We Three Kings of Connecticut

Starting the new year off with the traditional crazy "Biblical" tree. Which edition of the Bible do you think this person used?
Happy New Year!

 Marcomir Sicambrian Franks Ben Joseph tm
 Born: Cologne, Koln, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
 Died: 1950, Old, Sachsen, Germany

 Married: Möns, Friesland, Niedersachsen, Germany

 MARY Jesus Christ BINT HELI tm
 Born: 1966, Maluku, Indonesia
 Died: Germany

 CHILDREN

 Jesus Ben Christ
 B: Bethlehem, Litchfield, Connecticut, United States
 D: Calvary, Grady, Georgia, United States

 Jesus Nazareth
 D: Yerushalayim, Israel

 Clodemiro Penardim Franks tm
 B: Old, Sachsen, Germany
 D: 1963, Old, Sachsen, Germany

If you have a tree or profile to suggest please send the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks! 


PREVIOUS POST: Hof1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr
NEXT POST: Coming Soon

Hof1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr

It may take some of you longer than others but I'm sure all of you can figure out the "code" being used here. I would just like to know WHY? When you have people not related to you on your tree do you really need to add a suffix describing how not related to you they are?

 Gov Patrick Henry Hof1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr

 PARENTS
 John Henr FinLof1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr
 Sarah Winston MinLof1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr

 SPOUSE
 Sarah Shelton WofHof1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr

 SPOUSE
 Dorothea Spotswood Dandridge 1stC1xrofWof11thGGNofWof3rdC19xr

Thanks to Kristin for the link to this profile ;-)
If you have a profile to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.


PREVIOUS POST: Bottomless Pit 2
NEXT POST: We Three Kings of Connecticut

Bottomless Pit 2

 MARY HANSON
 Birth 09 Aug 1675 in Upton, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
 Death  in Upton, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

 PARENTS
 John Hanson (1549-1622)
 Janet Raynor (1551- )

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Walter Stanhope (1572-1661)
 ✿ Mary Stanhope (1602-1616)
 ✿ Jane Stanhope (1612-1693)
 ✿ Walter Stanhope (1612-1646)
 ✿ Edward Stanhope (1615-1675)
 ✿ Catherine Stanhope (1618-1618)
 ✿ Anne Stanhope (1623- )

If you're thinking Mary's birth year is a typo, you're an optimist. A birth year of 1575 would be better than having her parents and most of her children dying before her own birth. It would not, however, explain the births and deaths of Mary's parents, husband and children all occurring in England. Changing her birth year would also not improve the rest of the profile which is after the jump.
Here are just a few highlights (numbers in parenthesis are the number of events that are exact duplicates):

 ✿ Marriage
810 AD
Uppsala, Sweden
 ✿ Marriage
1503 7 Oct
Bernbowgale Edinburgh St. James St. Giles Toftis Manys Bernbowgale Manys Toftis Dummanyne Canongate Trinitarian Peblis Crukstoun, Midlothia, Scotland
 ✿ Christening
1847 31 Jan
Kerry, Ireland
 ✿ BURIAL
1864 15 Oct
NC
 ✿ Residence (85)
1911
Guysborough, Nova Scotia, Canada
 ✿ Arrival (12)
1913 6 Jun
Detroit, Michigan
 ✿ Residence (72)
1930
Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts
 ✿ SSN issued
California

After the jump: The complete list of events

It Paynes Me

My apologies, this should have been Rule #1.

RULE #12  Pay attention to what you're doing!

 Harriet S. Payne

 PARENTS
 Peter I Coughnet (1793-1856)
 Catherine Wohlgemuth (1794-1881)

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Lafayette Wilmarth (1811-1854)
 ✿ Harriet Ceilinda "Hattie" Wilmarth (b. 1841)
 ✿ William P Tiffany (b. 1844)
 ✿ Katherine (Kate) Tiffany (b. 1844)
 ✿ Priscilla Tiffany (b. 1845)
 ✿ Luther Scott Tiffany (b. 1867)

 Birth  April 30, 1812 in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania
 Marriage  22 Feb 1842 to Lafayette Wilmarth
 Marriage  30 Jun 1846 to Lafayette Wilmarth
 Death  March 29, 1859 in Jackson Twp, Susquehanna, Pennsylvania
 Residence  1880 in Davenport, Scott, Iowa, United States
 Burial  in Davenport, Scott, Iowa

After the jump: The records and more

What's In A Name?

