[APG Public List] Irish graves question

Eileen Ó Dúill nellie at heirsireland.com
Thu Jul 22 12:25:34 MDT 2010


Jeanette,

You described a situation in Ireland as follows:

"The Irish research was unbelievable.  The genealogist instead of going to
> individual churches to search records like I thought, went to the church
> graveyards and apparently had his children writing down the names of 
> anyone of
> the surname I needed.  I was looking for people in the 1600s.  The 
> earliest
> tombstone date was 1952."
>
Had the genealogist been a member of the Association of Professional 
Genealogists in Ireland, you could have filed a complaint with the Council 
of APGI. Our members value their reputations. Every complaint is taken 
seriously and every effort made to resolve the dispute or misunderstanding.

I have been doing genealogy in Ireland for 35 years and have not come across 
any responsible genealogist who would do a cemetery search when a parish 
register search was requested. Perhaps you were dealing with someone who was 
not a professional. Searches in the 1600's are rarely successful unless the 
family was propertied and documented so any good genealogist would have 
advised you of the limitation of parish registers to begin with.

I am interested in what you meant when you said:
" I am well aware that the graves are turned over in Ireland and that there 
would be no older tombstones."

There are some 18th century headstones in Ireland still in existence, but it 
would be highly unlikely to find one from the 17th century.
Finally, I would be very interested in learning how one would turn over a 
grave.

Eileen

Eileen M. Ó Dúill, CG
47 Delwood Road
Castleknock
Dublin 15
Ireland

email: info at heirsireland.com
CG, Certified Genealogist is a service mark of the Board for Certification 
of Genealogists (USA), used under license by  Board-certified associates 
after periodic competency  evaluations


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <apgpubliclist-request at apgen.org>
To: <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:00 PM
Subject: APGPublicList Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9


