Finding time to research in between shifts at work.

I just looked and its been three years (just about) since I last posted on my blog. And yes, I admit life got in the way again, only this time the reason is because I started working at the local Jewel in September and now have to find time when I'm not there bringing carts in to do my genealogy research. Granted I do get a day off once in a while, like yesterday, I don't spend all my time doing research.

However I have made a lot of progress over the past few years and it is almost getting to the point where I could say that I'm done. But as any genealogist knows, you are NEVER done when it comes to research, there's always another ancestor lurking that's waiting for you to find him or her.

I still have plenty of brick walls to knock down, like finding a connection to a Fry that was actually on the Titanic and another that married into a royal branch but there's no information on.

My tip for this Monday: never give up on research especially when you think you'll never find that one clue that could knock down you toughest brick wall. As my dad was sometimes fond of saying: if it doesn't fit just get a bigger hammer, you sometimes need one to knock down that brick wall.

When Life gets in the way of Research

It's funny that I haven't posted to this blog in more that TWO years. But the simple truth is that life got in the way and my research had to be put on the back burner. My father passed away in April 2012, my brother and I had to move from the house I grew up in to an apartment in a suburb (though not far from where we lived) and I was diagnosed with cancer late last year (cancer free as of today!) So once things settled down I picked up my research again. Though I only do it at the library (no internet access at home) so I don't have as much time to blog as I did before.

But I may from time to time post a couple of things regarding the research I've done lately.

Happy 1940 Census Day!

Well, its only taken 10 years (actually 72 if you think about it) but the 1940 census has been released and as we genealogists should've expected the websites that are offering not only images but indexes for this important record are overloaded with visitors trying to find their parents, grandparents and the like.

Delaware was the first state to come online and is complete along with Washington DC and Virginia (last time I looked anyway). Depending on which website you go to, the availability is going to be different for each one. But what can you do if your state isn't yet available?

First, be PATIENT, the records/images aren't going to magically appear no matter how much hype there has been about them.Second, try using the Ancestry and the 1940s Era records that they have unlocked for the next 8 days and get ahead of the game for the 1940 census. Find your relatives in 1930, jot down their address AND the Enumeration District and then use Steve Morse's website to convert that ED for 1940. That way, when your state DOES become available (and you can page through the images though no index) you can make things a little easier, especially if your relatives lived in a big city, like Chicago, like mine did. Third, use some of the updated records at FamilySearch and fill in other blanks. I did that earlier today and finally found my paternal grandparents marriage record. My paternal grandfather was listed as CARWIN, but I didn't care because I have been waiting a long time to actually SEE that record. So if I can wait to see that one I can wait a little while longer to find them in the 1940 census living in Chicago AND find my dad for the first time in ANY census.

They say patience is a virtue, well for genealogists I think it'll be a test of just how long we can hold out. And look at it this way, we have 10 more years to wait till the 1950 census is released.

Tracing the wrong branch

I've been researching my family tree for (and I almost hate to admit how long) 20 years and I suppose it was bound to happen eventually. Genealogists like to pride themselves on research and pinning down facts in order to prove (or disprove) whether or not a name, date or place in their family tree is accurate. That way when others look at the work they've done they don't have to question it but can look up the record for themselves. Unfortunately, when you get on a track and go with your instincts as far as tracing a branch, you do always have that small chance that you can be completely wrong and therefore end up chasing the wrong branch and in some cases the wrong tree entirely.

Well that is what has happened to me. As much as any genealogist hates to admit they are wrong, it turns out I was when it came to a branch of my tree. Granted its not a direct line that now has to be altered but a side branch that shows 'half' brothers, sisters and the like. A paternal great-grandfather was married twice and the branch I got 'wrong' has to do with his first wife's family, specifically her father's side. But I have to admit, her father's name is what threw a wrench into the research.

The worst part I suppose is that I trace the name back a great deal and I'm actually glad that it isn't a direct line because that would set my research back a number of years. But even though its not a direct line I now have a bunch of information that I now have to remove from my tree unless I can connect the correct branch to the one I previously thought was the right one.

The lesson learned here, it isn't a big deal to trace the wrong branch of your tree, but provided it isn't a direct line, it NEVER hurts to double and even triple check information and facts before putting it in your tree. However, if you put the names, dates and places in and come to find out later that branch is the wrong one, don't panic, because you might still find a link and instead of removing all that hard work (and time that got wasted) you can just shift a few names around and save yourself from having to re-enter the information later when (and if) you do find a connection. After all, whether you've been researching for two years or twenty, everyday can be a learning experience.

