The Confusing Maze of Genealogy Mixups in Names

Several years ago I spotted this Q & A online and I tucked it away thinking one day I wanted to write about names and the perils of genealogy research if you are not open minded enough ....

Question: What do Sean Gough, Jean Lefevre, Giovanni Ferrari, Juan Herrero, Ivan Kowalski, Hans Schmidt, Jan Kowalski and Janos Kovacs have in common?

 Answer: In Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively, all are John Smith.


What a great reinforcer of the idea that as genealogists we need to look beyond what we are familiar with. We need to think outside the box. Coming from a North American culture we might assume if we find an ancestor named Janos Kovacs that it's an unusual name. Not so!

What about spelling? How often have you found a name in a census or other genealogy record, that was close but not exactly the name you were looking for? Don't discard it! Look at other clues - spouse, children, ages, occupation, location - could it be your ancestor? Remember spelling didn't "count". Census takers and other clerks wrote what they heard (phonetically). Accents confused the ears.

My own ancestor's surname was Vollick. Sometimes it was rendered as Follick. Other variations I have found in documents are Valck, Volk, Valic, Falic, Folic. Why "V" and "F" interchangeably? Because the Dutch-German "V" can sound like "F" to English speaker's ears.

My immigrant ancestor's 'real' name was Van Valkenburg! How would I ever have found my ancestor if I hadn't kept an open mind and looked at other clues? And much to my initial surprise, Van Valkenburg is not an unusual name.

Another true example from my own ancestry - when Leonard-Tremi Le Roy left Quebec for New York, his name was misinterpreted by Dutch recorders as "Jonar" and then "Jonas". His surname Le Roy (pronounced Le Raw) was misinterpreted as Larrowa which evolved into Larroway.

So be aware that bad handwriting, inability to spell, accents, and other events can change an ancestor's name - and don't be so quick to assume, for example, that Leonard-Tremi Le Roy is not your 5x great grandfather Jonas Larroway. If both men have the same wives and children, same birth year, same place of birth, and name siblings who are identical, you can be pretty sure that you've just stumbled into the confusing maze of names in genealogy research.

Naming Patterns - Use Them With Caution

I've been following some genealogy discussions on mailing lists recently and noticed that many genealogists fall into the trap of taking sides on a question - sides that are emphatically one way or another, with no middle ground or room for a "Maybe...."

One of the discussions started over a seemingly simple question -- were there naming patterns for children in the 1800s in [fill in blank with any country].

Subscribers began to jump in with their opinions - all either YES or NO with reasons or rationale or examples to support their YES or NO stance.

But no one jumped in with "MAYBE.... SOMETIMES... YES BUT...."

Let's get real! Naming patterns existed.

Were they identical in all cultures? No

Were they identical in all centuries? No.

Were they always used? No.

It's easy to forget that our ancestors were living breathing people, just as we are. They fought, they loved, they cried, they laughed, they had good days, they had bad days, and so on.

Even if there are established naming patterns that are used 99.9% of the time (as is the case with the Dutch who settled New Netherland, now New York in 1600s) --- as researchers we must keep an open mind as to whether or not the customs might not have been followed

Maybe *your* ancestor fought with his father or mother and vowed to never name a child after him or her.

Maybe *your* ancestor was a free spirit and loved the name Lancelot even though the first born male in her family had been called James for the last 10 generations

Maybe your ancestor wanted to cozy up to his rich great uncle so he named his first born son after that person instead of his father.... and gave his second born his father's name.

If you find 7 children in a family and 6 are named after known family members (paternal grandparents, maternal grandparents, aunts, uncles...) then there is a good chance that the 7th was also named after a family member - but it's not guaranteed, they might have named that child after a good friend - or an important contemporary person or a benefector.

On the opposite side of the fence, you may be trying to find parents' names. You spot what looks like a naming pattern of children which fits with the parents you are fairly confident are the correct parents. But one parent's name is missing from the pattern... That's not the time to toss out your theory! There may be a missing child, one whose existence you aren't aware of, or who died. And that child may be the missing link, named after that one parent who is missing from the pattern.

