On Andy's point re: family names and descendants on the maternal sides in this format: Dealing with church records in Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia (old Austro-Hungarian Empire) there is a window in the early 1800s where all you get on a baptismal record is the father's full name and the wife's first name. Lots of confusion results.
I feel your pain 🥹. It took 4 years researching one line of Hungarian and Jewish ancestry. I had 2 initial clues: a paternal surname and a phonetically spelled town name. I do not read/speak German, Slovakian, Hungarian, or Hebrew. The obvious problem involved tumultuous wars, local geography & history, multiple languages, document destruction, and modified names. I did confirm ancestry to about 1848. Now, it’s a work in progress. Austro-Hungarian Empire is incredibly interesting 🤔 and frustrating ‼️
I can visualize this better if I turn it on its side like a printed pedigree chart. You can put that number into the member search on the DAR web site and see whether the right name comes up. DAR no longer accepts what is in their own older Lineage Books without reverification.
Yep. I should have put it on it's side. When I drew it out, I started from one point and went where I had more paper. (I put the first couple at the top.) But that's for the idea about the id numbers into the DAR database. We first needed to confirm that it was the case. But I'm glad there are so many ways to get at the information.
I found a huge error on Family Search. Someone incorrectly copied info from a family book (which had errors and has been revised several times). Common, similar or middle names being used (plus they were all french names, with some translated to english) confused the situation. Sources, if any, were attached to the wrong people/wrong generation. Anyway, took 2 days, but that line is fixed with proper sources (BMD records). Yet, even after finding the sources I still worry what if I made a mistake while correcting the tree.
Good job correcting the family tree. Make sure you're watching the profiles so you can interact with anyone who wants to change things back. As far as making mistakes, I don't worry so much. The reason is because mistakes are learning opportunities. And every genealogists makes them. Be careful and review things from time to time to see if you do make a wrong turn. It's okay if you do because you'll learn from it.
This will be long, but maybe there is a future video topic in it somewhere LOL! 🤣🤣 Looking for themes, family book ideas, I came up with immigration periods: 1) Mayflower group, 2) Colonial (up to Revolution), then it switches more to Canada, 3) Upper Canada immigration (the American equivilant post Rev to Civil War) 4) 20th century immigration (I start from Canadian confederation 1867). That helps me to categorize and focus on different branches for research. Since my husband only has 1 American great-grandmother (3/4 Am. 1/4 British), I thought it would be easy to work on those lines and confirm the Mayflower ancestors. (that's where I found the huge error that got me sidetracked on to the french branch (see other comment)). Anyway, I made a list of the 3 branches of ancestors I could find (from the FS tree) that were born in England and died in the US during the period - identified about 300, but putting them in family groups (spouses/kids) about 100. From here I could see there is a Plymouth group, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut group (Connecticut being later arrivals). I could see how the branches started merging during the revolutionary period into Maine/Vermont/New Hampshire. I got a list of names from the 3 ships for Plymouth and I'm working through confirming them to my list of ancestors. I started with the one branch I knew could be traced to an ancestor on the ship Fortune (1621). That 2xggf is descended, so I look at his wife's line & trace back to at least their immigration), then the 3xggf, his spouses ancestors, etc, etc, until I find the connections, if any. Well, that's as far as I got until I was sidelined by the french spouse of one of those gg-grandfathers. I wanted to make sure before I gave anything to family members, that everything was correct so I'm being diligent in making sure I have proper sources. It's a branch I haven't done much work on. In other words, it's a lot more work that I thought it would be LOL! I'm watching a colonial history series on YT - channel is Historical Context. Lot's of familiar surnames and I discovered my husband had an ancestor who was governor of (I think) Massachusetts Bay. The history lessons are putting into context things like the ancestor who was a deacon or married into a political family, why they immigrated or moved around the colonies, etc. Now when I come across a familiar surname, I'll make a notation to myself "could they be related or connected to so&so".
Thanks for that long interesting post. I’m essentially working through similar New England ancestry & timeframes. Pre-statehood Maine and common paternal surname with sketchy descent has presented incredible challenges. I watch lots of YT videos on local, state, colonial, and country histories. That has helped me understand overall immigration and migration patterns. Big help!
