Is Family Lore Good Enough in Genealogy?

Edward W. asked such a good question about sourcing genealogy information that I wanted to answer it here on Olive Tree Genealogy blog. It's a long email, even with editing, but it raises some important points. Here is Edward's edited email question below:

Several relatives of mine have done extensive work on their branches of our family tree.   I came to recognize the importance of giving sources for information when I was working on extending the trees 10 years or so ago. The elderly relative who did much of the work over the past 40 years had sources, but she has not included them in the computer files.  

I recently purchased an upgrade to Family Tree Maker.  I feel like I need to dig out and cite the sources for the information in the tree.  The new version of FTM has a green leaf next to an entry that has potential links online.  Her link yields seven (!) family trees with a woman of the same name, all of which list her birthdate as 1745, while our tree lists it as 1741.  As her spouse is also listed, it’s clearly the same individual, and the consensus date is 1745.  However, when I look at the source given for the 1745 date in the various trees, the source is “Family Tree Information: Detail: Ancestry Family Trees.”  This is the sort of situation where people are citing each other, and nobody is giving an actual source.

One question that occurs to me is what are considered legitimate sources for information on direct family members (my grandparents, parents, siblings, children and nieces/nephews).  Do I need actual birth certificates and death certificates (or obituaries) to document their particulars, or is word-of-mouth within the family good up to a point?  (I know all the particulars to-date).

Edward, you've encountered a very common problem in genealogy. The first is the issue of folks merrily copying information they find online without verifying that it is correct. To verify, they need sources. And they need sources which clearly indicate where the information was found (a book, a microfilm, an original document, Aunt Harriet, Gramma's recollections, etc). Once a researcher knows what the source for the information was, they can determine if the source is reliable or not.

For example if I find a record of my great grandfather's birth but the source given is "Gramma Smith told me this" I am going to question that source. It's family lore and may or may not be correct.

If however the source provided is a church register or some other reputable source, I'm going to accept the data with one caveat - that I need to find and verify that source personally. Why? Because the researcher noting it may have erred when copying it. I want to see it for myself before adding it to my family tree. And it's always best to go back the original rather than trust a transcribed or extracted version.

Family Lore & Memories

The second question you asked was whether or not family memories were good enough. I'm afraid they are not. They should be used as clues for further research. You may find a source that verifies the family memory. But you are as likely to find a source that indicates that family memory was faulty, or only partially correct.

An example from my own genealogy research is that of my uncle who wrote letters in the 1960s stating, among other things, that his maternal grandmother was born in Elmvale Ontario. Since I knew nothing of that side of the family and there were no older family members to question, this was a great clue. Notice I said "clue"!

My research found that great-grandma Peer was not born in Elmvale which is in Simcoe County, but was born in another county entirely, many miles distant. However my uncle's statement was still important because it turned out that the family moved to a town near Elmvale when great-grandma was a teenager.  So my uncle's statement was a great clue, but was not correct as he gave it.

The Shaky Leaf

Last point - the Ancestry.com shaky leaf. You will find genealogists who love the shaky leaf and those who despise it. I personally like it for clues but not as a definite "this must be correct!" result.

Sometimes the shaky leaf leads you to online family trees which the conscientious researcher will use with caution. Sometimes it leads you to gold - an online record that includes images of original ledgers or certificates. Naturally you can trust an image of an original record. As with any source, analyze and evaluate it before accepting it as correct!

To read more about verifying sources and being cautious with online family trees, take a look at

Genealogy Without Sources is Mythology!

I Just Found My Great Great Grandfather Online -- Now What!!???

Oh How Easy it is to be Fooled!

A Grave Mistake - or Even if it's Written in Stone it Could be Wrong

Set in Stone?

 

Set in Stone?

Two years ago I wrote a blog post called A GRAVE MISTAKE  It was about how you can't always be positive that what is written on a tombstone is correct. A recent email on a mailing list brought this subject back to mind.

A subscriber was trying to find his ancestor's death certificate. He had dates of death and birth from the tombstone. But he could not find the death certificate and his conclusion was that it had not been registered.

