, 7" tablet and am having trouble viewing and manipulating the historical images on www.familysearch.org<http://www.familysearch.org/>. Has anyone been successful viewing these images on this or any other Android tablet? I have used the browser it comes with and also downloaded and used the Chrome App from the Google Play store with no success. Thank you for any ideas and suggestions. Monique

Could someone help me understand what exactly these records are documenting? They are at familysearch.org and listed as Awards, 1798-1802 for Onondaga County New York. I am guessing that they are a type of court record granting land when there was a dispute. Are they from a federal or county court? https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-32981-23434-29?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462> https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462<https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-32981-23928-46?cc=2078654&wc=M9M4-DJ8:n1312137462> Thank you, Monique

LeRoy, from the same web site you quote is this paragraph: "Consanguinity may be duplicated as arising from two sources: first, from two roots, e.g. two brothers marrying two women <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm> who are cousins; the children of each brother will be related to those of the other in the second degree on the father's side, and in the third degree on the mother's side; second, from one root, but when the descendants intermarry. hence, where there is a double consanguinity, there is a double impediment which must be expressed in the petition for dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm>; and should there be a more extensive duplication by still further intermarriages, all the forbidden degrees resulting from the blood-relationship should be mentioned in seeking dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm>. In the petition for dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm>, both series in the collateral consanguinity must be mentioned, though this is not necessary <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm> for validity of the dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm>. A special proviso is made when dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm> is sought from collateral consanguinity. It must be mentioned, even for validity, if the one part is next of kin to the root or common ancestor and the other within the forbidden degrees; the sex of the next of kin should also be mentioned, because of the greater difficulty of the dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm> for a nephew to marry his aunt. If the farthest should be in the fifth degree, there is even in that case no prohibition of marriage. The impediment of marriage arises also from any carnal intercourse, even outside of marriage, to the fourth degree of consanguinity. To consanguinity within the prohibited degrees may be added the gravamen of the crime of incest. If the incest were committed in the hope of facilitating the grant of a dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm>, this circumstance must be mentioned in the petition for dispensation <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05041a.htm>; mention is also required if an attempt at marriage had been made, even if not consummated." I think your phrase, "double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity," is simply saying that the double impediment (defined in the section I copied, above) is two impediments both at the 4th level. In other words, the 4th degree shares an impediment with the 4th degree. I'd be willing to bet that if, say, the husband and wife had a common ancestor but they were a generation apart, the phrase would be "double impediment of the 3rd to the 4th degree of consanguinity." Dave Liesse Skingco Services, LLC On 12/18/2012 16:12, LeRoy Atkins wrote: > Please help me understand the phrase “double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity.” > > Do I understand that if my wife and I had a common 2nd great grandparent we would be 3rd cousins? > > Does a “double impediment” in the first instance indicate having two 2nd great grandparents in common? > > What does “of the 4th” mean? > > Does that mean four generations away from me? > > If my wife was “of the 3rd” would she be 3 generations way from our common ancestor? > > From the quote below it sounds if my idea is too simple? > > Thanks, > LeRoy > > The following is from a Catholic Encyclopedia accessed 18 December 2012 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm > > In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationship is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined. > > In the direct line the Roman civil and the canon law agree on the principle that there are as many degrees as generations; hence as many degrees as there are persons, omitting the stock or root. A son is one degree from his father, a grandchild two degrees from the grandfather. In the computation of the degrees of the transverse or collateral line there is a serious difference between the Roman civil and the canon law. The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations. The degrees are calculated easily in the civil law by summing up the number of persons in each line, omitting the common ancestor. Except for marriage, the canon law follows regularly the computation of the civil law, e.g. in the question of inheritance. But the Canon law, in the collateral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius. This rule holds if the common stock should only be one person; thus half-brothers and half-sisters, that is from either father or mother, are in the first degree. Children of the same father and mother are called german, as from the common germ; those of the same mother and not of the same father are called uterine, as from the same womb; and children of the same father and different mother are called blood-children. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of any member of the series does not modify the relationship as a bar to marriage. > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Please help me understand the phrase “double impediment of the 4th to the 4th degree of consanguinity.” Do I understand that if my wife and I had a common 2nd great grandparent we would be 3rd cousins? Does a “double impediment” in the first instance indicate having two 2nd great grandparents in common? What does “of the 4th” mean? Does that mean four generations away from me? If my wife was “of the 3rd” would she be 3 generations way from our common ancestor? >From the quote below it sounds if my idea is too simple? Thanks, LeRoy The following is from a Catholic Encyclopedia accessed 18 December 2012 at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm In calculating the degree of consanguinity special attention must be paid to three things, the line, the degree, and the stock or root. The stock, or root, is the common ancestor, or the person, male or female, from whom descend as from the nearest common bond the persons whose blood-relationship is to be determined. The degree is the distance of one person from the other in regard to blood-relationship. The line is the classified series of persons descending from the common stock through one or more generations. The line is direct when the series of persons descend one from the other, as father and son, grandfather and grandchild. The line is transverse, or collateral, when the blood-relations spring from a common stock, yet do not descend one from the other but form different branches side by side, as two brothers, two nephews. This collateral line is equal or unequal according as these persons derive equally or unequally from the same stock or root. The blood-relationship is computed according to the distance from the stock whence it is derived, and this is the rule by which the degrees or steps of consanguinity are determined. In the direct line the Roman civil and the canon law agree on the principle that there are as many degrees as generations; hence as many degrees as there are persons, omitting the stock or root. A son is one degree from his father, a grandchild two degrees from the grandfather. In the computation of the degrees of the transverse or collateral line there is a serious difference between the Roman civil and the canon law. The civil law founded its degrees upon the number of generations, the number of degrees being equal to the number of generations; thus between brothers there are two degrees as there are two generations; between first cousins four degrees, corresponding to the four generations. The degrees are calculated easily in the civil law by summing up the number of persons in each line, omitting the common ancestor. Except for marriage, the canon law follows regularly the computation of the civil law, e.g. in the question of inheritance. But the Canon law, in the collateral line of consanguinity, computes for marriage one series only of generations, and if the series are unequal, only the longer one. Hence the principle of canon law that in the transverse or collateral line there are as many degrees of consanguinity as there are persons in the longer series, omitting the common stock or root. If the two series are equal, the distance is the number of degrees of either from the common stock. Thus brother and sister are in the first degree, first cousins in the second degree; uncle and niece in the second degree because the niece is two degrees from the grandfather who is the common stock. Thus if Caius has two sons, Titius and Sempronius, and Sempronius has a son and grandchild, the relationship of the grandchild of Sempronius to Titius is in the third degree, because this grandchild is distant three degrees from the common stock, Caius. This rule holds if the common stock should only be one person; thus half-brothers and half-sisters, that is from either father or mother, are in the first degree. Children of the same father and mother are called german, as from the common germ; those of the same mother and not of the same father are called uterine, as from the same womb; and children of the same father and different mother are called blood-children. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of any member of the series does not modify the relationship as a bar to marriage.