A poet and geologist

Well, it took a little digging and some help from other researchers but I actually found a bit of information on two siblings of my great-great-great grandmother who was born in England. A sister, Harriet Annie Wilkins, was a teacher of music and wrote poetry to supplement her income when she had to care for her ill mother and younger siblings after her father's death. A brother David Francis Henry Wilkins, graduated from McGill University with I guess you could say a degree in Applied Science and focused on Geology. He published several articles on that subject and Harriet published four books three of which can be found on Google Books. 

Upon just googling Harriet's name her poems and also a brief biography can be found. The bio confirms some of what I found in my research and lets me know that I at least found the right line as far as her grandparents. Her father was a minister. The bio also explains why the youngest child, David was born in Ohio when the others were born in England before they immigrated. Apparently they emigrated to the US and then after a couple of years went north into Ontario Canada where they lived the remainder of their lives. I would've never thought of just googling her name even though I've done that with other names in my tree just to see what (if anything) might come up.

I haven't read any of Harriet's poetry but I'm proud that someone was able to get published like that and wish I had a real copy of one of her books.

A genealogical pet peeve for 2012: Poor penmanship in any language is still poor penmanship

Genealogists have lots of pet peeves especially when they are trying to research a line that has caused lots of late nights (and some sleepless ones). But one pet peeve that I have and know I'm not alone in having is the poor penmanship of those that record the records that we search for.

I have seen some BAD penmanship in US records, especially census records where even if the name is spelled differently from the way you know it to be, that's irrelevant because whoever wrote it down hacked it so much that its unrecognizable. But to find any of my Scandinavian ancestors in Norway, Denmark or Sweden, takes learning hieroglyphics in order to decipher them. Going page by page literally does no good because not only are there a lot of similar names, especially in Norwegian records, but you'd have to be very lucky to actually find a set of records that you can READ.

I have thought in the past when going through US census records, that the census takers must've been related to doctors simply because of the poor penmanship. Now you would think because census records have become SO important in a genealogist's research that they could've at least given some thought to how they were recording information. And I know, the census takers certainly had NO idea that the records were going to be used by future generations to find their grandparents and great-grandparents, but even so.

Just today I had to ask for someone on a Norwegian facebook page to find an ancestor in the Norwegian parish records because even if I found the right page in the right parish and the correct date I wouldn't be able to read anything on that page. It turns out that I was right about the first request I had as well as the second, because it took more than one person just to decipher a 'maiden' name (I say maiden even though the female of the pair keeps her father's name her entire life and never changes it unless its changed in another record). Even with the ability to zoom in as close as possible the records are extremely difficult to read or interpret.

But that isn't the only thing that's difficult to interpret. When you think you have a location for a birth, especially in Scandinavian records, a baptism for example, finding the right set of records can be a bit confusing. If that entire line lived in one 'county' it doesn't mean that all the records will be in a specific location, like the parish church. They could be in a church that is close enough to SEVERAL places within that county until, like with my own ancestors, a church is built within that parish. For example, a 5th great-grandmother of mine Kari Andersdatter was baptized in Viker kirke parish in Nes, Adal, Buskerud, Norway. However the records for her baptism are kept in Norderhov and were until 1857. In 1860 a church was built there and after 1857 the records can be found in Adal or Adal/Viker.

I wish the records were transcribed into English or at the very least transcribed in a way that Google Translate could be used on them instead of us researchers having to strain our eyes (as if we don't do that enough staring at computer screens) trying to decipher 200 year old records in another language. Then again, I suppose just finding the records is a plus because it enables us to move further back in time.

New Discoveries waiting in the New Year

Happy New Year!!  2011 ended at midnight and 2012 began and there are plenty of discoveries for us genealogists to find in the coming 12 months. Most importantly is the release of the 1940 US census which comes out April 1st, just 4 months away. Several websites are offering the indexes for FREE once it is released and I for one am looking forward to finding relatives and where they were living (or weren't) in 1940. It will be the first census that my mother was counted in as well as the first for my father.

But today I'm helping other researchers by breaking down the list of Ohio birth record images by county. The index at FamilySearch isn't helpful to genealogists at this point because no hits come up when you put a name in, however, you can go through the images page by page IF you know what county you are looking for. But in order to make this a little bit easier I and another researcher are literally clicking on each set of images to see what county they are for. Unfortunately I haven't found Stark, Columbiana or Carroll counties yet, but I hope to find them soon. I never like it when FamilySearch puts out new records and they say 'Search Images', because you have to do what my paternal grandfather did when he looked through census records in the 1970s, page by page till you find what you are looking for. But deciphering which numbers represent which counties and having the list of them say on a Facebook genealogy group page, should help those researchers who don't want to play hit and miss.