> Send APGPublicList mailing list submissions to
> apgpubliclist at apgen.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> ../../../index.html
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> apgpubliclist-request at apgen.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> apgpubliclist-owner at apgen.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of APGPublicList digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Fw:  Repeating client's work (Jeanette Daniels)
>   2. Re: Fw:  Repeating client's work (Jeanette Daniels)
>   3. Re: Repeating client's work (LBoswell)
>   4. Re: Problem with professional genealogist; formerly,
>      Repeating client's work (Michael John Neill)
>   5. Re: Problem with professional genealogist; formerly,
>      Repeating client's work (Michael John Neill)
>   6. More on the title "Mrs." in colonial times
>      (Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [APG Public List] Fw:  Repeating client's work
> To: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
> Message-ID: <725029.40906.qm at web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I meant to send this to the apg public list as well.
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
> To: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>
> Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:37:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Repeating client's work
>
>
> Israel and Mag,
>
> Larry and the others have given good advice.  I was reacting more to when 
> I've
> had clients respond to almost everything I've found as though they already 
> have
> it and want more research without paying.  Their initial letter request 
> and
> phone calls didn't indicate that and I have concluded that this is their 
> way of
> trying to get more research for free.
>
>
> I've been burned myself but this has usually been with foreign research 
> and
> dealing with genealogists in Ireland and Germany.  I've actually had to 
> hire
> someone from the US to go over to Austria and straighten out what was 
> correct
> and what wasn't when I discovered that the records I told were only in 
> Germany
> were available at the FHL and I was able trace and correct that portion of 
> the
> research.  The records for Austria are not available here so I did pay for 
> a
> genealogist friend to go to Austria and get the correct information.
>
> The Irish research was unbelievable.  The genealogist instead of going to
> individual churches to search records like I thought, went to the church
> graveyards and apparently had his children writing down the names of 
> anyone of
> the surname I needed.  I was looking for people in the 1600s.  The 
> earliest
> tombstone date was 1952.
>
>
> When I didn't respond with asking for more research, this genealogist had 
> the
> nerve to send me another letter wanting to continue the tombstone 
> searches.  I
> am well aware that the graves are turned over in Ireland and that there 
> would be
> no older tombstones.  So, I know how disappointed Mag is and I know how 
> Israel
> feels because I've been in both situations as well.
>
> Jeanette Daniels
> Heritage Genealogical College
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>
> To: IsraelP at pikholz.org; apgpubliclist at apgen.org
> Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:21:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Repeating client's work
>
>
> My answer would be simple.  I need to see where you may have gone  wrong 
> (since
> you've hit a point where you need to hire me) in your previous  research. 
> To
> get from A to B I have to take a fresh look at a range of  records that 
> you may
> or may not have looked at.  I'm the professional, you  hired me because 
> your
> research attempts failed in some way.  Part of  what I have to do to get 
> past
> that 'failure' is to look at what you did, and  make sure you didn't
> misinterpret or overlook some key piece of  information.  To accept 
> everything
> as given would make me your partner in  your failed attempt, and since I 
> have
> the experience and training to bring to  bear on the problem, I prefer to
> evaluate things for myself rather than accept  your take on things.
>
> I wouldn't actually use the word 'failure', I'd dress the explanation up 
> in
> pleasant, amiable terms, but the above would be what I meant.
>
> Larry
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: Israel P
>>To: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
>>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:14    AM
>>Subject: [APG Public List] Repeating    client's work
>>
>>What do you folks do when - after asking client the three basic 
>>questions
>>what do you know, what do you want to learn and what resources    have you
>>already checked - client then says "Why did you spend two hours    on such
>>and such?  I already looked at that."
>>
>>She didn't    include that resource in answering the third basic question,
>>so as far as    I knew, this was a new investigation.  (Let's ignore that 
>>I
>>might    have found something that client herself missed.)
>>
>>Do you have to tell    client in advance exactly what resources you are
>>planning to    investigate?  That can get awfully cumbersome - next thing
>>she'll    want to know exactly how many units of fifteen minutes will be
>>spent on    each resource!
>>
>>I mean you can hardly just say "Tough luck.  I    asked what you had done
>>yourself and you didn;'t mention this    resource."
>>
>>Israel  Pickholtz
>>Jerusalem
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <../attachments/20100722/ea255a5d/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Fw:  Repeating client's work
> To: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>, apgpubliclist at apgen.org
> Message-ID: <647889.58084.qm at web35503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Larry,
>
> You and the others who gave this advice are correct.  I do that as well. 
> I just
> was doing a "knee jerk" reaction that this was a way for someone to try to 
> get
> more hours of research.
>
>
> Jeanette Daniels
> Heritage Genealogical College
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>
> To: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:36:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Fw:  Repeating client's work
>
>
> Jeanette, but should a professional just take a client's word that he/she
> interpreted things adequately, that a record wasn't misread or information 
> in it
