FOI, not FFS.

As a hobby genealogist, I probably spend as much time developing my three key networks as I do actually researching. They are:

1) The wider family and local history community,

2) The cousins, especially those who research our family,

3) My online genealogy networks (eg Twitter).

Yes, this takes away a lot of research time, but it leads to much better research.

Exhibit A:

Recently of course it was May, and in South Australia that means one magnificent thing: History Month and the History Festival. It's hard to juggle the events with the little twigs and work, but I get to as much as I can. One of the things I did this year was go to the Open Day at State Records, an experience I highly recommend. I got to tour the Archives, hear about some of the items, and get some research assistance. It was also a chance to mourn the decision made by the Chief Archivist during one of the wars to pulp most of the inquest records to retrieve paper... Why... why...

Or in this case, I don't always pulp records, but when I do they're the most interesting ones...

Only a few weeks before I'd done some research with State Records on my Lavis History Mystery. Using the indexes available online, I had discovered that Albert Sydney Lavis, Louisa Ellen Lavis and Lucy Jane Lavis had been boarded out and had ordered the records detailing this. These records told me four really important things:

1) That they'd been turned in by their only-slightly-older sister Amelia*. Amelia had escaped the family dysfunction by marrying at 14. She gave birth to her first child just before her 16th birthday, took on the care of her three younger siblings who had been abandoned by their mother Ellen, and then had her first child die. I can well understand it got a bit much.

2) That the children were fostered out to their childless aunt, Asenath Bacon.

3) That a few years later they had been removed from Asenath and sent to Solomon Wiseman.

4) That State Records' copying service is really, really cheap.

Says it all, really

The records referred to item #3 as being referenced in a set of Minutes, the problem being the Minutes are part of a government record series which is sealed as it contains details of adoptions which took place less than 100 years ago.

The lovely people from State Records helped me get all the information I needed to lodge a Freedom of Information request for the minutes. They tell me that, given the age of the records I'm after, I'll certainly be granted permission to access that section of the record series, and while there's no telling what I'll find, it's probably the only possibility of a definitive answer to the Family History Mystery of how the children of Walter Lavis (impoverished bigamist at large and former inmate of Adelaide Gaol) ended up inheriting thousands of pounds from Solomon Wiseman when there was no apparent connection between the families at all.

Meanwhile...

I emailed my relatives on that side of the family to update them with my findings. All of us have been working on cracking this one for years. We have notes from 30 odd years ago where family are pondering over theories on what happened. One of my relatives said she also had an update for me, and let me know that Ellen had remarried (possibly bigamously) to James Pitt in Jamestown in 1884. However, and more interestingly, in between her second and third marriages she had a child named Edith May Norbury. Poor Edith was not blessed with long life, and passed away in Yancowinna Station, Silverton, in 1885.

What's interesting about that?

A little google of my DLF Solomon Wiseman once lead me to the piece of information that, before becoming a grazier and even before becoming one of the original BHP share-holders he was, of all the unexpected things, a rabbit inspector.

You have to start somewhere, even if your grandfather is King of the Hawkesbury

Armed with that information I consulted the ever-reliable and constantly surprising Trove, where I found out that...

I see you, you wascally wabbits

In 1885, Solomon Wiseman was in Silverton on at least two occasions.

Now, I know that's not evidence of anything, but by working with some of the fantastic networks out there I have placed Ellen Pitt nee Clifford nee Lavis nee Maynard and Solomon Wiseman in the same town in the same year, not two years before her children were moved to his care. Coinkydink? Possibly not! At the time the population of Silverton was at its peak, roughly 3000, which is still quite small enough for them to have met, especially since Ellen was at a Station and Wiseman is described as visiting Stations.

Now to wait for the results of the FOI request! Hopefully they add more detail than Nellie Smith's death certificate which turned out to be a dead-end of 'unknowns'. Watch this space!!

*Amelia went on to ditch her own family of 8. She fled to WA, had another 7 to someone else, and lived to the grand old age of 94.

Heirloom Hand-over

A while back I alluded to the fact I'd received a mysterious comment on Ancestry. Someone had commented on the image of my great-grandparent's marriage certificate that they had the original. That line of my family is very small, so I was pretty surprised to say the least. After quite a few delays, I met up with the lovely woman who commented and she handed me over two items she found while cleaning out her shed. It turns out her husband's grandfather married my great-grandmother, which goes to show that you never know who will still have items of interest to your family!