But wait! Did the subscriber allow any leeway in death dates? Nope. He trusted the gravestone inscription and didn't bother to search a few years either side.

It always surprises me that if a document is not found with a preliminary search, researchers often give up. We really need to remember that information on most records, for example on a death certificate, on a census, on a marriage record, a church baptismal record, an obituary and yes - a tombstone - is only as good and as accurate as the knowledge of the person providing the information!

If the informant doesn't know the correct age, or place of birth, or only knows a nickname but not the name given at birth, then that information will be wrong or not recorded. Gravestones are almost always placed by family, and often well after the actual death. Memories can be faulty and incorrect information can be recorded for posterity.

Alexander McGinnis (my great grandfather) was born in 1849. I have his baptism record giving his actual date of birth. But his daughter Mary erected his tombstone and she thought he was born in 1844. So that date went on the stone. It's wrong. If I had not allowed several years on either side of that tombstone year, I'd not have found his baptism.

Mary Elizabeth Peer (my great grandmother) was the daughter of Isaac Vollick and Lydia Jamieson. That is proven. Her husband was Stephen Peer. But her death certificate states that her parents were Stephen & Mary Vollick. How did this happen?

When she died her 17 year old son Edgar gave the information and I speculate when asked "Mother's name?" by the registrar, he said "Mary" (his mother's name). When asked "Father's name?" he said "Stephen" (his father's name). When asked "maiden name?" he gave the correct maiden name of his mother - Vollick. And thus the fictitious and entirely incorrect couple called Stephen and Mary Vollick were created and worse yet, listed for posterity as the parents of Mary Vollick!

And that is how mistakes happen. So be creative. Think outside the box. Don't believe that something, once written, is set in stone. It may very well be wrong.

Genealogy Without Sources is Mythology!

And yet another in a series of articles I wrote several years ago about the importance of verifying records found online. This article was written several years ago and published online at http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/articles/myth.shtml

The title was Genealogy Without Sources is Mythology!


© Lorine McGinnis Schulze
http://olivetreegenealogy.com/index.shtml

How can you tell if the information posted by individuals on Internet genealogy sites is valid? Some sites have sources, others don't. How do you know what, and when, to believe what you read online??

A good rule of thumb is....

Don't trust anything you find on the 'net (or elsewhere) if it doesn't have sources.

Without sources you can't verify it, and you don't know whether the information came from a reliable source or whether it came from Great Aunt Martha who may have some of it right, but may have mixed up a lot too.

Maybe the info came from a book written by someone 100 years ago who didn't have access to sources we have now, or who just plain got it wrong.

Perhaps the information was transcribed for a webpage from a book source. That book source was transcribed from a microfilm record which was itself transcribed from the original. The chance of human error is greatly increased with each succeeding transcription.

Even if the information has a source, you should double-check it personally, either from the original source or from an independent source.

VERIFY, VERIFY, VERIFY!!!

You also want to think about the source itself. Is the source a good one? After all, if Great Aunt Martha gives me information on the birth or baptism of my 3rd great-grandpa and I put it on the 'net, and source it as "Remembrances of Great Aunt Martha", that's not necessarily a reliable or accurate source. After all, Great Aunt Martha did have that fall from a horse when she was a child and she IS 97 years old......

However if I source the birth or baptismal dates with full details on the church where I saw the original record, or the published transcript of those church records, that's much more reliable.

When in doubt, remember.... .

"Genealogy without sources is mythology"

© Lorine McGinnis Schulze of The Olive Tree Genealogy at http://olivetreegenealogy.com/index.shtml Article may be copied as long as identifying information and link to website is left intact

I Just Found My Great Great Grandfather Online -- Now What!!???