A quick post today. This...

Nicholas Lanier Laniere Lane Lanye Lanyer the YOUNGER, MASTER of MUSIC, on FACULTY at OXFORD UNIVERSITY, COURT MUSICIAN to CHARLES I & KING JAMES I, BEN JONSON

 ...is not a name. It's a biography. Why would someone do this?
I understand the many surname variations. If you search from the profile it may be easier to add all of those to the profile, temporarily anyway. Though I have found that formatting variations as, Lanier/Laniere/Lane/Lanye/Lanyer, yields better results, at least with Ancestry's search engine.
I do not, however, understand the suffix. A suffix should not be a curriculum vitae. And what/who is "BEN JONSON"?

Thanks to Kristin for the link to the profile for Nicholas! ;-) If you have a profile or tree to suggest please email the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks!


PREVIOUS POST: Leaving the New Ancestry
NEXT POST: It Paynes Me

Leaving the New Ancestry

New and returning Ancestry.com subscribers are being thrown directly into the "New" Ancestry. New subscribers have nothing to compare it to but returning subscribers will notice some basic functions missing.
Some people have the option to switch back to "Classic" Ancestry, others do not. If you have the option it will be ​in the drop down under your Ancestry user name.

Image taken from Ancestry's Help page for "The New Ancestry."

If you don't have that option you just need this link: http://home.ancestry.com/newancestry/leave. It looks as if Ancestry's crack social media team is under orders to keep this link a secret. Anyone asking for help with this problem on Facebook is asked to contact them privately with their account info. Wouldn't just posting the link be easier?
If you happen to call Ancestry for the answer you might get the same answer a friend of mine did. She was told "they can't do it and the developers have removed the link that will give you the option." The customer service rep also told her "the new site is fully functional." HA!
I called as well. My phone call started with, "I just subscribed again and was thrown into the new site. I don't have the option to go back to the old site. I either need that option or I need you to refund the money I just paid your company 10 minutes ago." The rep sent me the link to the New Ancestry help page and told me to keep scrolling. Keep scrolling. Eventually she just read me the "leave" link which she could have done in the first place to save us both some time. It's buried on that help page and in a teeny tiny font.
Whether you switch back to "Classic" using the link or the drop down you should have the option to give feedback. If you have writer's block feel free to use the following in whole or in part to get you started:

I am paying, giving you my money, to use a fully functioning, established website, not to be a guinea pig. Most of the ongoing issues were reported at the end of January, during the first week of BETA testing. I am willing to use and give feedback on the site you released to the public too soon in exchange for a 6-month subscription. If that's acceptable feel free to contact me.

If you have spent time using the new site be as specific as possible with your feedback. "I hate it!" and "Don't change it!" responses will just be tossed aside. Leave feedback when you switch back to Classic. Leave feedback on their message boards and on their community boards. Leave feedback on Ancestry's Facebook page and their other social media pages.
The changes being made may actually be improvements, once they're functioning, but we are not paying to use a site that is under construction. From the customer viewpoint I have to say that releasing the new site to the public months, maybe even years at the rate they're going, before it's ready is one of the worst business decisions Ancestry has ever made.

Here are some of Ancestry's posts about the new site. The comments make for entertaining reading. ;-)
Announcing the New Ancestry Website
New Ancestry: Feature Update 
The New Facts View: Make Sure You Are Climbing YOUR Family Tree and Not Someone Else's


PREVIOUS POST: Baby Love
NEXT POST: What's In A Name?

Baby Love

 Alexander Love
 Birth  1690 in Northumberland, Virginia, USA
 Death 1773 in Onslow, North Carolina, USA

 PARENTS
 James Arnold Love (1681-1773)
 April Osterman (1681- )

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Elishe Love (1695-1729)
 ✿ Saponey Indian Squaw Aka Honor Love (b. 1690)
 ✿ Hannah Love (b. 1702)
 ✿ Elizabeth Love (b. 1705)
 ✿ Amos Love (b. 1705)
 ✿ John Love (b. 1720)
 ✿ James Love (b. 1723)
 ✿ Judith Love (b. 1727)
 ✿ Jane Love (b. 1727)
 ✿ Jane Love (b. 1727)

 RECORDS attached to this profile

 ✿ U.S. Revolutionary War Rolls 1775-1783
     Alexander Love, Military Date: 7 Feb 1778, Rhode Island
 ✿ U.S. Civil War Soldiers, 1861-1865
     Alexander Love, Confederate, North Carolina

So Alexander was born to 9 year old parents. He then either starts his own family at birth or adopts a child later who is the same age as him. He and his wife continue to have children as children themselves. Five years after his death he fights in the Revolutionary War. Then he hangs around for 90 more years to fight in the Civil War.