1) A picture of my great-aunt Annie

This is quite unusual. It's made almost like a badge is, with the back pressed into the picture. It's a photo I already had, but it's very special to own the one which actually belonged to my great-grandmother and was probably on display in her house.

2) The marriage certificate

Obviously I had applied quite some time ago to get a copy of this, and so had all the relevant information already. You'll see it points out things like the occupation of the participants' fathers, their current residence, age at marriage etc.

One of the things this shows is that Margaret said she was 21, the legal age to marry without her parents' consent. A year later when Annie was born she was recorded as being 19. On the original you may notice a teeny tiny difference...

You can actually see where someone (lookin' at YOU here, Margaret) has changed the year so that it shows how old she really was. And this people, is why you want to get original certificates where-ever possible.

A slightly old meme, I know, but I couldn't resist...

Take THAT, Brick Wall!

Firstly, apologies: I've been a bad blogger!

Some blog news. Thanks to the good people at the Australian & Local Family History Blog Group on FB, my blog is now being archived by the National Library of Australia as a future resource for researchers. Now that's some motivation to get blogging!

Hope they've got a fucking language warning on that one!

Nothing much has changed here. I am still waiting to hear from the person who has the McDermott treasures. I am still in possession of That Family Heirloom. I still can't work out who killed Nellie Cunningham.

BUT...

Some time ago I posted about Ken Taylor, International DNA Man of Mystery (IDNAMoM). His parents were Unknown Male and Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire Female. He then married Sheila Smith aka Sheila Stanley, daughter of Unknown Male and Miss Nellie Smith. Yeah... there's a lot to go on there...

At the time I made mention of the unwillingness of their living children to shed any helpful light on the situation. I don't even know when my mother in law's brother was born! However, I have never given up hope of finding out more, and every so often go on convoluted fishing expeditions in an attempt to trick the living relatives into disclosing even a little something I could go on. I've bribed them with chocolate. I've plied them with alcohol. I've tried catching them by surprise. I even bought one of them a "Love Actually" DVD. It's got me nowhere.

Help from an Unlikely Source

Fast forward to a few days ago. My husband's cousin, who through age gap and geography is not a person we really keep in touch with, prompted her mother to take pictures of some old photos on her phone. Thinking she might as well, said mother forwarded them all to my mother-in-law, who mentioned it since she's generally prone to telling you every single thing she did last week (right down to how many tomatoes she got at the supermarket) and I don't think knows how to stop herself.

"Photos?" I say. "I must see these photos."

Sheila Smith AKA Sheila Stanley

Well, she could hardly stop me! In the end I had to wrest the phone from her very reluctant but aging and arthritic hands. Muahahaha - er, I mean, I managed to see the photos after applying a little gentle persuasion. Nothing unethical HERE. As I was looking through the photos, she said one was of 'Uncle Phil.'

Possibly Sheila, pictured with Phillip Smith

"Uncle Phil?" I say. "I've never heard of him. Where does he fit in?"

"Ohhhh," she said. "He was Sheila's brother. She had lots of siblings. There was Morris and Phil, Rosie, Eileen, or was it Elaine? Some others as well."

I could hardly write it down fast enough and skipped out the door to hop on both Ancestry and Find My Past to see what I could find. Smith? Nothing to go on. Morris, Phil, Rosie Smith... Now we're talking. I eventually found a Catholic family from Hookina who had quite a number of children including Ellen, Maurice, Phillip and Rose. AND a person on Ancestry who was researching them! It seemed they were more likely to be Sheila's aunts and uncles than siblings, but it had to be them.

At 11:30 last night I received a message from an equally excited Smith researcher confirming that YES, our Smiths are his Smiths. Suddenly I've gone from no Smiths to three generations back, and have crossed the pond. Boo-yah!

One Lovely Blog Award

Kerryn from Ancestor Chasing very kindly nominated me for the One Lovely Blog award. Thank you, Kerryn!

There you have it!

You can see her nomination here.

The deal is that when nominated, one is to do the following:

Thank the person that nominated you and link back to that blog.
◾Share seven things about yourself – see below.
◾Nominate 15 bloggers you admire –or as many as you can think of!
◾Contact your bloggers to let them know you’ve tagged them for the One Lovely Blog Award

So...