I did find two counties that I will go back to and take a look at just because though I doubt I'll find anything significant. The other breakthrough I had at the close of 2011 was that my cousin in Norway, Nils, emailed a cousin of his father's who solved a mystery for us in which he had information regarding the parents of my 5th great grandmother Kari (or Karen) Andersdatter. Nils then sent me what he had in his database and I'm going to be adding that information sometime today.

Everyone talks about making 'New Year's' resolutions to lose weight, exercise more, be nicer to people etc. And then most people don't hold up to them and are back to eating more, exercising less and being their normal selves within a couple weeks of January 1st. But the kind of resolutions I like to make are ones in the genealogical sense and they aren't really resolutions but goals I hope to accomplish. I hope that I can find the parents of John Daniel Fry and actually find that connection to Heinrich Frey and Catherine Levering so that I can extend the Fry line back a couple more generations. I also hope that the 1940 census unlocks some mysteries that have stayed hidden by the 1930 census. And one thing I would love to be able to do, find a connection to Clark Gable's stepmother, Jennie Dunlap Gable, since I have some Dunlaps on my father's side of the family. I think it would be neat to find even a collateral connection to Gram's 'boyfriend'.

Happy 2012, may the next 12 months bring plenty of surprises and new discoveries in your family tree.

Decisions, decisions, decisions

Genealogy research comes with a lot of decisions to make. Some are simple, which line or branch of the tree do you pursue at the moment, which do you hold off on till more records become available online. Do you rely on a database you find online because some of the dates, places and names match what you already have or do you dig more to actually confirm that what the database contains is at least somewhat accurate.

Then there are the more difficult decisions regarding genealogy, even though they go along with those listed above they take more thought. Like when I found information that could POSSIBLY take some of my maternal lines back another generation or two but if I were to add the information to my tree and I come to find out later that the information is inaccurate or completely off as far as connecting to what I already have, removing it will be a chore that I definitely won't enjoy in the least.

And there begs the question (or more than one), is the information I found accurate enough that adding it to my tree would benefit not only my research but also others that may find a connection to the line? Do I add the information to my genealogy program or just to what I have in the binders in the hopes that I can find more evidence it fits? And in the case of one of my paternal lines, do I actually SKIP a generation and put 'unknown' as the names for BOTH parents and then add the grandparents because that information is known. Skipping an entire generation is something genealogists don't like to do because doing it can come back to bite you later on, especially if it turns out the 'grandparents' are wrong, which would then mean those 'unknown' parents are also wrong.

So if any of the above questions are ones you are dealing with right now good luck in making those decisions. I wish I could give you advice on what to do, but the decisions are going to be different for each researcher.

CSI had an episode on this week that involved the murder of a genealogist. It was one of the more interesting episodes I've seen in a long time, because another genealogist was helping one of the CSI's solve the case by literally doing research on the suspect's family. I recall her saying something that I've said on the blog more than once 'Use your gut, what's it say?' Genealogists have to go by what their instincts are telling them because in the end that might be all you have to work with.

Instincts are important for any detective but especially a genealogist doing research, so if you find information that could take one of your lines back one, two or even three generations but still aren't sure if you should add and/or include this information in your family tree, all I can say is go with your instincts.

RootsTech doesn't want book vendors or publishers

There's been a lot of talk during the past couple of days about a decision that RootsTech has made regarding book vendors at their upcoming conference in February. Even though I don't plan on attending I find it sad that the organizers jumped to the conclusion that no one that IS attending would not want to browse vendors selling books about genealogy. Now, I don't claim to be technically sound, far from it in fact. I know how to use a computer (as you can see) and can use Word and other applications but look to my older brother when I need an 'expert' in something technical.

The conference was held for the first time last year and was a blend of technology AND genealogy but from what I saw online (they had some lectures available for free online), it was mostly technical. Of course, at the actual venue where it took place there were vendors selling and plugging not only technical items you could use for genealogy but also books. If I'm wrong about that please forgive me, but if they hadn't been I think the current discussion would've been around a year ago.