 Father  Sir John LeLou ( -1308)
 Mother Amice Mauduit

 Child    Nigeli Luiff (1420-1492)

And John's parents were 100 and 70 years old when he was born.
It's never just one mistake. Clickohphiles don't pay attention to what they're doing. Ever.


Thanks to Linda for the head up about this profile and to Madelyn for the earworm of a title ;-)
If you have a tree or profile to suggest please send the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks! 


PREVIOUS POST: The Genealogy of Jesus
NEXT POST: Leaving the New Ancestry

The Genealogy of Jesus

Because it can't be repeated often enough...

Rule #4: The Bible is not a source for your family tree.

A few months ago someone made this comment on my Facebook page, "If you believe the Biblical accounts, once you got back to Joseph, the rest is done for you, back to Adam." As always I will not address religious beliefs so we'll skip over the "If you believe" part.
At the time that comment was posted I was listening to a book I read years ago. When I read it I had not yet been bitten by the genealogy bug. As I went through it this time I had a completely different perspective.

"Of all the many thousands of accidental mistakes made in our manuscripts, probably the most bizarre is one that occurs in a minuscule manuscript of the four Gospels officially numbered 109, which was produced in the fourteenth century. Its peculiar error occurs in Luke, chapter 3, in the account of Jesus's genealogy. The scribe was evidently copying a manuscript that gave the genealogy in two columns. For some reason, he did not copy one column at a time, but copied across the two columns. As a result, the names of the genealogy are thrown out of whack, with most people being called the sons of the wrong father. Worse still, the second column of the text the scribe was copying did not have as many lines as the first, so that now, in the copy he made, the father of the human race (i.e., the last one mentioned) is not God but an Israelite named Phares; and God himself is said to be the son of a man named Aram!"

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman

The printing press wasn't invented until the 15th century. That's a few thousand years of transcriptions and translations. To use The Bible as a source you would be trusting a transcription of a transcription of a transcription of a translation of a transcription of a...you get the idea. Most were done by scribes, many of whom were copying things they could not actually read. Those who could read might add or leave out a word if they didn't agree with something.
Of course none of that matters because you cannot get "back to Joseph."
"But..." Nope.
"I saw a tree..." No!
It is just not possible to have a documented line from a living person to anyone in The Bible so please stop.


PREVIOUS POST: Switcheroo Follow-Up
NEXT POST: Baby Love

Switcheroo Follow-Up

Monday's post was shared on a number of Facebook pages/groups. After reading the comments I can divide them into three categories. These apply to pretty much every article ever posted on Facebook.

1) Those who read the article and understood it.
2) Those who only read the headline.
3) Those who read the article but completely missed the point.

The first group doesn't need a follow-up to Monday's post. The second group won't read this post either. This post is for the third group. After the jump I'll try to put this is the simplest, clearest terms.

Subscription Switcheroo

*NOTE: This is written from the perspective of a U.S. resident and Ancestry.com subscriber. I am not aware of any new subscription plans for Ancestry.co.uk, Ancestry.com.au, or any other Ancestry sites.

If you have your Ancestry.com account set to auto renew you might not be aware that Ancestry is "testing" a new subscription strategy. These are subscription options we are familiar with:

You should still see these options if you are a current subscriber. That would lead me to believe that if your subscription is set to auto renew it will renew at the same level. Of course Ancestry hasn't actually said anything about testing a new price plan. Nothing on the community news board. Nothing on their blog. Nothing on the message boards.

Screen caps are included after the jump but if you'd like to see Ancestry's new subscription options for yourself click this link. You may have to log out of Ancestry to view the new options. It's because it can only be seen on certain browsers. Even clearing cookies/cache won't change that. (Stopping myself from going on a rant about Ancestry's programmers here.)