7 things you hate about me:

1. I swear even more in my internal monologue.
2. I am completely dependent on Pura Classic Mocha flavoured milk.
3. I watch less television than virtually every other person you know.
4. I have managed to reach middle age without ever leaving the country.
5. I've been doing serious family history research for more of my life than I haven't.
6. I really hope I started young enough to get it up to a standard and level of completion I'm happy with before I peg out, because I hate not seeing things through.
7. My idea of getting out for some exercise is going for a walk to visit relations at the cemetery.

15 bloggers:

She's been nominated previously, but I'm sure it's no shock one of my very favourite blogs is the completely awesome Clue Wagon: hitting the genealogy world with a much needed clue by four. I also enjoy hearing what Catie from Genealogically Speaking has to say. As a fellow Gen Xer (and person with few mutual relations), Alona from Lonetester always has something I find interesting and informative. Continuing on the age bracket theme, I highly recommend people go check out Carrie, DOM*, at Not Your Mother's Genealogy. Another must-see is Lynn's work on The Armchair Genealogist. They all rock! There's been a recent change of focus on the Rebel Hand blog to update those of us aiming to be 'shoestring genealogists' on bargain information sources. Of course I get all my genealogy tech tips from Thomas at Hack Genealogy and look to the good people from Geneartistry for ideas about how to incorporate more visual flair into presenting my research and displaying my heirlooms. It's been quiet on the blog front since Catherine passed away, but Saving Graves is still a must read for those with family buried in SA. Some related-to-but-not-actually-genealogy sites I follow include Victoriana Lady and The Thanatos Archive. Also along those lines I recommend Gerri Gray's Cemetery Photography. Just remember: the first rule of Cemetery Club is you don't talk about Cemetery Club. And, bending the rules because I can: the two people online whose every type written word I hang on are no doubt the good people behind literary analysis team Thug Notes and the recipe writing genii at Thug Kitchen. Love their work.

*Daughter of Myrt

Of course, being the foul-mouthed progeny of sailors you've come to know and... well, know, I'd much prefer to nominate people for the Totally Bitchin' Blog Award, or something like that. *Note to self: start Totally Bitchin' Blog Award when next have spare time*

Just Because...

I bet you can relate to this!

So, today I was at the supermarket when this completely random woman in her 40s wandered up to me and said something to the effect of "I know this sounds really weird, but I like doing nice things for strangers, and I thought you might like these flowers", and then presented me with a bunch of roses!

They were very lovely, but my first thought... actually, no, my first thought was "Sounds weird? Damn straight!" My second thought was "I can't take these home. What ever will my husband think?" So, I decided I'd have to move those roses on pronto!

Of course I spent a couple of minutes thinking of who is living near me that might appreciate having some impromptu flowers, but there wasn't really anyone who sprang to mind. Being a genealogist, my next thought was of course of who is non-living near me who might appreciate them. Within five minutes I was on the road to the nearest cemetery with plot numbers in hand, courtesy of Family Bee which lets me keep my family history file on my phone.

I decided to pick two people (it was 42 today, so I kept it limited!) to share the roses, both mums who had lost babies. Half the bunch went to Winifred McArthur, who is buried with her daughter, Dorothy, who died at 2 days old in 1904. Winifred followed her baby to the grave five days later. I notice since I last visited the metal part of her flower holder has disappeared.

Winifred's Headstone, taken last time I visited. Her husband was a Scotsman and there is a beautiful Gaelic inscription.

I left the other half of the bunch with Winifred Evans, who had a baby in 1920 while she was unmarried and gave the baby (also a girl) up for adoption, no doubt in response to considerable pressure from her family and probably hospital staff as well.

Both of them are buried in expired plots surrounded by other expired plots... they've had the Black Spot on them for ages. :( I know one day I'll go to them and they'll be engulfed in the black marble sea, but unless I win the Lotto there's not going to be much I can do about that

Anyway. The whole exercise took only about an extra ten minutes, and the flowers are now safely moved on to a more appropriate place. *phew* Crisis averted! Family history saves the day again!

If only Bad Luck Brian had installed Family Bee!



Stop! Collaborate and Listen!

You know you're GenX if you 'got' that one!