But this year they seemed to think that book vendors wouldn't be necessary, not a 'ban' of sorts but just not useful to researchers. But isn't that how most of us 'old-timer' genealogists started out? With books? When I started my research WAY back in 1991, the Internet didn't even exist at least not like it does now. There's were any cell phones or iPads, iPhones and the like and Facebook was probably only a thought in the back of the founders mind (or not). My paternal grandfather started his research in the 1970s BEFORE the miniseries Roots aired on television. He could only work with books and microfilm readers and writing LETTERS (yes actual letters no electronic mail for him).

When I began I found two BOOKS that he had and started with those, Searching For Your Ancestors and a book about my surname FRY. That's how a 'learned' what genealogy and the research behind it was. I also didn't have a computer back then (and if I did there wasn't a genealogy program for it) so I used the old standby, paper and pencil. My grandfather drew his OWN pedigree chart and I followed his example until I found templates of Pedigree charts and Family Group Sheets to use. I may record information in a genealogy program now, but I still use binders and notebook paper and I take notes the old-fashioned way (better than I did in high school).

But here's something else to consider, with the economy the way its been the last couple of years some (if not most) people can't AFFORD fancy 'toys' like laptops, iPads, and iPhones just to do genealogy research on. Heck, some books are pricey too, but those at least can be found cheaper on ebay. I know I've found a number of books on the auction site and even though they are older or even 'outdated' by some standards, I still rely on them from time to time because everyone, especially genealogists need a refresher on the basics of research.

I think its a shame that the organizers not only informed book vendors and publishers that they wouldn't be 'needed' at the conference but the fact that they did this TWO MONTHS before the event when the vendors have probably already made plans to attend and put the money aside to register and reserve hotel space. What do they do now? The time was set aside for the conference and everything else was turned down.

As of this blog entry, the organizers have seen all the uproar and discussion revolving around the decision and are taking the comments into consideration. I hope they realize the mistake they made passing judgement on the book vendors and publishers and reverse the decision. The conference should focus on both genealogy AND technology but it shouldn't omit the one thing that even newcomers to genealogy might rely on, BOOKS.

A genealogy dislike

There aren't many things that I dislike about genealogy or doing genealogy research. Sure you have your 'brick walls' that you never think you'll be able to knock down but then after weeks (or months or even years) you finally do. And then there's the family history you find online or information you get from a cousin that you have to check for accuracy and find that very little of what they have or what you found actually IS accurate.

But there's one thing that I have never liked about genealogy or genealogy research. Its when you have to add information to a person because they have passed away. A cousin contacted me on Facebook to let me know that her mother (my aunt) had passed away last night. I hadn't seen my aunt, uncle or my cousins for that matter since they moved down state about 10 years ago. I hadn't talked to them either so I didn't know about the medical issues my aunt had over the last year or so. It surprised me when my cousin called and filled me in because the issues she relayed to me were ones I didn't expect.

Needless to say it felt strange adding the date of her death to my family tree and the binder where I keep my maternal line information. I looked at the date and then noticed that 10 years to the DAY my aunt's sister-in-law passed away, and a year prior her brother had passed away. My aunt and uncle (along with my two cousins) lived about two blocks from our house for nearly all of my life before they moved away. My cousin (the one that let me know about my aunt's passing) actually lived across the street from me for about 6 years before they moved.

I am going to miss my aunt she was a stubborn woman and strong willed. One memory I have of her came around the holidays. We had gone over to my aunt and uncle's house for either Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner and she made stuffing...well what she called 'stuffing' it was actually made from Stove Top and as much as I loved my aunt, it was the WORST tasting sawdust ever. Everytime I see a box of Stove Top I think of her and smile. I'll miss you Aunt Jeanne.

Genealogy Instincts again

Here's the problem I always have with doing genealogy research. Some people don't think going with your 'gut' or your 'instincts' is the right way to go because you might end up doing research on the wrong family and I don't just mean one branch but the ENTIRE family back two or three hundred years and then come to find out after all that work that you aren't even related to anyone in the tree.

But I find that using my instincts, genealogical or detective if you prefer, don't just help me find the RIGHT branch or family for my tree but also ends up helping others that might be doing research on the same surname as I am. After all I did find at least two generations of Robinsons for another researcher that turned out not to be mine.

I haven't been doing as much research lately because 'life' has gotten in the way. But I never let my research lag for very long no matter what else is going on. In fact just last week I was poking around trying to find information on a great-aunt's husband's family and sent an email to a cousin (a daughter of the great-aunt) and she gave me a couple of clues. Well, with those few clues I managed to find her GRANDPARENTS marriage record. It turns out her father was born here in the US but was then taken to the Czech republic when he was a baby with his parents and returned to the US when he was about 25. Unfortunately, because the country has changed so much and actually branched out into several other smaller countries finding any other information on that side of the Atlantic is going to be a tough mystery to tackle. But the elation my cousin had when I sent her the image of her grandparent's marriage record was enough for me.

