The Lighter Side of Genealogical Research... and a few tips.
Hi all,
There's an issues that continually make genealogical research difficult. It involves how script was written in the 18th and 19th century.
There were times when the script of that era was written quite ornately, i.e. with much flare. A case in point is the "C" of "Clugh". If you will look at the example below, you will see an excerpt for Joseph Snyder Clugh's 1877 baptism. Notice that the "C" looks like "Pe". That's because the "C" was written with an upper and lower curley-cue. The upper part of the curley-cue makes it look like a "P" and the lower part of the curley-cue makes it look like an "e", but it's not.
For comparison, I've also included below an excerpt from the 1900 census where John Clugh's "C" is written quite ornately.
Because of this convention, I've seen some family "Clugh" names written incorrectly as "Pelugh" when they are, in fact, "Clugh".
Happy Hunting!
Hi All,
I've been busy looking into Public Records searches and came upon a few websites. One thing that must be stressed is that just because a website says they're good, doesn't necessarilly mean they are.
One site boasted of 100% results and so I entered my name for a nationwide search. Of course it came up as a positive search, but then they said I had to pay for their service if I wanted to actually see the document.
Then to test the site I went back, refreshed the page and entered Bart Simpson and that he lived in Australia. Again it came up positive. Okay, I thought, maybe there is a Bart Simpson in Australia.
Then I went back, refreshed the page again and entered Mickey Mouse living in Australia... again the test came up positive. Again, I decided there just might be a French guy Named "Michael" in Australia who pronounces his last name "Mou-say".
Then I went back, refreshed the page again and entered Darth Vader and that he was living in India... again, a positive search, and again I surmised there might be a sci-fi geek in India with Darth Vader as their handle.
I then did the same for: Myxlptlwyks Vader, Myxlptlwyx Shlomo, and Schleppy Schlemeil... all came up as positive searches.
Here's the real issue. Search engines are dumb. They don't always differentiate a first name from a last name. The name "Mickey Mouse" may turn up 65 results, but what the webpage in question doesn't tell you is that those 65 results may be made up of "Mickey Mouse", "Mickey", or "Mouse". The website doesn't tell you that up front.
Lesson learned...
Hi all,
Some time ago (September 14, 2011), I contacted a cemetery volunteer and asked for help in tracking down an ancestor who was buried in said cemetery. The initials used below are fictitous to retain privacy of the individuals listed.
First, I called one of the numbers listed for the cemetery. It was out of order. I later found a second number. It was a private number for "B" who used to do volunteer work at the cemetery. She said she would be more than happy to help me but said she was busy and would get back to me in a week. Two weeks went by without hearing from her so I called her again. She apologized, said she was very busy, and that she would look up the information and get back to me in another week. Two more weeks went by I called her again. This time there was no answer. I waited a few more days and called her again... again there was no answer.
The next day I received a call from "D". She said she knew "B" and that "B" was too busy and that "D" would be more than happy to help me. I was thrilled. "D" sounded sincere. I gave "D" all the information. "D" said she would do some research for me and get back to me the next day. "D" said she would even go to the local library and try to find what she could and then get back to me. I gave "D" my name, phone number, address, and email address. Two weeks went by without hearing from "D". I called her again but there was no answer. I waited another week, called "D" again but to no avail.
I then emailed a local funeral service and asked if they could help me. They did some research and came up with a phone number. It was for "D"; the same number that didn't work. I then called a local sewage treatment plant near the cemetery. A woman, "F", answered and after giving her my information and why I was calling, she said she lived just a short distance from the cemetery. She asked me who I had tried contacting. I told her I tried "B" and "D" but that they didn't come through with any help. She said she knew both "B" and "D" and was surprised they couldn't help me. She then gave me the name of another funeral home and that I should ask for "G".
I called "G", introduced my self and explained why I was calling. He asked me who I had previously contacted. I told him I spoke to both "B" and "D" but they couldn't help. He was surprised as he knew both of them and stated that they both were long-time volunteers at the cemetery in question, and he didn't understand why they couldn't help me. He also said that "B" and "D" didn't just know each other, but that they were related! He then gave me another phone number for "D". This turned out to be the real phone number, not the one that came up on my caller ID when "D" initially called.
I called "D". She was surprised to hear from me and apologized for not getting back to me but was busy (yeah, right).
I told her that it was "G" who gave me her phone number. She said she knew "G". She said she found a bit of information and
would send it to me the next day.
That was a two months ago.
Frustrating, to say the least, but that's how it goes with genealogical research.
Hi all,
Let me tell you a bit about how an old family tradition pointed the way to a new fact...
First, some background info...
FM = my maternal grandmother
GO = her father
M = her paternal grandmother
J = her paternal grandfather
My maternal grandmother's first and middle names were "F" and "M", respectively. Her father's first and middle names were "G" and "O". Also, while we have always known about my grandmother's maternal grandparents, we never knew anything about her paternal grandparents.
One day I remembered that oftentimes people would give a middle name to their newly born child based on the first name of one of their own parents. Since my grandmother's middle name was "M", I surmised her paternal grandmother's first name must have been "M". With that in mind, I did a search for "M" + her last name. I found one who was married to a "J" and they had a son named "G" "O". The problem here is that sometimes their son was listed as "G" "O", and other times he was listed as "O" "G". Because of this descrepency, and even though the docs pretty much pointed the way, I didn't consider it 100% proof positive.
It was only after finding the obit for "G" "O", that the names of his parents, "J" and "M", were 100% verified. While it was the obit that verified the fact of who was who and in what relationship, the former assumption of an old family tradition pointed the way!
I hope that wasn't too confusing!!! Good luck with your research!
Hi all,
Some time ago, the suggestion was made that I submit our Klugh name to both the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) and the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR). This would be nice, but there are a few requirements to do so.
Basically, we would have to prove (with documentation) that a direct link exists from us to one of our ancestors who participated in the Revolutionary War. The documents are necessary to prove a link to and through each generation back to the Revolutionary War era. It can't be hearsay. To date, we don't even have documents to prove the connection between our Butler Klugh line and the Lancaster Klughs. Until we establish that connection, it's a moot point since it's the Lancaster Klughs who were alive during the Revolution.
I know the family lore says we come from Lancaster, but saying you "know" it is useless if it's not established with documentation. When the person who "knows" it dies off, the so-called knowledge they had will die with them and the hearsay will become even more dubious, and will become more so as each generation dies off in turn. That's why I'm working so obsessively on our lineage.
I talk a lot about one descendant from the Lancaster Klughs, John Mahey. John passed away in 2010. He inspired me greatly on the importance of documentation. I interacted with him quite a few times before he died. He's the reason why I have so much documentation on the site. John devoted most of his adult life trying to establish a connection between the Butler Klughs and those in Lancaster, but was unable to do so.
There are other descendants from the Lancaster Klughs, the Arnolds, who are descended from Peter Arnold and who married Hannah Klugh. Hannah was involved in Revolutionary War work, and so the Arnold family qualified to become a member of the SAR.
I have both their genealogy reports on the website... on the Home page, at the bottom... as well as the Carolina Klughs... take a look.
As Walter Cronkite used to say... "And that's the way it is..." (can you hear his voice?)
Here are links to read up on both the DAR and SAR
Happy Research!
(c) July 4, 2011: (All rights reserved)