 

Every so often in genea-circles there are discussions about collaboration. Some people seem to think it is some solo endeavour, of old biddy pitted against the fiendish microfilm in a bid to read every document and visit every archive. Not me! I find it hilarious that as a student at school and uni, and in the workplace, I loathe group work, but when it comes to my genealogy I am a total convert to collaboration.

 

Firstly, there's all the wonderful collaboration with genealogists via Twitter, blogs and FB groups, to assist each other on the journey of collecting, analysing, recording and sharing our research. Then there's the mailing lists, helping out with specific areas of interest, particularly look-ups. I live very close by a particular cemetery, other people own particular CDs or subscribe to various websites.

 

The most important collaboration though would definitely be with relatives who are also researchers.

I am fortunate to have quite a few researchers on various lines, and in each instance there's been a different form of collaboration which has evolved.

 

Type 1: The one-off exchange

I copy all my stuff and send it off, the other person copies all his/her stuff and sends it to me, and then we both have the benefit of our collected research findings. Great for discovering odd, missed tid-bits, acquiring new photos and confirming previous avenues of research.

 

Type 2: The staged exchange

This has been the most common one I've found. We do the initial swap, then update each other should there be any major new breakthrough. My husband's relatives are good at this one.

 

Type 3: The round-table discussion

Rather like the above, but in person with biscuits. Far more fun!! My Evans relatives are fond of this approach.

 

Type 4: Full collaboration

I have a Dorey relative and a Sykes relative who are especially good at this. Not only do we update each other on our findings, but we vet each other's theories, double-check each other's conclusions, and strategically acquire resources so we don't double-up. It's terrific. We get the best possible bang for our buck and our time.

 

The only alternative is doing it all yourself, and there is just not enough time or money in the world for doing all the things that need to be done in our research!!

 



 

I'm hoping one day, when I have more time, to set up a Wiki to help facilitate family research. For example, I have about five Dawson researchers I keep in touch with. It would be so much simpler if we got a group share on the go, especially when it comes to files etc.

 

Anyone got any interesting experiences to share about how they manage their collaboration?

 

When I have time... Good one!!





Ethical Dilemmas #2 - Geneabloggers Open Thread Thursday

It's been very busy lately, so I'm going to be using my genealogy time to utilise my new spiffy Findmypast subscription rather than blogging this weekend - I need to relax! However, I had to chip in on the Geneabloggers Open Thread Thursday topic for the week: Ethical Dilemmas. I'm not going to blog about specific ethical dilemmas, as that's something I do regularly in  my blog (eg Mervyn Dawson, THAT family heirloom etc.) However, I'm going to list my key considerations when it comes to disclosing information.

1. I firstly always consider those who are living. If it's going to be deeply distressing or humiliating for a living relative, negative about them or adversely affect them, then there's no question I'd keep it on the down-low.

2. I also consider whether social attitudes have changed on the issue at hand. For example, illegitimacy has no social stigma now, so it doesn't trouble me to find out about that or share it. Nobody who hears it is going to think any the worse of my ancestor/relative now. In fact, often it's quite the opposite: people have more admiration for them for having faced adversity, or they enjoy having a connection to a good scandal or a total scoundrel.

3. If I think it will be a bit upsetting to someone, I may still share if I think there's a greater interest or another angle on things. For example, there are some cousins who might find the lack of genuine Scottish DNA on the part of Samuel McPherson a cause for concern. However, I maintain ongoing interest in all things Scottish is perfectly appropriate to those descended from someone raised by a Scotsman. It was part of how Samuel was brought up and what he was taught. The fact his actual genes came from elsewhere doesn't alter or lessen the impact that has had on our family and their identity. We know he saw John McPherson as his father. Not only that, I think the story of his true biological heritage brings another degree of richness to our family, and has always been part of our family story too (you can't turf his 'real' dad without turfing his 'real' grandma, who it turned out was also part of the heritage we'd been handed on.)

Apart from that, I've got to say I'm from the Publish and be damned club. Nobody wants to read a genealogy which makes the entire family sound like a bunch of sanctimonious fuckers. In addition, I'm not a big fan of cherry-picking in any form of life: you deal with the facts as they are and in their entirety. Then of course there's the fact that I'm generally lacking in gentle/subtle approaches or the ability to give a shit what anyone else thinks: those who know me personally know that for me, every day is Tell It Like It Is Tuesday! (I am, conversely, very hard to offend or upset.)