This led me to once again tackle my own maternal side of the tree. Though not as difficult as my cousin's digging through German records when there isn't much known is part of the challenge and much like one of my favorite fictional characters, Nancy Drew, I am always up for a challenge.

The Mystery of Henry Lepley Civil War Soldier

Did you ever start researching a name on your family tree and think it was going to be simple? Well let me tell you from experience that its NOT. I have been bothered by the Civil War pension file of my great-great grandfather, Henry Lepley probably since the minute I got it in the mail several years ago. No, more like from when my order was confirmed.

Its bugged me simply because there's no real evidence provided within the pension file that Henry died during the war from any kind of injury. It mentioned him being 'wounded' but the specifics are to say the least contradictory. His 'widow' got a monthly pension because according the file he DID die. Unfortunately it doesn't specify WHERE he died, and when it does each location contradicts the one before. To top it off the Pension Office in January 1868 actually asked that they be furnished with 'official' evidence of the date AND cause of Henry's death. The problem with that is non of the documents in the file have ANY record OF his death. They request this TWO MONTHS after they issued the certificate to Mary Jane, his widow, granting her the pension of $8 per month.

Its just plain crazy and now when Henry's name is found on a website for soldiers from Pennsylvania, I wrote the webmaster and asked her about it telling her there are questions about whether he actually DID die. She replied that he DIDN'T die and was actually DISCHARGED in Harrisburg. She then sent me a Word document that shows NOTHING about Henry being in Spotsylvania or being wounded or even being IN the Civil War past 1863, which again contradicts Charles Lepley's diary entry that says he heard that Henry was 'wounded' (the entry dated June 16, 1864).

I'm creating a Word doc for the webmaster of the site (Helen, a very nice lady) of what was in Henry's pension file. I would really like her opinion since I am completely confused as to what REALLY happened to my 2nd great-grandfather. I guess I just don't want to end up finding out that he WAS discharged from the service and vanished, leaving his wife and THREE young children behind.

More Later.

Scandinavian genealogy

Its been more than interesting finding out about my Norwegian, Swedish and Danish ancestors. I guess I never thought about any other ancestors' origins except England and Germany, which I already knew. Some of my collateral relatives or spouses of them came from Sweden but I never dug any deeper because I wasn't directly related to them.

I worked on some collateral lines from my 3rd great-grandparents and found that only ONE actually came to the US and settled here. All the others stayed in Norway. I find that unusual because you would think that if one found America appealing that their siblings would follow her and see if what she told them (assuming she told them) was true.

I haven't put everything into my genealogy program yet, and I also haven't sent the family history reports to any cousins that I think might be interested because frankly I don't know how they will react to finding out that their great-grandfather or in my case 2nd great uncle changed their surname from Oleson to Ring because of the man that essentially raised them as his own sons. The change affects any cousins that are related to Albert's brothers Anton, James and Martin. I don't even know my own reaction to the decision they made to pretty much erase their father's name of Oleson and become the sons of Fred Ring. I'm going to have to give that some thought and post my thoughts about it later. I was just glad to be able to get to the bottom of most of that mystery, even though I still don't know what happened to Albert's father Carl Petter or why Martin's father was listed as Martin. But I'm not one to give up on solving a mystery.

Norwegian, Swedish, Danish equals Scandinavian genealogy

The Norwegians aren't the only ones that have unusual naming traditions that make it challenging for a genealogist to trace their ancestry back to that country or even Sweden or Denmark. I've finally managed to organized each of the surnames so that I can create some family history reports. This of course would be much easier had my great-grandfather, Albert just kept his biological father's surname of Oleson instead of honoring his step-father by taking his (Ring).

Its funny but I think I can understand why Albert and his three brothers DID take Fred's last name of Ring instead of keeping Carl Petter's of Oleson. Since it looks as if Carl pulled some sort of disappearing act after Martin was born in 1878 and Julia married again around 1881 or at least after the 1880 census, and proceeded to have several children with Fred, it makes sense that since Fred was probably the only 'father' they knew growing up, especially Martin, that they would feel it was only right that they take his name of 'Ring' as their own. I admire them for doing that but much like my other great-grandfather Joseph Cowden who was actually born Cowden Roxberry, it would've been nice if somewhere, ANYWHERE, Albert or one of his brothers would've explained this for their descendant and family genealogist. None of my cousins EVER knew about this and they all thought that it had been Fred that changed his name and not Albert or James or Martin.