So, use Naming Patterns as a guide. That's all it is, it is not a set of rules set in stone

Patronymics - Are they Confusing or Helpful to Genealogists?

Lois asked a rather convoluted question which I answered in full on my AskOliveTree blog
Below is one small section of Lois' original email, and my response:

Q: After 200 years of historical accounts of the immigrants from the Netherlands, debate is still continuing when the surname Teunise/Teunisen is researched. My ancestor was Teunis Nyssen, who had  7 children based on baptism records, one (Cornelis) from guardianship record after his mother Phoebe Janse died. By 1660, when the 2nd generation started marriage and having children, the names of daughters were Teunis with an “e” added and sons with “en”. Historians and genealogists either made decisions which person had which “Teunis” father, so for the children of Teunis Nyssen, Denyse was added to the name “de Nys, or of Nys, as opposed to child of Teunis Bogaert. 

Is my assumption on the addition of the “e” and “en” correct?

A: The simple answer is "NO". The patronymic was formed by adding -se, -sen, or -szen. Daughters would very often have the ending -x or -dr. added. I suggest that what you are finding ("e" vs "en") is simply the way the name/patronymic was recorded by that specific clerk or individual. See Dutch Patronymics of the 1600s for more help. 

Researching the Dutch in New Netherland is not an easy task. It requires years of study to understand naming patterns, customs, patronymics etc *and* to find the records to assist in the research. There are records that Dr. Gehring has been working on translating from the Dutch for over 25 years now! 

Read more of Lois' Questions and my  Responses at http://askolivetree.blogspot.com/#ixzz3lReVOowU

Photo credit: Stuart Miles on FreeDigital.Net

A Case of Mistaken Identity

For many years I thought my great-great-grandfather Joseph McGinnis died in Guelph in 1877 and his wife, my great-great-grandmother Frances (Fanny) McGinnis died there in 1890.

After all, in the years before the Internet, I'd sent for and received a transcript of the 1877 death registration of Joseph, which gave this information: Joseph McGinnis age 38, a labourer born Ireland died of consumption. Informant his wife Frances McGinnis who signed with her mark (X)

That agreed (pretty much) with my ancestor who I knew as Joseph McGinnis born circa 1825-1830 in Ireland, married to Frances (Fanny) Downey, and a labourer.  He should have been at least 47 in 1877 but I thought perhaps the census taker misunderstood Fanny's Irish accent.

The 1881 Census Adds to the Confusion

In the 1881 census for Guelph I found the widow Frances McGinnis age 49, a charwoman and her son Joseph age 15, a moulder. It all fit as Joseph and Fanny did have a son Joseph born in 1864. We all know that census records are not always 100% accurate so I wasn't worried about the slight difference in the age of Joseph in 1881.

One small problem was another Frances McGinnis in Guelph, also a widow, age 51, born Ireland and no children with her. She was a washerwoman.

The only census records I had been able to find for the family were the 1861 census for Puslinch (near Guelph) where Joseph's age was given as  30 and 1871 for Guelph where he was listed as 46 years old.  So there was already a huge discrepancy in ages! His wife Fanny was listed in 1861 as age 30 and in 1871 as 44.

Fanny's Death Registration

Discrepancies aside it seemed pretty clear to me that I'd found great-great-grandpa's death. Next I found Fanny McGinnis dying in 1890. Again this was before the Internet and online genealogy records so I sent for and received her registration which stated:

Frances McGinnis, age 60 born Ireland died in St. Joseph's Hospital in Guelph. No family member had given information. I also found a death notice for her in the Guelph newspapers which gave no further information.

Have I Really Found Their Deaths?