> missed?  I don't see it as someone just trying to get more hours of 
> research
> paid for.  In my experience looking (or looking again) at the  'known' 
> directly,
> and not just relying on how the client interpreted things  (given fact 
> that the
> client's research didn't succeed) actually ends up  saving the client 
> money.
> Experience tells me that I need to  thoroughly understand the 'known' to 
> find
> the unknown. The answer is often right  there in the very records the 
> client
> looked at, but due to inexperience on the  client's part, that  fact was 
> missed
> originally.  And that applies to  situations where the client is also a
> professional, but who has less  experience in my geographic/subject areas 
> of
> expertise than I do.
>
> I don't know how anyone could proceed without verifying the work leading 
> up  to
> the point where the mystery begins.
>
> Unless you're referring to simply a record agent type transaction where 
> you
> want Record A collected, and nothing else.
>
> Larry
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: Jeanette Daniels
>>To: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
>>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:16    AM
>>Subject: [APG Public List] Fw: Repeating    client's work
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure why this email was bounced by the apg public list.  I'm 
>>trying
>>again.
>>
>>Jeanette Daniels
>>Heritage Genealogical    College
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Forwarded Message ----
>>From: Jeanette Daniels <jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com>
>>To: IsraelP at pikholz.org; apgpubliclist at apgen.orgapgp
>>Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 7:12:44    AM
>>Subject: Re: [APG Public    List] Repeating client's work
>>
>>
>>Israel,
>>
>>This is common and happens to many professional    genealogists.  When 
>>someone
>>tries that one on me, I do remind him/her    that I was specific about 
>>what had
>>already been searched and that that    information had not been provided. 
>>There
>>is no way for me to know that    someone has information unless I am told.
>>
>>
>>I don't say, "Tough    luck ...." but I do have to protect myself from 
>>people
>>just trying to get more    hours of research without paying.  Many times, 
>>that
>>is all it    is.
>>
>>Jeanette Daniels
>>Heritage Genealogical College
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ________________________________
> From: Israel P    <IsraelP at pikholz.org>
>>To: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
>>Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 2:14:38    AM
>>Subject: [APG Public List]    Repeating client's work
>>
>>What do you folks do when - after asking    client the three basic 
>>questions
>>what do you know, what do you want to    learn and what resources have you
>>already checked - client then says "Why    did you spend two hours on such
>>and such?  I already looked at    that."
>>
>>She didn't include that resource in answering the third basic    question,
>>so as far as I knew, this was a new investigation.  (Let's    ignore that 
>>I
>>might have found something that client herself    missed.)
>>
>>Do you have to tell client in advance exactly what resources    you are
>>planning to investigate?  That can get awfully cumbersome -    next thing
>>she'll want to know exactly how many units of fifteen minutes    will be
>>spent on each resource!
>>
>>I mean you can hardly just say    "Tough luck.  I asked what you had done
>>yourself and you didn;'t    mention this resource."
>>
>>Israel    Pickholtz
>>Jerusalem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <../attachments/20100722/d7164638/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:42:50 -0400
> From: "LBoswell" <laboswell at rogers.com>
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Repeating client's work
> To: "Michael John Neill" <mjnrootdig at gmail.com>, "Elissa Scalise
> Powell, CG" <Elissa at powellgenealogy.com>, "APG APG Public"
> <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> Cc: IsraelP at pikholz.org
> Message-ID: <B46CC8C30B2442CDBF694388D276014E at acer511eba12df>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> In a lot of cases I find that even more important than adding clauses
> (though such clauses are fail safes),  good communication and dialogue 
> with
> the client is fundamental to avoiding future misunderstandings. The client
> is usually frustrated by a block of some sort, and has tunnel vision, and 
> a
> low patience threshold.  He/she wants the answer by the shortest route,
> meanwhile forgetting that sometimes even after years of their own effort
> they couldn't get it themselves.  But professionals are supposed to have a
> magic wand that breaks down that door with a couple of clicks of a mouse.
>
> I spend more upfront time talking to the client (often actually "talking" 
> to
> the client by phone), or using a Chat.  It not only opens up the client's
> realizations about how and why I'm going to approach the research, it
> establishes a personal relationship of sorts,  a precedent for future more
> amiable contact.  If I find the client is stubborn, demanding, and has
> unrealistic expectations then it often emerges in these conversations and 
> I
> turn down the commission
>
> Larry
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Michael John Neill
>  To: Elissa Scalise Powell, CG ; APG APG Public
>  Cc: IsraelP at pikholz.org
>  Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Repeating client's work
>
>
>  You might even wish to consider putting "please initial here" by specific
> sections of the contract to indicate that they have actually been read. It
> is still no guarantee, but would add one level of "you knew that because 
> you
> initialed that specific clause of the contract." I've signed contracts 
> where
> specific sections had to be initialed to acknowledge the content of those
> specific sections.
>
>  Michael
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Elissa Scalise Powell, CG
> <Elissa at powellgenealogy.com> wrote:
>
>    I like Michael's advice on what to put in a contract to prevent such
>    questions. In this case, now that the horse is out of the barn, you
> could
>    tell her that not only did she not provide it but you needed to examine
> it
>    to correlate the data with other evidence you found. She is not just
> paying
>    you to find records but to analyze them as a whole in the context of
> each