You are probably referring to the digitized NARA microfilm available on Internet Archive. http://archive.org/details/us_census Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Sue & Bob McCormick Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:13 PM To: TGF Mailing List Subject: [TGF] Census Images I need a free online source for census images so that I can compare images with the easily accessible images of FamilySearch and Ancestry. HeritageQuest doesn't have a complete set. Sometime this year I found (and then lost the location of) a complete set of all the census images. It wan't indexed; you needed to know the Publication Number, Roll, County (perhaps page) in order to find you information, but that wouldn't be a problem for me. Can anyone here help me locate such a source? Sue McCormick The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Sue. Was it Archive.org? Bonnie Dunphy Kohler South Florida ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue & Bob McCormick" <mccormack44@mchsi.com> To: "TGF Mailing List" <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:13 PM Subject: [TGF] Census Images >I need a free online source for census images so that I can compare images >with the easily accessible images of FamilySearch and Ancestry. >HeritageQuest doesn't have a complete set. > > Sometime this year I found (and then lost the location of) a complete set > of all the census images. It wan't indexed; you needed to know the > Publication Number, Roll, County (perhaps page) in order to find you > information, but that wouldn't be a problem for me. > > Can anyone here help me locate such a source? > > Sue McCormick > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message

I need a free online source for census images so that I can compare images with the easily accessible images of FamilySearch and Ancestry. HeritageQuest doesn't have a complete set. Sometime this year I found (and then lost the location of) a complete set of all the census images. It wan't indexed; you needed to know the Publication Number, Roll, County (perhaps page) in order to find you information, but that wouldn't be a problem for me. Can anyone here help me locate such a source? Sue McCormick

Charles, thank you for your response. This message did come through to me, as did your response. Obviously I did an incorrect posting the first time. I shall repost my earlier question. Again, thank you for your response. On Dec 17, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Sue & Bob McCormick <mccormack44@mchsi.com> wrote: > On December 15, 2012 I sent a query about Census images. Did the message get posted or did I make a mistake somehow in the posting? I can resend the message but don't wish to clog the message board with multiple postings. > > Sue McCormick > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message