So there I had it. The deaths of both my great-great-grandparents.  Or did I? When the 1891 census was released, I was quite surprised to find my 2nd great grandmother on it! There she was living with her daughter Delia in Guelph. How could this be? I puzzled over this but simply could not explain it. She and her husband Joseph were buried in St. Joseph's Cemetery. I had her death registration dated 1890. I had his from 1877. I finally decided that perhaps her daughter Delia had given her mother's name even though she was not living. I wasn't happy with that and knew I would pursue the discrepancy further,  but at that time I had no other census records or death records to search as they were being released slowly to the public.

The 1901 Census is Released and Answers are Found

Fanny McGinnis Death Registration 1904

And then the 1901 census was released. I was quite excited to hunt for my McGinnis ancestors and to see if Fanny was in there. Sure enough she was. She was living in Morriston (near Guelph) with her son (my great grandfather) and daughter.  It occured to me that if I had the wrong Fanny dying in 1890 and being buried with the Joseph McGinnis who died in 1870 I surely had the wrong great great grandpa too! Next I found proof of my Fanny's death in 1904. Verified. Positively the right Fanny.

It was very challenging to figure out how to solve this confusion. There was no other Joseph and Fanny McGinnis in the census records for Guelph and area. There was only my family - and that was verified. There was only one Joseph McGinnis death (in 1877) yet there were two Fanny McGinnis' deaths (one in 1890 and one in 1904). There was only one couple named Joseph and Fanny McGinnis in the census for 1861 and 1871 and they were definitely mine. My Joseph did not appear in any census after 1871 and my Fanny was listed as a widow in 1881. I began to wonder if it was possible my 2nd great grandfather was a bigamist.

Church of Our Lady Holds the Clues

The Catholic Church in Guelph, which is where my Joseph and Fanny attended, does not allow the public access to its church records  so I could not search for the burial records or marriages to try to find some conclusive facts. Then came a bright spot - the Church was willing to allow the Church secretary to conduct searches on behalf of individuals for a small fee.

I immediately wrote to request the burial records for Joseph who died in 1877 and Fanny who died in 1890.  The Church secretary found and photocopied the deaths. And there it was - the burial record of Joseph stated in part :

"... Joseph McGinnis, husband of Frances Foster, deceased the 25th inst. in the town of Guelph, aged 48 years."

Frances Foster? My ancestor was Frances Downey. So this Joseph who died in 1877 didn't appear to be my 2nd great-grandfather. But where was my Joseph in 1881? My Fanny was listed as a widow. If he died in Guelph between 1871 and 1881 why was there no death registration? Why no burial record at the Catholic Church (I did request a 10 year search of the records for him but nothing was found)

The burial record for Frances who died in 1890 stated that she was the widow of Joseph McGinnis and that she was born in Gilbraltor.

Questions and More Questions 

And so the puzzle remains - what happened to my Joseph McGinnis? The last record of him is the 1871 census. Was he a bigamist? Did he die in 1877? Did he leave Ontario for the USA, as many of his cousins and brothers did? Did he die there and his widow Fanny returned to Guelph by 1881?

And which widow in that 1881 census is my Fanny?

And why is there no second couple named Joseph and Fanny McGinnis in the Guelph area in any census record, other than my 2nd great-grandparents?

I'm leaning towards Fanny and Joseph leaving Guelph for the USA, Joseph dying there and Fanny returning. My reasoning is not only that I can't find a death record in Ontario for Joseph but also because I am unable to find their unmarried children Mary Jane aka Mae and Robert  in the 1881 census for Ontario or the 1880 census for USA.  Of course since I'm not sure that the Robert age 15 in 1881 is the son of my Fanny or the Fanny who died in 1890, I might also be missing Robert in 1880 and 1881.

I've not found Fanny's grave or her burial record from the Catholic Church. 

What are your thoughts?