In answer to the title question, is there a 'right' to do genealogy? I say 'damn straight'!

And just to further get into the Tell It Like It Is Tuesday spirit...

 

As a totally off-topic addition, today I received a rather exhilarating geneaboost. I have many of my media files on Ancestry, including the marriage certificate of my semi-brick wall great-grandfather, Patrick McDermott, for whom I have never located a living relative aside from my immediate family. Consequently I went temporarily insane with excitement today to discover the following comment added to the file, which has been there unremarked upon for three and a half years: "Found this Certificate of Marriage in with family documents."

 

Can it be? Has someone found a copy of this certificate in a box they are clearing out, and checked on Ancestry to see what they can find out about the people it belonged to? Could this person turn out to be related to Patrick's brother who was alleged to have moved to Australia? Could his/her ancestors have known my ancestors? Will I find out more about Patrick? I shelled out $10 for a pay-per-record Ancestry subscription* just so I could message the comment's author, so I hope I hear back SOON!

 

*I have previously had a World Heritage subscription, but have rather exhausted the current records so decided to switch to Findmypast for the financial year and check out their stuff instead.



Geneahulk Coming Through

I've always been prone to being an angry person. My ethnic origin is Celtic (cue bad temper running rampant through the family tree), I work in a school and I have young children so I am chronically in a state of frazzled over-tiredness. However, this has really tipped me over the edge and turned me into the little-known Geneahulk.

A great many people in my family tree are buried in the Cheltenham Cemetery, SA. Half of my great-grandparents are in there, just for starters.

Luckily it's over the road from Bunnings, which is handy when I need more glue to re-attach the lettering!

South Australian readers will know that our metropolitan cemeteries here are without a doubt some of the biggest bastards out when it comes to redeveloping plots about thirty seconds after the ever-decreasing lease period has passed. Consequently it's no surprise that a large number of my family's plots have been redeveloped, or are currently adorned with the genealogical equivalent of the Black Spot, the 'about to be redeveloped' sticker. That hurts me. Not quite as badly as the time I turned up to Alberton to find the entire cemetery had been redeveloped, but nearly.

Even Success Kid likes headstones



I've often been prone to fits of moaning and bitching about the Adelaide Cemeteries Authority, the body charged with looking after the Cheltenham, over one grave in particular. The oldest Sykes to emigrate to Australia, the first Alberton Station Master, John Sykes, is buried in the Cheltenham, after somewhat ironically being disinterred from the Alberton Cemetery by his son-in-law who was worried the graves weren't being properly cared for. By a stroke of good fortune, his great-grandson Mervyn White, son of J E White, is buried in the plot and as such someone in the family extended the lease. That meant was still current when that section of the cemetery was last up for redevelopment. However, this has now expired. The ACA have said they haven't heard from any family members in years and are quite happy to hand over rights for renewal etc. to us provided that:

1) We take on responsibility for all three plots which share a common stone

2) We get the leaseholder's oldest descendant (who we think is still alive, but neither we or the ACA have been able to find out where to contact her) to sign a form giving us permission to take on the lease

3) We pay the thousands of dollars of fees to bring the lease up to date to now and then extend it.

Of all the cemeteries I have ever dealt with, this approach is by so far the most legalistic, profit-driven and painful I have encountered. They would seriously rather dig up our ancestors and bury total strangers in their plot than let us buy the remaining space in it and join our family when the time comes.  

The subject of my usual Cheltenham Cemetery frustrations!



Like most genealogists, and most Gen Xers, I'm no millionaire, so in reality I'm very unlikely ever to be able to afford to extend the lease. I've always consoled myself by thinking that maybe, just maybe, given the ACA know how much we want this (and how little anyone else does) that perhaps, when the awful time comes and the plot is redeveloped, perhaps they might let us take the headstone. After all, what else would they do with it, right?

Yesterday I saw a picture which not only answered the "What else would they do with it, right?" but also sent me into a towering rage. I may have even used the C word a time or seven. I am so, so, very pissed off about this I don't even know where to start!

Photo taken this week at Cheltenham Cemetery by Lee-Ann Hamilton

So, my choice is pay thousands of dollars to the ACA, or face the absolute knowledge that my ancestors will be dug up or moved and their headstones put in the rubbish bin.

I am fucking pissed off.