>    other and the historical times her ancestor lived in.
>
>    If she wants to micro-manage the project, then it may be beneficial if
> she
>    pays you for a research plan she can act on. She may quickly come back
> to
>    you and have you conduct the research once she has tried it.
>
>    Best wishes,
>    Elissa
>
>    Elissa Scalise Powell, CG
>    www.PowellGenealogy.com
>    CG and Certified Genealogist are Service Marks of the Board for
>    Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants
>    after periodic evaluations by the Board.
>
>
>    > -----Original Message-----
>    > From: On Behalf Of Israel P
>    > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:15 AM
>    >
>    > What do you folks do when - after asking client the three basic
> questions
>    > what do you know, what do you want to learn and what resources have
> you
>    > already checked - client then says "Why did you spend two hours on
> such
>    > and such?  I already looked at that."
>    >
>    > She didn't include that resource in answering the third basic
> question,
>    > so as far as I knew, this was a new investigation.  (Let's ignore 
> that
> I
>    > might have found something that client herself missed.)
>    >
>    > Do you have to tell client in advance exactly what resources you are
>    > planning to investigate?  That can get awfully cumbersome - next 
> thing
>    > she'll want to know exactly how many units of fifteen minutes will be
>    > spent on each resource!
>    >
>    > I mean you can hardly just say "Tough luck.  I asked what you had 
> done
>    > yourself and you didn't mention this resource."
>    >
>    > Israel Pickholtz
>    > Jerusalem
>    >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  -- 
>  ------------------------------------
>  Michael John Neill
>  Casefile Clues-Genealogy How-Tos
>  http://www.casefileclues.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <../attachments/20100722/c70833ef/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:08:35 -0500
> From: Michael John Neill <mjnrootdig at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Problem with professional genealogist;
> formerly, Repeating client's work
> To: MFP <courthouseresearcher at gmail.com>
> Cc: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTilBk69cwDhxnpnbxWpmXthV6NvVo36PLyKbhNsN at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> While the location is not mentioned, I would not accept any such 
> conditions
> on a contract, nor would I impose them. I can think of numerous situations
> where one key element, lead, etc. appears in some record written or 
> created
> well after the person of interest was born. In time periods where
> contemporary records are scant, clues in records at the end of a person's
> life may be pivotal.
>
> Not communicating with you though does raise concerns. I usually request
> intermittent reports and updates (informally) when the researcher is 
> someone
> with whom I have not worked before.
>
> That said, I don't want the researcher to obtain records/documents which I
> already have, but reviewing them may very well be in order especially with 
> a
> completely fresh set of eyes. I always organize what I have, include
> complete copies, etc--which I'm assuming you and the group have already
> done. And, much to my chagrin, there have been times when clues have 
> stared
> me right in the face in a document which I originally  thought "didn't 
> tell
> me anything."
>
> In my own experience, in a slightly different scenario, I sometimes tell 
> the
> researcher that I would like a certain set of records searched, but then I
> indicate what the "problem" actually is. That allows them to determine if
> there are records I don't know about that might be helpful.
>
>
> Just my two cents.
> Michael
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:41 AM, MFP <courthouseresearcher at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Israel P <IsraelP at pikholz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you folks do when - after asking client the three basic 
>>> questions
>>> what do you know, what do you want to learn and what resources have you
>>> already checked - client then says "Why did you spend two hours on such
>>> and such?  I already looked at that."
>>>
>>
>> I have a question that pertains to perhaps the opposite of this situation
>> and look forward to guidance from knowledgeable members of this list.
>>
>> We (our family research group of six members) commissioned a genealogist 
>> to
>> search for parentage of our ancestor who was born (our best guesstimate 
>> ca
>> 1768) In our initial exchanges of correspondence, we wrote: "if it 
>> happened
>> after 1815, we either have it already or don't want it if we don't have 
>> it".
>> That guideline was included among  a number of exchanges both on the
>> telephone, written letter and email.
>>
>> To our chagrin, we found that this genealogist is reviewing on the web,
>> children of the ancestor whose parentage we seek! In our explicit
>> instruction we included data on all thirteen of the ancestor's children 
>> and
>> stated clearly as I wrote above----if it happened after 1815, etc.
>>
>> We have paid a three hundred dollar retainer to cover basic expenses, and
>> would like to retrieve our money, but have no idea how to proceed. In
>> addition to statement of our research goals that included our verbatim
>> statement of "no research of this family after the year 1815, the 
>> contract
>> read simply: "after research of several sources, I will inform client of
>> findings and decide whether to proceed". The hourly rates were specified.
>>
>> The genealogist has been informed of our finding the research being done 
>> on
>> the web, and so far, no response.
>>
>> This experience, one of three such unhappy results of commissioning
>> professional researchers (one of which was caused by my self), has 
>> convinced
>> me it is time to prepare myself to do my own research.
>>
>> Please advise/offer opinions as to how to proceed with this genealogist.
>>
>> Mag Parker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
> Michael John Neill
> Casefile Clues-Genealogy How-Tos
> http://www.casefileclues.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <../attachments/20100722/a8aee8fe/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:14:50 -0500
> From: Michael John Neill <mjnrootdig at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Problem with professional genealogist;
> formerly, Repeating client's work