Do you think some army clerk could have looked at "Mirabelle" and by rote, he spelled miniball which later got converted to "Minnie Ball"? OTOH, is there a Ball surname on one or both sides?
I don't know about the "Minnie Ball" story, but there is a Shot Tower in Baltimore, MD, that's still standing. It's open for visitors if you're interested.
My History had a weird definition of direct ancestry. Direct ancestry/descent has no meaning outside patrilineal definitions. In any generation, you have only one direct ancestor. But hardly anyone these days even knows the difference between descendent and ancestor. Is this important anymore? Well, y-Chromosomes represent the contribution of a direct ancestor. If we talk about direct maternal ancestry (mother to mother to mother...), that's mDNA. If you share y-dna, you share a direct paternal ancestor.
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics then don't talk about direct ancestry at all. It only has relevance in terms of y-DNA or patrilineal inheritance. Contributions come from all ancestors, unless you look at the y chromosome, which necessarily passes directly from father to son. There is no contribution there from indirect ancestors, nor from non ancestral branches of your tree ( if you're creating a descendant tree from one ancestor you'll have lots of branches which are not your ancestors at all unless someone has children with a cousin).
That is showing the ladies line to Rev War Patriot in DAR
Agreed. Beat me to it.
Thanks for sharing your suspicion.
I really like the way you made something so complicated nice, fun and interesting 😊
Thank you! 😊 We strive to break things down to understandable concepts. I'm glad this connected with you.
Sorry for your loss of your aunt Andy. Safe travels
Thank you. The funeral was sad but I connected with many of my cousins and uncles.
Yeah, friends! I need to do this as well.
Folks need to draw out their lines regularly to be sure.
On Andy's point re: family names and descendants on the maternal sides in this format: Dealing with church records in Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia (old Austro-Hungarian Empire) there is a window in the early 1800s where all you get on a baptismal record is the father's full name and the wife's first name. Lots of confusion results.
I bet. That would be confusing to be sure.
I feel your pain 🥹. It took 4 years researching one line of Hungarian and Jewish ancestry. I had 2 initial clues: a paternal surname and a phonetically spelled town name. I do not read/speak German, Slovakian, Hungarian, or Hebrew. The obvious problem involved tumultuous wars, local geography & history, multiple languages, document destruction, and modified names. I did confirm ancestry to about 1848. Now, it’s a work in progress. Austro-Hungarian Empire is incredibly interesting 🤔 and frustrating ‼️
I can visualize this better if I turn it on its side like a printed pedigree chart. You can put that number into the member search on the DAR web site and see whether the right name comes up. DAR no longer accepts what is in their own older Lineage Books without reverification.
Yep. I should have put it on it's side. When I drew it out, I started from one point and went where I had more paper. (I put the first couple at the top.)
But that's for the idea about the id numbers into the DAR database. We first needed to confirm that it was the case. But I'm glad there are so many ways to get at the information.
I found a huge error on Family Search. Someone incorrectly copied info from a family book (which had errors and has been revised several times). Common, similar or middle names being used (plus they were all french names, with some translated to english) confused the situation. Sources, if any, were attached to the wrong people/wrong generation. Anyway, took 2 days, but that line is fixed with proper sources (BMD records). Yet, even after finding the sources I still worry what if I made a mistake while correcting the tree.
Good job correcting the family tree. Make sure you're watching the profiles so you can interact with anyone who wants to change things back.
As far as making mistakes, I don't worry so much. The reason is because mistakes are learning opportunities. And every genealogists makes them. Be careful and review things from time to time to see if you do make a wrong turn. It's okay if you do because you'll learn from it.
This will be long, but maybe there is a future video topic in it somewhere LOL! 🤣🤣 Looking for themes, family book ideas, I came up with immigration periods: 1) Mayflower group, 2) Colonial (up to Revolution), then it switches more to Canada, 3) Upper Canada immigration (the American equivilant post Rev to Civil War) 4) 20th century immigration (I start from Canadian confederation 1867). That helps me to categorize and focus on different branches for research.