If you, like me, are keen to see SA's metropolitan cemeteries start treating our ancestors with greater respect, or even cut down on the red-tape so that it's easier for us to help maintain our ancestors' resting places, then check out Saving Graves for the latest news and information. There's a Facebook group too.

Meanwhile, ACA, this one's for you (language warning): 







Celebrating National Family History Month like a Belieber: GenYalogy

Welcome to any new readers who have joined me after reading the wonderful article about Stereotyping in Genealogy by the good folks at Gould Genealogy.

As some of you will have picked up, among other things I am a teacher, and each year I teach a four week unit to year 9s (14 year olds) on family history. This year it just happened to coincide with National Family History Month, which was pretty good timing! Although it's slightly off topic in that it's not pertaining to my family, I thought some readers might be interested in hearing about the experience of working with the really young'uns on their genealogy, and how I've come to be probably the only teacher in the southern hemisphere who refers to Elizabeth Shown Mills in class!

Anything to get them to stop talking about this guy!

The kids undertake this as part of a compulsory unit, so there's a whole range of abilities and motivation levels on the go each year.

1) Preparing the kids

Being a persnickity old cow rather particular about things being done properly, I begin the unit by getting kids to fill in both a pedigree chart and a family group sheet, explaining the relevant conventions for how they are to be filled in. This may seem counter-intuitive, but there's a couple of reasons. One is that it gets them talking amongst themselves about what they know about their families, one is that it encourages good habits (how many of us had to go back and redo sections of our early genealogical efforts because they weren't 'done right'?) and finally it is how we approach everything else! That's also when I hand out the assignment sheet as the kids need time to organise visits to grandparents, rummages in the cupboards for their family's archives etc. I supply a load of useful weblinks as well.

2) Now for the 'story'

As people who write about engaging newbies in genealogy always identify, everyone loves to think that their family will have some great stories. It's at this point I show one (or two, time permitting) episodes of WDYTYA, to show the kids how they can use records to discover a story. Sometimes I use the Paul Mercurio episode, sometimes the Shaun Micallef one, depending on my class. If I get a boys' class I'd consider doing Ron Barassi or Michael O'Loughlin. I think one thing that show almost always shows really clearly is the connection between interviewing relatives, finding records, and developing the family narrative, then sharing it with others, which is what I want the kids to do.

3) "Sources" is not a dirty word

This is when I introduce the concept of sources. The kids are used to locating sources, evaluating them and referencing them, so there's a base level of understanding in place already. What they aren't used to is the range of things which constitute a source in family history, how to reference such diverse sources, and the importance of doing so even for a personal history. I show them a PowerPoint containing categories of sources, pictures of examples from my own family tree (we have quite a bit of fun with that!), how each is referenced (go EE!) and then we have a discussion about problematic sources, again with some examples from my own tree. It's about this point that we also talk about avoiding common research mistakes.

4) Time to go and apply!

The kids embark on their two week research phase while we do other classwork. When we revisit the topic, they have their sources collected. It's a special moment. Kids come in with scans of gorgeous old photos, photocopied letters and an abundance of stories which are new to them. They are always itching to share what they found with each other. We work on preparing our pedigree charts, timelines, source evaluations and a report on an area of interest which emerged in their research. Sometimes that's one branch of the family, sometimes it's an individual, sometimes it's a couple and sometimes it's a particular family unit. I assist with brick walls if anyone has identified one they are particularly keen to break down.

Like all other History assignments, there are no marks for 'pretty', only conforming to presentation conventions (eg how to structure a report, using capital letters for surnames in a pedigree chart etc.) However, the kids almost all spend hours making elaborate display folders full of their findings, because they all know by this point of the task that this is one assignment which is not going into the bin once it's marked or even at the end of the year. They all report having a great time and being fascinated by some of the stories they discovered existed in their own families. We revisit our research skills in Term Four when we apply them to finding out about a local World War 1 serviceman.

I got into genealogy because of a basic family tree I was asked to complete in year 8. I really hope that in 20 years time, at least a few of those kids are blogging a similar story to mine about how a school assignment lead to a lifelong interest in researching their family history.

No pics today, for obvious reasons, so here's a meme instead!