Summary
1847 my Joseph and Fanny baptise daughter Fanny in Church of Our Lady Guelph
1849  my Joseph and Fanny baptise son Alexander in Church of Our Lady Guelph
1851 my Joseph and Fanny baptise son Daniel in Church of Our Lady Guelph
1851 Census Puslinch - they are not found but the first page of this census is missing
1856  my Joseph and Fanny baptise daughters Ann and Margaret in Church of Our Lady Guelph
1861 Census my Joseph and Fanny are found in Puslinch Twp, Wellington Co.
ca 1860-1862 my Joseph and Fanny have a daughter Mary Jane (Mae)
1864 my Joseph and Fanny baptise son Joseph  in Church of Our Lady Guelph
1865 my Joseph and Fanny baptise son Robert in Church of Our Lady Guelph
1871 Census my Joseph and Fanny are found Guelph, Wellington Co
1877 Joseph McGinnis, husband of Fanny Foster, dies
1877  a widow Fanny McGinnis found in City directory for Guelph
1882/1883 a widow Fanny McGinnis found in City directory for Guelph. Noted as widow of Joseph. Living 64 Cork St. at corner of Cork and Norfolk
1881 Census - two widowed Fanny McGinnis' found in Guelph
1890 Frances/Fanny Foster widow of Joseph McGinnis dies
1891 Census - my widowed Fanny in Guelph with her daughter Delia
1901 Census - my widowed Fanny in Morriston with son Alex and daughter Fanny Vogt
1904 - my Fanny Downey, widow of Joseph McGinnis, dies.

O Where O Where Has My Ancestor Gone?

Does this sound familiar? You've hunted everywhere. You've searched online. You've checked Ancestry , FamilySearch, and as many free sites as you can find. But you can't find the marriage (or perhaps another event record) of that one elusive ancestor - your great grandfather's sister.

I was recently looking for a marriage registration online. I had the exact date (as per family records) of 24 June 1909. I had a pretty good idea of a fairly precise location (Perth County Ontario). I knew the names of both parties - Harry Ford and Sarah Icelia Foerch. I know Sarah's parents' names - Andrew and Susan.

Sounds pretty easy. Ancestry has the Ontario Marriage Registrations online for the years 1869-1924. I know from experience that a surname such as Foerch can be mispelled a variety of ways so I decide I'll look for the groom, along with the first name Sarah as the bride. I'll also use wildcards for Sarah's name to allow for the spelling Sara. So my hunt will be for groom Harry Ford and bride Sara*. I'll look in Perth County in 1909 in case the day and month are slightly off.

Nothing. Okay, remove Perth County - perhaps they married elsewhere. Nothing.

Okay, add a year or two on either side of that 1909 date. Now I'm searching for Harry Ford and Sara* marrying in Ontario 1908-1910. Still nothing!

I try searching for any child (no name) of a couple named Andrew and Susan in Perth County in 1909. Nothing found.

I try several other methods - first names only. Using ages (birth years plus or minus 2 years). Nothing.

Finally I decide to search leaving all fields blank except for the County (Perth) and the exact date June 24, 1909. I get a list of hits - not very many - and one looks slightly promising - the marriage of

William Mannington Ford to Julia Touch in Perth County

Julia Touch could be a mistranscription of Sarah Foerch using her middle name of Icelia..... Touch for Foerch is not a leap. And Sarah's father is listed as Andrew. Looks promising....

I have to chuckle at Sarah's mother's name in the index. It is "Lamber Merchant" which is obviously a mistranscription of the occupation of "Lumber Merchant", no doubt Sarah's father's occupation!

I load the image and bingo! Clearly visible is the marriage of William Harrington (not Mannington) Ford to Icelia (not Julia!) Foerch (not Touch). And there is the father Andrew Foerch, Lumber Merchant and his wife Susan.

So my Harry Ford went by the nickname Harry which of course is short for his middle name of Harrington! And Susan used her middle name of Icelia.

My search had a happy ending. Because I knew the date of the marriage and had a reasonable expectation of finding it in Perth County, I was able to find the marriage registration I wanted.

But lesson learned - expand that search! Drop the names. Use wildcards. Use other fields and leave the names blank. Search just under one field and be creative, think outside the box - and don't give up!

Remember, human error can easily creep in to make your search more difficult. So don't assume you will find every indexed database online is correctly done.