Since my husband only has 1 American great-grandmother (3/4 Am. 1/4 British), I thought it would be easy to work on those lines and confirm the Mayflower ancestors. (that's where I found the huge error that got me sidetracked on to the french branch (see other comment)). Anyway, I made a list of the 3 branches of ancestors I could find (from the FS tree) that were born in England and died in the US during the period - identified about 300, but putting them in family groups (spouses/kids) about 100. From here I could see there is a Plymouth group, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut group (Connecticut being later arrivals). I could see how the branches started merging during the revolutionary period into Maine/Vermont/New Hampshire. I got a list of names from the 3 ships for Plymouth and I'm working through confirming them to my list of ancestors.
I started with the one branch I knew could be traced to an ancestor on the ship Fortune (1621). That 2xggf is descended, so I look at his wife's line & trace back to at least their immigration), then the 3xggf, his spouses ancestors, etc, etc, until I find the connections, if any.
Well, that's as far as I got until I was sidelined by the french spouse of one of those gg-grandfathers. I wanted to make sure before I gave anything to family members, that everything was correct so I'm being diligent in making sure I have proper sources. It's a branch I haven't done much work on. In other words, it's a lot more work that I thought it would be LOL! I'm watching a colonial history series on YT - channel is Historical Context. Lot's of familiar surnames and I discovered my husband had an ancestor who was governor of (I think) Massachusetts Bay. The history lessons are putting into context things like the ancestor who was a deacon or married into a political family, why they immigrated or moved around the colonies, etc. Now when I come across a familiar surname, I'll make a notation to myself "could they be related or connected to so&so".
What a great project to work on. Good luck
Thanks for that long interesting post. I’m essentially working through similar New England ancestry & timeframes. Pre-statehood Maine and common paternal surname with sketchy descent has presented incredible challenges. I watch lots of YT videos on local, state, colonial, and country histories. That has helped me understand overall immigration and migration patterns. Big help!
Do you think some army clerk could have looked at "Mirabelle" and by rote, he spelled miniball which later got converted to "Minnie Ball"? OTOH, is there a Ball surname on one or both sides?
That's all entirely possible to be sure.
I don't know about the "Minnie Ball" story, but there is a Shot Tower in Baltimore, MD, that's still standing. It's open for visitors if you're interested.
I remember seeing the Shot Tower when visiting my Baltimore cousins as a child.
That's a great tip. Thanks!
54:21 Are you liking History Bombs? Yes.
Yay! Glad you like them.
I have friends with cartwright ancestors from bolton lancashire England. Also nancy cartwright is the voice of Bart Simpson
Those are fun factoids.
My History had a weird definition of direct ancestry. Direct ancestry/descent has no meaning outside patrilineal definitions. In any generation, you have only one direct ancestor. But hardly anyone these days even knows the difference between descendent and ancestor. Is this important anymore? Well, y-Chromosomes represent the contribution of a direct ancestor. If we talk about direct maternal ancestry (mother to mother to mother...), that's mDNA. If you share y-dna, you share a direct paternal ancestor.
This definition excludes the contributions of generations of additional ancestors, does it not?
@@FamilyHistoryFanatics then don't talk about direct ancestry at all. It only has relevance in terms of y-DNA or patrilineal inheritance. Contributions come from all ancestors, unless you look at the y chromosome, which necessarily passes directly from father to son. There is no contribution there from indirect ancestors, nor from non ancestral branches of your tree ( if you're creating a descendant tree from one ancestor you'll have lots of branches which are not your ancestors at all unless someone has children with a cousin).
The books are a starting point only.
I agree.
Just as you shouldn’t accept family trees without proving it yourself. These are possible avenues that you have to verify yourself
Well said.
DAR Member number
Thanks. Glad to hear others support that suspicion.
The person at the top is showing that she's a direct descendant to 4 patriots.
Oops just 3
It takes awhile to dissect the information, especially since this was taken out of context. But yes, I think you're right.