It should be interesting to get their reaction to this discovery I've made and the research that I've put into tracing Julia's and Carl's families back to the countries of their birth. We all knew that my grandmother, Rose Julia (Ring) Gentzen was part Norwegian and that Julia was as well, but Fred Ring is DANISH, yet in the census records, Albert, Martin, James and even Anton acknowledged that their father was SWEDISH. I doubt anyone of my cousins will react badly to the news that their great-grandfathers surname wasn't originally RING but OLESON, but at least I've cleared but the mystery surrounding just WHO changed their name when they came to America. The truth is NO ONE changed their name until after Julia married Fred A. Ring in 1881.

Norwegian genealogy

I've been learning a lot about Norway and Norwegian genealogy this week, but just today I was overwhelmed when I got an e-mail from a guy in Norway who had information about my 2nd great-grandmother's father side, Johan Nilsen. He sent me a Word document that was mainly in Norwegian but I managed to translate it into English, at least for the most part. I also found a webpage that contained information on Julia's mother's side but I was definitely more interested in her father's side since I hadn't found any clues.

The funniest thing so far is that Johan Nilsen translated into English turns into John SMITH. Now whether that's just the simplest way to translate it or because Nielsen is a common name in Norway and Smith is so common here in the US that it just made sense I don't know. I sent the original Norwegian document to another guy who lives in Norway and he's going to see how it actually translates.

I have to say that the Norwegian people, at least those that I have talked to so far are not only very helpful but also very nice and forgiving especially since the naming practices are confusing and a bit intimidating. I'm looking forward to what else Harald is going to send me and who knows we may end up finding out that we're related. That would be the coolest thing I think. To actually have a cousin in Norway that I could write to.

Genealogy learning something new everyday

Its been a pretty good couple of days for me genealogically speaking. Turns out I had the WRONG passenger list for Julia because I didn't take into consideration that she would've most likely traveled WITH her husband and child. So again with some help from fellow researcher Robert, I managed to find Carl, Julie, Anton AND another child from Carl's FIRST marriage, Ole Gustav. Its seems they sailed NOT from Sweden, although that's where Carl was born, but from Norway, Christiania to be exact and arrived in QUEBEC of all places. Now from there I don't know exactly when they went to Chicago, which again was their final destination but they left Norway 15 April 1871 and arrived in Canada 22 May 1871.

I also discovered with a little help (more like a hint) that Julia and Martin had another sibling and it was actually a name I had picked out but wasn't quite sure she was the right one because much like the name Smith, there are a LOT of similar surnames (for lack of a better term) in Norway and Sweden and with the females keeping their father's names ever AFTER marriage makes it a little hard to find the right couple.

But the family arriving in Canada reminded me of something my Uncle Clarence told me once when I asked him about Great-grandpa Ring's siblings. He had mentioned (I think) that two brothers had 'died' and/or killed themselves in Canada. I don't know exactly what he told me only that he DID mention Canada. That made me think that perhaps Albert and James were born in Canada and THEN they came to Chicago, but I haven't found any birth records for them in Canada, or even Quebec. So I will have to try on Monday and Ancestry Library Edition.

In the meantime I am learning about the naming traditions in Norway and have joined two message boards that focus for the most part on Norwegian genealogy. Hopefully I'll find researchers there willing to help just like Robert.

Gotta love genealogy and instincts

It was an interesting weekend for me on the genealogy front. Facebook changed the design of the 'groups' so that they look like other pages and it makes it easier to post queries, especially for genealogy groups. So I thought I would try it out at the Norwegian group I joined some time ago. And between that and posting to a local message board I think I may have (with a LOT of help mind you) just cracked the mystery of my 2nd great grandmother Julia (Nielsen, Olsen, Johnson) Ring.

I posted my query first to the Norwegian group just to see if anyone had any suggestions. This was last week. After getting some suggestions and websites to try, I went to my library and used Ancestry Library Edition. There I found a passenger listed for a Julia Olsen who's final destination was Chicago. The time period when she left SWEDEN was right, but it didn't provide any other information. Upon a suggestion from a member I posted another query this time to a local message board, specific to Cook County, Illinois. I got some suggestions and provided additional information. One member on the board, Robert, took it upon himself to do some digging and like me went with intuition when looking for the elusive Julia and her first husband, who's name I only suspected was on the birth record of one of her sons.