> To: MFP <courthouseresearcher at gmail.com>
> Cc: apgpubliclist at apgen.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikV_S+_XsHxod=_t3fRmMJZBT2cyRtOjygS4CCA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> While the location is not mentioned, I would not accept any such 
> conditions
> on a contract, nor would I impose them. I can think of numerous situations
> where one key element, lead, etc. appears in some record written or 
> created
> well after the person of interest was born. In time periods where
> contemporary records are scant, clues in records at the end of a person's
> life may be pivotal.
>
> Not communicating with you though does raise concerns. I usually request
> intermittent reports and updates (informally) when the researcher is 
> someone
> with whom I have not worked before.
>
> That said, I don't want the researcher to obtain records/documents which I
> already have, but reviewing them may very well be in order especially with 
> a
> completely fresh set of eyes. I always organize what I have, include
> complete copies, etc--which I'm assuming you and the group have already
> done. And, much to my chagrin, there have been times when clues have 
> stared
> me right in the face in a document which I originally  thought "didn't 
> tell
> me anything."
>
> In my own experience, in a slightly different scenario, I sometimes tell 
> the
> researcher that I would like a certain set of records searched, but then I
> indicate what the "problem" actually is. That allows them to determine if
> there are records I don't know about that might be helpful.
>
>
> Just my two cents.
> Michael
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:41 AM, MFP <courthouseresearcher at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Israel P <IsraelP at pikholz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you folks do when - after asking client the three basic 
>>> questions
>>> what do you know, what do you want to learn and what resources have you
>>> already checked - client then says "Why did you spend two hours on such
>>> and such?  I already looked at that."
>>>
>>
>> I have a question that pertains to perhaps the opposite of this situation
>> and look forward to guidance from knowledgeable members of this list.
>>
>> We (our family research group of six members) commissioned a genealogist 
>> to
>> search for parentage of our ancestor who was born (our best guesstimate 
>> ca
>> 1768) In our initial exchanges of correspondence, we wrote: "if it 
>> happened
>> after 1815, we either have it already or don't want it if we don't have 
>> it".
>> That guideline was included among  a number of exchanges both on the
>> telephone, written letter and email.
>>
>> To our chagrin, we found that this genealogist is reviewing on the web,
>> children of the ancestor whose parentage we seek! In our explicit
>> instruction we included data on all thirteen of the ancestor's children 
>> and
>> stated clearly as I wrote above----if it happened after 1815, etc.
>>
>> We have paid a three hundred dollar retainer to cover basic expenses, and
>> would like to retrieve our money, but have no idea how to proceed. In
>> addition to statement of our research goals that included our verbatim
>> statement of "no research of this family after the year 1815, the 
>> contract
>> read simply: "after research of several sources, I will inform client of
>> findings and decide whether to proceed". The hourly rates were specified.
>>
>> The genealogist has been informed of our finding the research being done 
>> on
>> the web, and so far, no response.
>>
>> This experience, one of three such unhappy results of commissioning
>> professional researchers (one of which was caused by my self), has 
>> convinced
>> me it is time to prepare myself to do my own research.
>>
>> Please advise/offer opinions as to how to proceed with this genealogist.
>>
>> Mag Parker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
> Michael John Neill
> Casefile Clues-Genealogy How-Tos
> http://www.casefileclues.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <../attachments/20100722/7c711f4f/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:51:55 -0400
> From: Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer <christine3cats at gmail.com>
> Subject: [APG Public List] More on the title "Mrs." in colonial times
> To: APG Public List <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimOIboG5XlEZZO-e83Djng-FQ8HGL21o-PLXqi7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'm on vacation for three weeks, and am spending the vacation at home,
> devoting a lot of it to genealogy. This week I'm working on extending
> a newly discovered New England line of my husband's, using sources
> like the NEHGS databases. Yes, I know they're secondary sources, but
> most of them are credible, and they give me a framework for the time
> when I might be able to look at original records.
>
> This morning, I was working on a complicated line that has a woman who
> married twice and was the daughter of a woman who married three
> times--and discovered that the younger woman had a half-sister who
> married (as her second husband--this family really did have a problem
> keeping husbands alive!) Dudley Bradstreet, son of Gov. Simon
> Bradstreet. I found an article in the NEHGR (vol. 139[1985]:139-142)
> that traces the sources that prove all these complicate
> relationships--made more complicated by the fact that some of the
> women reverted to previous married names after the death of a husband.
> The article begins, "There has long been a question concerning the
> identity of Mrs. Ann Price who married Dudley Bradstreet....Although
> the "Mrs." preceding her name was an honorific denoting her station in
> society rather than her marital status, there is no doubt that she
> was, in fact, a widow."
>
> On the opposite end of the scale, for an example of someone looking at
> the use of "Mrs." in the modern usage, the copy of the Mass. VRs that
> was scanned for Newbury Marriages, p. 265 (Jones), includes the
> marriage of Capt. Ichabod Jones to "Mrs. Apphia Coffin," where someone
> has (one imagines, indignantly!) crossed out "Mrs." and written in
> "Miss see Coffin Gen."
>
> Christine
>
> -- 
> Christine Crawford-Oppenheimer
> Hyde Park, NY
>
> Author of: Long-Distance Genealogy:
> Researching Your Ancestors from Home
>
>
> End of APGPublicList Digest, Vol 9, Issue 9
> *******************************************
>
> 




More information about the APGPublicList mailing list