Miscellany

[avevale_intelligencer]

I've signed up with Ancestry.co.uk, in an effort to pull together all the stuff that's been accumulating about the Countess's and my family histories. My mum made herculean efforts to establish her own lineage, and discovered in the process that we're related to Jan's half-sister's dentist, which is probably about as close as we want to get; the DC has boxfuls of old photographs, some of which have names on them, and a fund of stories about her dad's side which may or may not be wishful thinking on somebody's part (brief paraphrase: they would have owned half of Norfolk, but a younger son married a servant girl and got cut off with a shilling and sent to Australia, and then got fetched back when they needed an heir but wouldn't take the inheritance out of pride--you decide).

And one thing I've discovered about history is that it truly is, as Henry Ford said, the bunk. For almost every name I've been able to pin down from the end of the nineteenth century back there are at least three different dates, impeccably documented in parish registers, for birth, marriage or death, and at least two different brides' names, spelt every which way according to the mood of the person writing it down. Half of what I've established is pure guesswork. I can't see that I would have got anything more definite if I'd actually emulated the man in the limerick and gone to the sources. People make stuff up. They always have. And if the little things like the birth date of a zinc worker in Lambeth aren't reliable, how on earth can we be sure about the big things?

I think the wishful thinking is probably about as valid as anything I've been able to glean from the "facts." Once again, stories win.

Here's to you, Brigadier.

Comments

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Unless you were trying for proof that you're the heir to millions, surely the story is the point in any case?

[danceswithlife]

I've picked up the stuff my mom has and spent some time with it. Last weekend Ancestry.com in the US had free access to the 1930 census records--and I found my newborn dad and his mother! I now have a jpeg of that page of the census on my hard drive, and the data there immediately called into question family stories I was told by my paternal grandmother. My master's thesis has to be done my the middle of March, so it's all back on hold again.

But in addition to the paid ancestry.com site you might want to take a look at http://searches.rootsweb.ancestry.com/share.html. It's affiliated with ancestry.com, but free to use. I found two branches of my family history already uploaded there. It was fun comparing with what my mom gave me.

If you have any family in Ireland you might also want to try http://www.rootsireland.ie/
Many things there are free as well.

You may also want to consider making use of any Mormon ancestry archives available near you. You walk in, and for a donation, have access to their databases, which are some of the best in the world.

Finally, if you don't already have family tree software I recommend http://www.myheritage.com
There is a basic version that is free and very generous with what you can load. You can publish it online, but as a private site, but they will then send you possible matches from other family trees that have been uploaded publicly.

I hope you have fun! Maybe we'll find a common ancestor.

[allan doodes (from livejournal.com)]

On the changing of names, I'm afraid that goes with the territory. Our ancestors were not as obsessed with accurate record keeping - or with consistent spelling of names - as we (as a culture, if not as individuals) are. Just wait unil you get past the point when universal education was introduced. :-)

A case in point; my father spoke of his Grandfather Doodes but Grandmother Doades. The story he told me was that my great-grandfather got drunk one night, signed something, miss-spelling his surname, and in the cold (sober) light of day, decided to take the new spelling (and pronounciation). Great-grandmother appears to have not approved, though he passed the name on to those of his children born afterwards (my grandfather was the youngest of twelve).

Furthermore, not all births, marriages and deaths may have been registered, even once it became a legal requirement - as the latest round stories about Charlie Chaplin show. Also, given how hard it can be to spot bigamy now, with all our record keeping, I suspect that it was a lot commoner pre-1900 (in one of the J G Reader stories by Edgar Wallace, the detective meets a women who, having been abandoned by her husband for five years, and obeying "a law only known to the poor", assumes she is now divorced and remarries).

I suspect you are right in thinking that the computer records you are looking at should be viewed with a pinch of salt, and you should go to the relevant physical records, though that is probably expensive and certainly time consuming. And be prepared to accept your legal ancestry is a LOT more complex that the usual family tree suggests.