The subject of verifying information found online has come up many times in the past month. So I've decided to resurrect an article I wrote a few years ago. It is called I Just Found My Great Great Grandfather Online -- Now What!!??? and was originally published on http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/articles/verify.shtml


This article was written by Lorine McGinnis Schulze of The Olive Tree Genealogy at http://olivetreegenealogy.com/index.shtml Permission to copy is granted as long as the article remains AS IS. No changes may be made to the article and all identifying information and website link must remain intact! This Permission to Copy notice must remain with the article

Start copying article at this point if you are reproducing it
*********************
I Just Found My Great Great Grandfather Online -- Now What!!???
(Verifying Records Found On Webpages)
© Lorine McGinnis Schulze
http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/index.shtml

You just found a church record for the marriage of your great great grandfather, or the record of your 4th great grandparents on a passenger list of a ship to the New World in 1777 - wow! But you have questions - how accurate is this information? How can you verify it?

All records have the potential for error once they have been transcribed. This results in the possibility of culmination of errors with each succeeding transcription. Deliberate altering of the records (such as adding details the transcriber believes are correct; changing the spelling of names etc) results in even more possibility of corruption.

Generations (Versions) of a Record

Each generation or version that a record goes through increases its chance of errors. Researchers should always try to use records as close to the original as possible. Let's go through an actual example:

Many of the records and databases on Olive Tree Genealogy http://olivetreegenealogy.com/index.shtml are transcribed from microfilm of the original. They can be considered a second generation level transcription. This means they have one chance of human error (assuming the original minister made no mistakes). If the original minister or clerk made errors then they have two changes of human error. These records may be considered as good as book published records in most cases.
Records transcribed for Olive Tree Genealogy from published versions (such as the Marriage Records of the Reformed Dutch Church in New Amsterdam/New York found at http://olivetreegenealogy.com/nn/church.shtml and used with permission of the NYGBR who published them in series), are third generation -- having been transcribed from the original to the NYGBR to Olive Tree. Records at 3rd generation level stand a greater chance of error. How useful they are depends on how reliable and accurate the working publication (in this case the NYGBR) is. In this case the NYGBR is considered a scholarly journal, is well regarded, and can be trusted.


The following example is based on an interpretation and explanation of the number of generations an early New York will can go through before it ends up on a webpage or mailing list on the Internet. (originally sent to the Dutch-Colonies mailing list on 10 June 2001)

An Example of Generations in Wills and Abstracts

1. Generation 1 (original) The original will. Many have been microfilmed by the LDS church

2. Generation 2 (2nd version/transcription) At the time of probate the will was copied into the book (or "liber") of wills. Microfilm of most of the early libers is available.

3. Generation 3 (3rd version/transcription) In the 19th Century a copy of the original libers was made. Microfilm of these is available from the LDS church.

4. Generation 4 (4th version/transcription) Abstracts were done and published as part of the Collections of the New York Historical Society. These are also available on CD-ROM

5. Generation 5 (5th version/transcription) Those abstracts were either scanned or retyped and made available as on-line databases on webpages.

6. Generation 6 (6th version/transcription) The Generation 5 on-line abstracts were posted on an e-mail list.

You can see how many times errors can be introduced or parts of the records lost along the way. This holds true for all online records.
So what can you, the researcher, do?

1. Use original sources wherever possible.

2. If you can't use the original source be sure to carefully notate where you found the information. Hopefully you will one day be able to consult the original to verify the transcript.

3. Scrutinize your source - is it reliable? Has it been altered? Was it taken from an original, or was it taken from a source further removed from the original?

4. Research your sources! Find out if there are better published records that are known to have fewer errors. Talk to those knowledgeable in the field, write emails and ask questions.
5. Don't accept everything you see in print. Be a savvy researcher and protect yourself from errors in your family tree.

The question you should ask yourself every time you access a webpage with information is:

HOW MANY GENERATIONS AWAY IS THIS INFORMATION FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE?

The further removed it is, the more chance of error.

This article was written by Lorine McGinnis Schulze of The Olive Tree Genealogy at htt://olivetreegenealogy.com/index.shtml Permission to copy is granted as long as the article remains AS IS. No changes may be made to the article and all identifying information and website link must remain intact! This Permission to Copy notice must remain with the article

******************************************
Copy article to this point if you are reproducing it

Climbing Your Family Tree With A Little Help

Recently someone sent me an email asking about online family trees. She had found several for her ancestor but they didn't agree with each other. Some assigned him to a specific family but others declared that placement incorrect. Her bewilderment was obvious. She is new to online research and finding the going tough. What to believe?