The Brick Fortress

 Once upon a time I thought my great-grandfather was going to be my perennial brick wall. We all know about Irish records, right? I love the heroes of the Easter Rising to bits but I'd love to slap each and every one of them silly for burning all those wonderful records in the Four Courts. I'm partially right: I still haven't got any further back than his parents and siblings and working out he almost certainly was a young nationalist fleeing conflict, which had always been my suspicion.

An early photo of Great-Grandfather Patrick McDermott, taken just after his arrival from Galway.

However, it turns out since I married and begun delving into the in-laws' family, that in fact, my biggest brick wall is actually hubby's mum's family. They have presented so many obstacles that I have dubbed that line the Brick Fortress and all but given up on ever finding a solution. In fact, I have even started assembling questions to put to the Genealogy Psychic, I'm that desperate for a lead! I know, right?

So, here in no particular order are the problem people:

1) Her mother, Sheila May Smith.

Yep, Smith.

Daughter of Nellie Smith and... who? Nope, we don't know.

Column 4... Thanks a fucking bunch

Nellie Smith has proven elusive, connections to any Stanleys have been untraceable. I do know that Sheila changed her name in 1940 and that the paperwork was witnessed by her future brother-in-law, William Taylor. MIL has not shed any light on any of it and seems to have been happy to live in ignorance about her grandparents (which, frankly, I find hard to believe given she is Mrs. Nosy Questions!)

But Smith, that's something to go on with... right?

2) Her father, Kenneth Taylor.

His mother was Elsie May James. According to the records, she was born in Blinman, or Hay, in 1883, 1887 or 1890. There are no SA or NSW records even close to being her. You get where I am headed here... Elsie's unreliability with her personal information has made her very difficult to trace. One record says her father's name was Samuel, so that's the main thing I've been working on.

There are some records relating to an Elsie James, daughter of Samuel, but these are for Elsie Alice James in 1886 in Fitzroy, Victoria, daughter of Samuel Arthur James and Alice Cleak. There is an article in the paper in 1900 where Samuel A James of Warragul refers to his daughter's recent awards in music (West Gippsland Gazette, Warragul Guardian). Warragul is an hour and a half from Heyfield/Sale, the significance of which will become apparent later in this post. The general correlation of facts (father's name, approximate year, recurrence of the name "Alice" in our family) leave this at the leading possibility for our Elsie's birth, which of course leaves us with the question about why she just didn't provide that information?

Then of course there's the issue of Kenneth's father and step-father.

The step-father first: at her second marriage in 1927, Elsie gave her name as James, but the wedding was performed at Mrs. Taylor's residence. She married Walter Herbert Russell, who I believe was probably the one born at Anna Creek in 1888. The couple had one child, Colin. She then apparently moved to Broken Hill, became widowed and later returned to Blinman before following her children to Adelaide. What happened to Walter Herbert Russell? Who knows! No, I'm serious - who knows? I'd like to find out! However, what happened to him is nowhere near as mysterious as the issue of Kenneth's father.

Scandals and Suicide in the Scrub 

When I first heard anything about Mr. Taylor, it was from one of my mother-in-law's cousins. She said his name was William, and she believed he killed himself. I subsequently discovered that according to his children's birth records, he was born around 1877 in either Sale or Heyfield, worked in the Blinman area, had 6 children in 1916 and had died by Jan 1922 when Kenneth was born in Adelaide. Prior to his death he had been a station manager.

Those of you who know your SA geography will know I'm talking about a very remote part of the state which is fairly sparsely inhabited, so when I struggled to find William in Victorian records and couldn't find likely deaths in 1921, I did the sensible thing and searched Trove for likely matches - 'Taylor AND Blinman', that sort of thing. And what did I find? A whole pile of articles about this incident here: 





Holy Toledo!

This sounded quite a likely match up for our William, so I set about finding out as much as I could about the case and the William Taylor involved to see if he was our guy.

William Thomas Taylor was born in Sale around 1877. Tick. He started an affair with Mildred Maud (Milly) Roberts who had been born in 1896 in Blinman. She was the governess at Angorichina Station (in the Blinman/Beltana area) where he worked as a station manager. Tick. This was highly scandalous as he was married, and had six children. Tick. The couple caught the train south, got off at Whyte-Yarcowie, walked to the edge of the scrub about three miles from town and committed suicide by swallowing strychnine on the property "Greens", owned by John Hale, who knew Taylor from previous station work. The police buried the bodies in an undisclosed location on free ground in the Terowie Cemetery. The family were not recorded on his death certificate but are alluded to in several articles, and the fact they refused to claim his estate would seem to suggest they no longer wished to be associated with him in any way.