AFTER THE JUMP: What they're willing to tell us

High Cheekbones and Straight Black Hair

For many years a colleague of mine thought I was half Hungarian, half Japanese. Why? Because I resemble another friend of hers who is half Hungarian, half Japanese. You can see from my family's DNA results that there is no way I am half Hungarian or half Japanese.
Some of you seem to think certain physical traits can be assigned to a specific ethnicity. Like everyone with high cheekbones and/or straight black hair has Native American ancestry. That photo of your ancestor is not definitive proof that he/she was Native American.
Does this person "look Indian" to you?

Behind the scenes on Cecil B. DeMille's Unconquered, 1947. [Tumblr]

That is William Henry Pratt, a.k.a. Boris Karloff. He was born in London, England and is of Anglo-Indian descent, not Native American.
What about the iconic "Crying Indian"?

That is Espera Oscar de Corti, a.k.a. Iron Eyes Cody. He was born in Louisiana to Sicilian immigrants. He has no Native American ancestry whatsoever.
Your family photo is proof of nothing. Stop making assumptions based on looks. You just look foolish and sound racist.

PREVIOUS POST: De-lightful and De-lovely
NEXT POST: Subscription Switcheroo

De-lightful and De-lovely

By now you are probably aware that changes are coming to the Ancestry.com website. From Ancestry's perspective these are their priorities:

Isn't it great that they finally listened to their users? I mean, haven't we all been asking for a more "beautiful" and "delightful" site? I can't wait! [eyeroll] And "usable"? Shouldn't that be a given? Apparently Ancestry programmers need to be told specifically that the site needs to be usable.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the design team's goals are a joke. Here a few comments from a Facebook thread on Ancestry's fan page:

• Too bad "functional" isn't one of the goals.
• I´d really rather see that they fixed the problems, first, before creating, possibly, more.
• how about not seizing up every few minutes, or being down entirely a lot; that would be an awesome change....

The comments on Ancestry's blog post are worth reading too. Here are a couple of examples:

• Don’t forget that Function is the first and foremost need of the customers. All the pretty bells and whistles in the world won’t make up for the issues that customers have been encountering for several years now (system instability, phantom hints, poor messaging system, duplicate databases, etc.) Make sure those things are fixed before ever rolling this out
• FUNCTION is the most important issue. Let’s not put lipstick on a pig.

Right now the media gallery is not functional in beta but there are plans, big plans, for a complete makeover.

"The Media Gallery makes it easier for you to manage all your media – records, videos, photos, stories – in one place to enhance the story of your family."

Um, that is different from the current media gallery how?
For years the most requested feature has been the ability to change the order of photos on a profile. If that isn't part of the coming changes the entire update will be a giant fail. All the emphasis has been on storytelling and the easiest way to tell a story is by putting photos in chronological order. As it is now the only way to do that is to upload and attach photos in reverse chronological order.
Yesterday a new site glitch made an appearance.

That's a sign that Ancestry's programmers are doing something. They've never been able to add anything without breaking things in the process.
Are you a beta tester? What's your opinion so far?


PREVIOUS POST: Wilder Than Your Tree
NEXT POST: High Cheekbones and Straight Black Hair

Wilder Than Your Tree

Posting *head/desk* without *head/desk* comment. *head/desk*head/desk*head/desk*

 Laura E. Ingalls  male
  Birth 7 February 1867 in Pepin County, WI,
  Death 10 February 1957 in Mansfield, Wright County, MO,

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Doung Blunt (1891 - ) male
 ✿ 3 Living Male Children
 ✿ 3 Living Female Children

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Mary (1889- ) female
 ✿ Gearld W Ackerman, b. 1895
 ✿ Amanda Aseneth Ackerson, b. 1907
 ✿ Amonda Ackerson, b. 1908
 ✿ Maud Ackerson, b. 1908
 ✿ Clonnie J Ackerson, b. 1910
 ✿ Clarence Ackerson, b. 1911
 ✿ Iola Rose Ackerson, b. 1913

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Claire Gillette Lane (1887-1968) male
 ✿ Wilder CaClaire Lane, b. 1910

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Almanzo James Wilder (1857-1949) male
 ✿ Rose Wilder Lane, b. 1886
 ✿ Wilder, b. 1889

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Almanzo James Wilder (1857-1949) male
 ✿ Rose Wilder Lane, b. 1886
 ✿ Wilder, b. 1889

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Bertha aka Birdie Byrd Ingalls (1878-1953) female
 ✿ 1 Living Female
 ✿ George W Ackerson, b. 1895
 ✿ Lela Pearl Ackerson, b. 1897
 ✿ Eva Maude Ackerson, b. 1899
 ✿ Clonnie J Ackerman, b. 1910