This morning he sent me images of Julia's birth record and her name Julia JOHNSDATTER, as well as the birth record of Anton Julius Olsen, her first child AND her first husband Karl Peter Olsen. I was completely blown away (and still am) to the point I had tears in my eyes. This brick wall seemed to be getting higher and higher with no end in sight but thanks to Robert and his intuition I think I can (I hope) find other records including when Carl came to America because my ancestor, Albert John Ring, was born in Chicago and Carl IS his biological father.

There is still a mystery to be solved though; according to Anton's birth record, Julia and Carl Peter were married AFTER he was born (somehow I had a feeling about that). The mystery is how Martin, Julia's 4th and last child with Carl Peter, wound up with his father's name being Martin Olsen on the birth register. But I have found the records that Robert sent me at FamilySearch, now that we're sure they were born in Norway and NOT Sweden. That was the other sticking point to this mystery. The marriage record shows the names of their fathers so with that I can try to find their mothers and maybe Carl Peter's birth record.

Instincts and intuition are something all good detectives use when they have a difficult case they need to crack. The same holds true for genealogists since we are in a sense detectives ourselves. I've relied on my instincts more than once but this time I had to get some help and they were the ones that went with what their instincts were telling them and it paid off. I am more than confident that Robert found my 2nd great-grandmother, her first husband and their first child and I want to thank him for doing the digging in places he thought to go. This wall is slowly but surely coming down and once it does let the bricks roll. :-)

Genealogical instincts

I've been relying on my instincts as of late when it comes to my genealogy research. And lately my research has become a lot like a detective solving a mystery, maybe even like Nancy Drew, a favorite of mine. But I've recently been re-reading the Sue Grafton 'Alphabet' mysteries since her latest one the letter 'V' is due out this coming November. I'm up to 'G is for Gumshoe' and discovered just why I enjoyed reading the books the first time. Kinsey Milhone, the main character a private detective works in much the same way an amateur genealogist does. Unlike the police department which has access to records of all kinds, Kinsey and genealogists alike don't and have to rely on finding records and information in her case in other more creative ways.

But genealogists, much like Kinsey and even Nancy Drew have to also rely on their instincts especially when they encounter a new client or in my case a record that leaves me with some suspicion about whether its completely reliable. Sometimes most of the information within the record is so overwhelming as far as being convincing that instincts shouldn't play a part but do anyway. In most cases the particular record is the ONLY one that makes the most sense given what I happen to be searching for. Thus is the case of the Wilkins line that I believe is the maiden name of Mary Eliza (or Elizabeth), wife of MY John Robinson, parents of my 2nd great-grandfather Edmund Lowell Robinson.

None of the other names, dates, places or even families come close to making plausible sense other than John Wilkins and Harriet Sockett Francis who happened to have a daughter, Mary Elizabeth, born 10 Feb 1824. In fact, other than Mary and her 'brother' David Francis Henry, I haven't been able to track their siblings except in Canadian census records because Mary and David are the only ones that married. The more frustrating thing is David's wife's maiden name is, you guessed it Robinsons and her father's name is JOHN; her mother's name is MARY. That is the THIRD couple that share the names of my ancestors, with ONE difference, this particular John was born in Ireland and NOT England, which doesn't make him any easier to track, especially if HE was my ancestor.

I just find it completely ironic that the John Robinson I started out with wasn't mine and yet one actually ends up becoming linked to MY John Robinson because of marriage. My point is my instincts are telling me that John Wilkins and Harriet Sockett Francis ARE Mary Eliza's parents and not just because they happened to have a daughter with her name but because per David Francis Henry Wilkins' marriage record, two of her children are witnesses AND her MOTHER is prominent in the Canadian census records as either living with John Robinson and family or vice versa with them living with her. Either way, each census record has the senior Harriet (she had a daughter named Harriet as well) in close proximity to the Robinsons. I feel strongly enough that the evidence is enough to tell me that I can add the Wilkins and Francis names to my family tree. Unfortunately the other John Robinson's line traces further back but again is only linked to mine by marriage. The moral, your instincts are something you not only cannot ignore but can't take for granted either. If they are telling you that the line you are researching is connected to your tree, take the next step and find more evidence to convince yourself your instincts are right.

More Records with images at FamilySearch

About every month or so the website FamilySearch.org updates their databases of records and/or images and most of those updates involve adding more records to their growing collection. The records come from people that are 'indexing' those records so that us genealogists can search for information more quickly. Sometimes the updates also include adding images along with records which for me is a must when doing research.