Her cry for help got me thinking that it bears repeating that an online family tree is only as good as the person researching it and the sources used. We should never accept information without a source. My personal rule is to verify everything for myself.

If you do that you should be able to clear up confusion and not get into too much of a mess in your genealogy. Remember that genealogy without sources is nothing more than mythology

Oh How Easy it is to be Fooled!

Several years ago my husband and I looked over his genealogy. Much of it was done before we met, and I kept peppering him with questions "Where did you find this?" "How do you know this is correct?" "What's your source?" "Who told you?" He was a novice researcher and most of his answers were "I can't remember" or "My grandmother told me" or "I think I read it somewhere" We did manage together to track down most of the sources for his lines. And he became really conscientious about noting his sources.

However just recently I was going over one of his Irish lines. He is descended from a Catherine Kennedy who married Thomas Elgie. Catherine's birth location and exact age at death is on her tombstone which is a very nice find. Her gravestone reads

ELGIE/ Sacred to the memory of Catherine Kennedy/ beloved wife of/ Thomas Elgie/ died 1 June 1890/ age 66 years, 5 months, 6 days/ native of County Kerry, Ireland/ may her soul rest in peace

From this we calculated a date of birth as 26 Dec 1823. This may not be exact, for we do not who had the tombstone done. It was probably her husband for he outlived her by another 10 years. But it may have been someone else. How knowledgeable were they? Maybe they knew her exact age, maybe they did not. But it was a start.

I'll keep my long story short and just say that for various reasons we had her parents as Cornelius Kennedy and Elizabeth Clifford. Cornelius was the name given to one of Catherine's sons. Cornelius was from Co. Kerry as was Catherine. Cornelius and his wife are buried beside Catherine in the Cemetery. They all lived near each other in Ontario Canada. In the 1861 Canadian Census, Cornelius and his wife have an 18 year old daughter named Catherine. The age is off, but we all know we can't completely believe a census or a gravestone. So the decision was that this Catherine was the wife of Thomas Elgie.

We gathered lots of interesting information on Cornelius Kennedy. He was written up in local newspapers as a man who lived through 3 centuries (born 1797 died 1901). There were photos of him. It was rather exciting to find such a wealth of detail!

Then reality hit. Recently another descendant of Thomas Elgie and Catherine Kennedy contacted me and asked for information. I hadn't looked at the lines in a very long time so as I was digging through my files and notes to make sure I had every document and every source, I realized that the connection of our Catherine to Cornelius was tenuous. There were discrepancies that needed to be resolved.

With that in mind I began a more thorough search. Now that all the Canadian census records are online on Ancestry as are early Ontario births, deaths and marriages, my search was much easier. And then I found it. The death of Catherine, daughter of Cornelius Kennedy and Elizabeth Clifford. But their daughter Catherine was married to John Kean aka Kane and she died in 1913.

Back to our Catherine Kennedy who married Thomas Elgie and died in 1890. Another search of our long-forgotten notes revealed that buried in the same plot as Catherine Kennedy Elgie were Peter Kennedy and his wife Mary. Peter was from Co. Kerry. Their stone reads

Sacred to the memory of Peter Kennedy died 10 Sept. 1868, age 75 years. His wife Mary, died 14 Oct. 1867, age 70 years, natvies of County Kerry, Ireland

Another look at Thomas Elgie and Catherine Kennedy's children showed they named a son Peter and a daughter Mary Ann. Light bulbs were flashing in my head. Bingo. I suspect that the correct parents of our Catherine are Peter and Mary Kennedy.

Given the dates of birth, locations of birth, settlement locations and burials, I also suspect that Cornelius and Peter might have been brothers. I'm itching to start researching Peter and Mary, but sad that old Cornelius, the man who lived through 3 centuries, is not an ancestor of my husband.

And I'm reminded how easy it is to be fooled and how diligent we genealogists have to be in our ongoing research into our ancestors.