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Bird V (1878-1953) female
 ✿ George W Ackerson, b. 1895
 ✿ Lela Pearl Ackerson, b. 1897
 ✿ Eva Maude Ackerson, b. 1899

 SPOUSE & CHILDREN
 Mary Caroline Buchholz (1889-1958) female
 ✿ 1 Living Female
 ✿ Gearld W Ackerman, b. 1895
 ✿ Amanda Aseneth Ackerson, b. 1907
 ✿ Maud Ackerson, b. 1908
 ✿ Clonnie J Ackersman, b. 1910
 ✿ Clarence Ackerson, b. 1911
 ✿ Iola Rose Ackerson, b. 1913

 RECORDS ATTACHED TO PROFILE

 ✿ 1880 U.S. Federal Census
     Ira Ackerson, male, b. abt 1873 in Iowa; living in Fairfield, Grundy, Iowa
 ✿ 1880 U.S. Federal Census
     Laura E. Ingalls, female, b. abt 1867 in Wisconsin; living in De Smet, Kingsbury, Dakota Territory
 ✿ 1892 New York State Census
     Ira Ackerson, male, b. abt 1872 in USA
 ✿ 1900 U.S. Federal Census
     Ira R Ackerson, male, b. Jun 1872 in Iowa; living in Beaver, Butler, Iowa
 ✿ 1910 U.S. Federal Census
     Ira Ackerson, male, b. abt 1874 in Iowa; living Iowa, Marshall, Iowa
 ✿ 1915 Iowa State Census
     Iva Ackerson, male, b. abt 1874 in Iowa
 ✿ 1920 U.S. Federal Census
     Ira Ackerson, male, b. abt 1873 in Iowa; living Albion, Butler, Iowa
 ✿ 1925 Iowa State Census
     Lela Blunt, female, b. abt 1898 in Iowa; father Ira Ackerson
 ✿ 1925 Iowa State Census
     Ira Ackerson, male, b. abt 1874 in Iowa
 ✿ 1930 U.S. Federal Census
     Ira Ackerson, male, b. abt 1874 in Iowa; living in Beaver, Butler, Iowa
 ✿ Family Data Collection
     Laura Elizabeth Ingalls, b. 7 Feb 1867, d. 10 Feb 1957
 ✿ U.S. WWI Draft Registration
     Ira Ackerson, b. 7 Jun 1873 in USA
 ✿ 10 Ancestry Member Trees
     8 for Ira Ackerson, 1 for Laura Elizabeth Ingalls, 1 for Rose Wilder

Thanks to Kristin for the link to this profile. ;-)
If you have a tree or profile to suggest please send the link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com. Thanks! 


PREVIOUS POST: Ancestry Tech
NEXT POST: De-lightful and De-lovely

Ancestry Tech

There has been so much I've wanted to write about that my brain just froze up and I haven't written in weeks. Sorry about that. So here I go trying to kick things into gear again.
Earlier this month The Ancestry Insider wrote an interesting summary of a presentation given by Ancestry.com at the RootsTech Innovator's Summit. You can read that post here. Three things stood out to me.

1) They "noticed that new users came to Ancestry.com and typed in their own names, then left when they found nothing." Tech Department meet Marketing Department.

You two might want to chat occasionally.

2) It's pretty standard to use stats to tout the site...

...but the numbers are not all that impressive once you take a look behind the curtain. The 60 million trees include junk trees and trees created users who click, click, click and are never heard from again once their free trial is over. A single tree back to Adam & Eve requires hundreds of unsourced, completely made up profiles. Hints accepted include clip art (ships, flags, coats of arms, etc.), images of fruit, urinals, and who knows what else. Urinals? Seriously? Even the number of records attached is worthless because it includes these collections, redundant Find A Grave collections, and tree owners who will attach absolutely anything and everything.

3) Of course I saved the best for last. This is the next to last paragraph:

"In the question and answer segment, someone asked that if Ancestry.com was so interested in learning from their customers, why wasn’t there a feedback link somewhere on their site. They explained that Ancestry.com has millions of customer interactions and that if they had a feedback link, they would not be able to review all the submissions. It’s a bad idea to ask for input and that you don’t actually read."

If they don't want feedback it's a good thing there's no feedback link on their site. Oh wait...