Last week they did a little of both and for the past couple of days I've been searching for records, this time around its marriage record IMAGES for Ohio which include ALL counties. I see only one drawback to this addition of records and images. Usually you can save the particular image to your computer's hard drive, which is what I do, and then can crop and print it later so that you don't get a whole page of dark space which uses all of your ink. But with the marriage record images it isn't so simple. I tried doing it that way and unfortunately the images are too big to crop in the program I have (a basic version of Adobe Photoshop) and even if I print them full size, then scan them and THEN crop it down to the specific record (since the images are two pages containing several records on each) they are just unreadable. What to do?

The FamilySearch website as the 'print' option already there and you can print a specific area BUT be careful when doing this because even if you get a nice close up of the record you want it doesn't mean that when you go to print you'll be able to read it. Also if the record is in the middle of either page OR its an early marriage record, the page itself won't have source information on it so you have to click back one page to where that information is and make a notation on the printout.

The later records, like those AFTER say 1900 contain much more information, including the parents names of both the bride AND groom and also whether they (either or both) have been married before and what the status of that marriage currently is. (Remember just because it says one party is 'divorced' doesn't mean its written in stone). The later records also offer occupations of the prospective couple, which is sometimes interesting if you didn't already know what they did for a living.

Some researchers think going over and over the same information is a waste of time but I don't think that's the case at all. Doing repeated searches for some individuals can in turn help you find more information and in some cases information you didn't previously know about, like occupations. It pays to going over it again especially when websites like FamilySearch add records that include images. Don't always rely on the indexed records as they aren't always complete especially when the image itself shows more.

Logic or No Logic

Okay, I think I may have deciphered not only my John Robinson but also his wife, M.E. also known as (possibly) Mary Elizabeth WILKINS and her PARENTS. Believe it or not it comes from that marriage record I found recently that had my 2nd great-grandfather's sister and brother as witnesses.

Here's where logic comes into play, though it might be only my logic. I recently discovered a Harriet Socket FRANCIS, but I also discovered a Mary Talbot HARDING. Okay, you're thinking 'So what?' I had been going on the assumption that Harriet's MAIDEN name was Socket, but couldn't find any information on anyone with that name, which is when I found the Harriet Socket FRANCIS, daughter of David Francis. So, it stands to reason that if Socket wasn't Harriet's maiden name then TALBOT wasn't Mary Robinson's maiden name. And it turns out that it ISN'T.

The Mary Talbot Robinson in the marriage record who married John Robinson (apologies if it gets confusing) is actually Mary Talbot HARDING. Harding is her MAIDEN name and she's the daughter of Philip Patterson Harding and Esther TALBOT. So if Mary Talbot Harding wife of John Robinson and mother of Mary (Minnie) Talbot Robinson, and Harding is her maiden name, the logical assumption would be that Harriet Wilkins' maiden name is FRANCIS.

If you're confused I apologize, but the simple way to explain it is, the middle names that were listed for the mothers on the marriage record are just that MIDDLE names and not maiden name added instead of middle names. It also bears saying that the witnesses, St. George John WILKINS Robinson and Harriet Annie Mary Robinson would be natural choices because David Francis Henry Wilkins is their uncle, IF my logic is correct. Not only that but look at his name, David Francis; that is Harriet's father's name. Second, Mary Elizabeth Wilkins, daughter of John Wilkins and Harriet Sockett Francis, was christened at the same location as her mother. Third, after another look at the Canadian census records if you look at the religion of both the Wilkins and M.E. Robinson they are the same and her children also share it with the exception of John Robinson. But those too change in the 1861 census as they all have 'Church of England listed'.

I also happened to find a family tree at Ancestry for Mary (Minnie) Talbot Robinson, her parents, grandparents etc. Unfortunately it only had for her mother's side and not much for her father's. I thought if I found something on that John Robinson it would somehow connect back to my OWN John Robinson. But that John was born in Ireland so there can't be any connection except to when his daughter married David Francis Henry Wilkins. The only thing I haven't been able to figure out is WHY David was born in OHIO of all places. The other children of John Wilkins and Harriet Francis were born in England, only David was born in the US. The marriage record claims Charleston, Ohio, which is probably West Virginia, yet his death record from 1892 claims Cleveland. Either way, it seems the Wilkins were in the US between 1845-1850 before they appear in Canada for the 1851 census.

Once again more research is definitely needed but the pieces seem to be falling into place for all the parties except my John Robinson, which is unfortunate. I'm holding off on adding this recent info to my family tree (on my computer anyway) until I find something on him because if any of it turns out to be wrong I'll have to take it out and that is more time consuming on the computer than it is on paper.