A Grave Mistake - or Even if it's Written in Stone it Could be Wrong

This is my great-grandfather Alexander McGinnis' tombstone in Crown Cemetery, near Morriston Ontario. You can see that his date of birth is 1844. My uncle took me to this cemetery when I was starting my research into my father's family tree. And so I dutifully entered 1844 into my Family Tree program as Alex's date of birth.

Then I began finding census records for Alex - complete with various ages which of course gave different estimated years of birth.

* In 1861 his age was recorded as 12, giving him a year of birth of circa 1849
* In 1871 his age was recorded as 23, giving him a year of birth of circa 1848
* In 1881 his age was recorded as 30, giving him a year of birth of circa 1851
* In 1891 his age was recorded as 41, giving him a year of birth of circa 1850
* In 1901 his age was recorded as 43, giving him a year of birth of circa 1857
* In 1911 his age was recorded as 62, and the record year of birth was 1848 (no month or day given)

I knew that each census year asked a different question about age - such as what was the individual's age at last birthday, at next birthday, or right now. So there might be small discrepancies over the years.

Alex's years of birth, except for 1901 census, were fairly consistently showing his date of birth to be between 1848 and 1851. But that was nowhere near the 1844 date shown on his tombstone!

My next step was to find his marriage record. But that was no help either. At his marriage in September 1876 he gave his age as 22. That put his year of birth at circa 1854! Surely he knew how old he was... or so I reasoned at the time. So perhaps the 1854 year was most accurate. But what about that tombstone? Well, he didn't put the tombstone up or give the information for it, so perhaps whoever did erect it was wrong.

I eventually discovered that his eldest daughter Mary had paid for his stone and had it engraved. My uncle had also questioned the year of birth on Alex's tombstone but apparently our Aunt Mary had always insisted that she celebrated her father's birthday every year and she certainly knew how old he was.

After puzzling over this for many years, I decided that the marriage certificate was my best and most accurate souce, since the information was given by Alex himself. So I changed his year of birth in my genealogy program to circa 1854.

Then came the revelation. Alex and his family were Roman Catholic. I knew what church the family attended (Church of Our Lady in Guelph) but they were not available to the public nor were they microfilmed. A few years ago the church began offering a research service. For a reasonable fee the church secretary would look through the original church books for a record.

I sent a request for the baptism of Alex. There it was - he was baptised on 3 February 1850 but born on 3 November 1849.

So why the discrepancies? Why did Alex not give his correct age when he married in 1876. He was actually 27 years old that year, so why did he say he was 22? The census years were fairly close to his correct year of birth so obviously he did know his age. It is not uncommon to find that an ancestor might not his or her exact age but Alex appeared to know his (except for the 1901 census)

Then I realized that the marriage registrations are copies of what was sent in by the minister. So the original entry may indeed have read "27" but the "7" could have been misread as a "2" resulting in the incorrect age of 22 for Alex.

So everything can be explained except for the 1901 census record and the tombstone inscription. But can we explain the census record? Yes. We do not know who gave the information to the census taker. In 1901 Alex lived with his sister, her husband and daughter, and his mother who was in her late 70s. Depending who the census taker spoke to, the age given for Alex could be quite incorrect. His brother-in-law probably had no idea how old Alex was! His daughter would not likely know either.

That brings us back to the original culprit - that darned tombstone. Aunt Mary was 60 when her father Alex died. She thought he was 91. In reality he was 87. Was she confused? Had she never known her father's real age? Or did Alex tell his family his wrong age as he reached his 80s?

My own mother does that. She turned 92 this week, but for the past two years she has been adding a year or two on to her real age! In July she told everyone at a family reunion that she was 93 and would be 94 on her birthday in September. So that added 2years to her real age. I'm the only one of my siblings who seems to know her actual age, my brothers and sister believe whatever she tells them. If they were to have a tombstone inscribed for her, it's almost guaranteed it would have the wrong year of birth.

And thus we have the moral of my story of a Grave Mistake - that even if it's written in stone it could be wrong.