The screen cap is from this page which can be found by 
going to Ancestry.com and clicking the "Collaborate" tab.

Ancestry's answer confirms two things about their tech team that we knew all along. First, they don't read the feedback and second, they don't use the site.


PREVIOUS POST: Do Not Ancestry
NEXT POST: Wilder Than Your Tree

Do Not Ancestry

UPDATE: Apparently there's a new subscription level for DNA users but the only reference I've found for it is this thread in the "community." Note that comments are closed on that thread.

AncestryDNA is now available in the United Kingdom and Ireland but it looks like Ancestry doesn't really want to sell any tests. The price of the test is £99. That's about $150 US. In the US the test sells for $99. Shipping to the UK and Ireland is three times what it is here, £20 ($30). US shipping is $9.95. And that's just the beginning.
For everyone purchasing a test after September or October 2014 (Ancestry has  not given an exact cutoff date) the following items are no longer included in the price of the test:

- List of surnames in common with matches.
- Ability to message your matches.
- Viewing the pedigree of your match's tree.
- Shared Ancestor Hints
- DNA Circles

Any tests purchased before the arbitrary date will still have those features with or without a subscription. AncestryDNA already lags behind when it comes to comparison tools and now they're moving what little they do have behind a pay wall.
The closest competitor for AncestryDNA is FamilyTreeDNA's autosomal test, Family Finder. Their test is $99. Period. Their prices do not vary by country. Standard shipping to most countries is $9.95 and they will ship everywhere except Iran and Sudan. And, most notably, using their comparison tools does not require a separate subscription.
When Ancestry jumped into the autosomal market they drove down prices. Once it became clear that autosomal tests would be the "next big thing" they dumped their Y and mt tests. Do they think they've cornered the market? Are they that confident in their minimal DNA tools? Do they think customers will be loyal no matter what?
Anyone have any insights on this?

[Full disclosure: I have no association with any DNA company except as a customer. I purchased a Y-DNA test from FamilyTreeDNA but have not purchased their Family Finder test. I received my first AncestryDNA test for free and have since purchased six more.]


PREVIOUS POST: Waste of Space
NEXT POST: Ancestry Tech

Waste of Space

Today we have photos uploaded to a single profile. Along with the images below there are scans of a baptismal record and a marriage record. Each of those is uploaded twice.

✿

Title: seal of NJ
Uploaded: 8 times

✿

Title: seal of NY
Uploaded: 8 times

✿

Title: New_Amsterdam_1684_Visscher
Uploaded: 9 times

That's 29 uploads for 5 photos to one profile. The last image has been attached 21 times to 7 other trees. That's right, it has been attached multiple times to other trees. Not that you can tell from the image but it's a drawing of New Amsterdam from 1648.


Thanks to Kristin for the link to this profile ;-)


PREVIOUS POST: Cousins Are Not Ancestors
NEXT POST: Do Not Ancestry

Cousins Are Not Ancestors

UPDATED after another error was found.

There was a statement made on this week's episode of Genealogy Roadshow that made me do a double take. But first, a statement that probably had historians yelling at their television sets.
The opening of each episode contains some history of the city they are filming in. The Saint Louis episode included this "fact":

 Narrator: "Named for the French Monarch, Louis the Fourteenth..."

According to the city's official site, Saint Louis was named for Louis IX.
The quote that made me do a double take was in the Laura Ingalls Wilder segment [starts at 44:25]. The entire segment, most of this episode in fact, was filled with "may be" and "might be." There was no definitive answer on whether the family was related to Laura Ingalls Wilder, just a huge leap of faith based on proximity. That was bad enough but then there was this:

 Kenyatta Barry: "You've been reading the books written by your pioneering ancestor."

Aunts, uncles, and cousins, no matter how distant, are not ancestors. If these families are connected, and that's still a pretty big if, Laura Ingalls Wilder would be a distant cousin. They are definitely not the author's descendants which means she is definitely not their ancestor.

UPDATE: 
Starting at 38:35 in the episode linked above you see James Whaley (b. 1921-). He is the grandfather of the young man Josh Taylor has at his table. Dass Whaley (1883-1967) is the young man's great-grandfather.

Josh Taylor: "He married a woman named Chanch Leopold and we were able to trace the Leopold family back..."

While it is never stated that Chanch Leopold is the mother of James Whaley the on-screen chart shows they are linked and reads, "Great Grandmother: 1931 - ??."
Dass made quite the catch finding a woman willing to marry a man almost 50 years her senior. And giving birth to James 10 years before she herself was born? That miracle should've been the highlight of the show.
*head/desk*head/desk*head/desk*


PREVIOUS POST: Empire States
NEXT POST: Waste of Space

Empire State

There are over 1000 Ancestry member trees with a profile for the person below. I stopped looking once I got to 1000. Too depressing. The profiles have varying amounts of detail and none of them has a record attached. I know, you're shocked, especially since there are so many records available for the time period. </sarcasm>
One tree owner posted their exciting find (Dau Asinia's spouse) on Ancestry's Facebook page. Of course Ancestry liked it. Gotta keep encouraging those clickophiles. Sigh.

 Dau V Asinia
 Birth: 0180 in Empire, Plaquemines, Louisiana, United States
 Death: 230 in Empire, Dodge, Georgia, United States

 SPOUSE
 Quintus Anicius Paulinus
 Birth: abt 180 in Rome, Roma, Lazio, Italy
 Death: in Rome, Roma, Lazio, Italy

 CHILD
 Quintus Anicius Paulinus
 Birth: 180 in France
 Death: 230 in Rome, Roma, Lazio, Italy

 Marriages (none have dates)
 To Quintus Anicius Paulinus in Empire,
 To Quintus Anicius Paulinus in Empire, Dodge,
 To Quintus Anicius Paulinus in Empire, Dodge, Georgia, United States
 To Quintus Anicius Paulinus in Empire, Plaquemines, Louisiana, United States
 To Quintus Anicius Paulinus in Rome, Roma, Lazio, Italy

 FATHER
 Ascyllius VonEastern Francs
 Birth: 0323 in , , Sachsen, Germany
 Death: 0379 in , , Sachsen, Germany

 MOTHER
 Mother VonEastern Franks
 Birth: 277 in Sachen, , , Germany
 Death: in Old, , Sachsen, Germany

PREVIOUS POST: 150th Generation
NEXT POST: Cousins Are Not Ancestors

150th Generation

It's the beginning of the year, time for an Adam & Eve post.

Title: Adam & Eve

Uploaded: Once and attached to 14 different profiles

One profile for
Adam First Man

Six profiles for
Adam Father of all mankind The First Patriarch 150TH GENERATION
Birth 4000 BC in Garden of Eden
Death 3070 BC in East of Eden

Seven profiles for
Eve Mother of all mankind The First Matriarch 150TH GENERATION
Birth 4025 BC in Garden of Eden
Death 3034 BC in Garden of Eden

Attached to: 33 other trees


PREVIOUS POST: Top Ten
NEXT POST: Empire State

Top Ten

Barking is now 3 years old! Happy Blogiversary to me ;-)
Thanks to all of you who read my blog and keep me going!
If you have just started reading Barking or if you've missed some posts this year be sure to check out the top ten posts of 2014. Below that are the top five posts from the past three years.

TOP TEN of 2014

10. No Leeway
      A crazy tree with premature births and zombies.

9. Dead End Street
    A bizarre profile for "Cul De Sac."

8. The Biblical Rule
    Rule #4: The Bible is not a source for your family tree.

7. Social Disgrace: Double Down
    An Ancestry employee refuses to read the Ancestry help page he's posting.

6. Kan u hep me fine my famly?
    Spelling usually doesn't count in genealogy except...

5. Etched in Stone
    A rant about some questionable research featured on Finding Your Roots.

4. What the WHAT?
    Comments from genealogy Facebook pages that will have you shaking your head.

3. The Best Newspaper Site For You
    How to find the best newspaper site for you.

2. Social Disgrace III
    Examples of Ancestry.com's social media failures.

1. Bottomless Pit
    A profile with 2000 marriage events and that's just the tip of the iceberg.


TOP FIVE 2012-2014

5. You might be a clickophile...
    A list, a la Jeff Foxworthy, of clickophile behavior.

4. The 10 Commandments of Genealogy 
    Exactly what it sounds like.

3. Apologies Only Go So Far 
    A rant after the Ancestry site crash of 2013.

2. My DNA Results 
    My own DNA results from the BETA stage of AncestryDNA.

1. Free Gen Websites 
    Research ideas for those on a tight budget.



PREVIOUS POST: New Year's Resolutions
NEXT POST: 150th Generation