Case closed, right? This is Kenneth's dad fer shure!

You've all worked out the problem though, I know. Kenneth Taylor was born in 1922. This happened in 1916. Either that's the world's longest gestation or Elsie James told a BIG FAT LIE when she said William Taylor was Kenneth's father. I'm afraid that I'm going with the latter as the most likely, applying the Sherlock Holmes principle that "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". I know Elsie was unreliable with personal details. I know there was a huge gap before Kenneth was born. I know that she gave birth in a city 100s of kilometres from her normal place of residence. I know that the exact location of his birth was a hospital which primarily served single mothers. I know that William Taylor, husband of Elsie, bears far too striking a resemblance to William Taylor, lover of Milly Roberts.

So who is Kenneth's dad? Well, she didn't marry Walter for another five years, so I'm guessing it's not him. Who else could it be? (And how long is a piece of string?)

Who knows, maybe one day hubby's DNA test will shed some light on the whole situation! In the meantime, it's back to the fortress!



 Kenneth Taylor: International DNA Man of Mystery

Ethical Dilemmas #1

There's no doubt it's tricky at times being into genealogy. There's the ethics of using other people's information (yes, we all know you shouldn't just copy stuff without appropriate attribution, except for YOU Gen Y and whoever those weirdos are from other age groups who think it's ok to use other people's stuff without so much as a 'sourced from cousin Fred' or, even worse, pass it off as their own), there's the ethics of whether or not to share particular discoveries (something I'll be revisiting in a later blog), the ethics of handling living people's information etc. etc. The list goes on!

 

Recently, I've discovered a whole new ethical issue which I haven't really seen people write about: handling heirlooms. Like most genealogists, I've become a person who people give stuff to, because it's old, because they don't want it but are pretty sure it shouldn't just be thrown out, because they think I'll look after it. I currently have a half a cupboard full of miscellaneous family treasures from my family and my husband's family. This has raised a couple of issues:

 

1) Who actually should have the item in the first place?

 

I've previously mentioned the case of the Family Bible in my blog, because of its significance to my own personal genealogical journey. It was given to my great-grandparents, William Evans and Florence Gough for their wedding in 1888. Since then it has belonged to my great-aunt Mabel, my grandmother Gwen, my mum, and now me. Mabel was the oldest in the family, but she used to let her kids play with it (hence its broken spine and loose pages). Apart from us all being female there is no 'pattern' to who has received it since. My grandmother decided to get it from Mabel for my mum, and mum decided I should have it as she knows how much it means to me and felt it would be most valued in my home. However, I have numerous cousins who have just as much 'right' to it as I do.

 

 

And they can prise it from my cold, dead hands, 'cause I am not parting with this baby!

 

As a subset of that, when two people have equal 'right', who decides what should happen and how? My great-grandfather had medals from WW1. Grandma thought she had them and had given them to my father, but mum swears black and blue that never happened. Anyhoo, another relative has been looking for them. I made the point that perhaps one of Grandma's sister's children has them. Well, said relative launched into a rant about how, if that has happened, we should just demand them back. Um... why? What makes them more 'ours' than 'theirs'? I'd love to find out if they do have the medals for general interest, and so I can get a photo of them, but if they have the medals I don't see there is a damn thing we can (or ought) do about it claiming them.

 

This is all well and good, but what do you then do with the item when you have received it and feel someone else has more right to it than you do? We have in our house a trophy a certain family member received for his involvement in a particular sporting endeavour. Hubby has a cousin who is also heavily involved in that particular sport, even carrying out the same role in the team. Hubby has strongly resisted any suggestions that the item should be handed over to his cousin. Decisions, decisions!

 

2) When you own the item, what criteria do you use to work out who to pass it on to next?

 

In our family we are lucky to have two sets of war medals. One belonged to my husband's grandfather, Mervyn Sykes. He served in WW2. They are beaten up looking as Merv was very into the RSL so routinely had them out for occasions. He was also a total pisshead so he was none too careful on said occasions. Hubby always said they were to go to our son 'because he was a boy'. Not because he was the eldest, not because he was interested (he's only 4!) but because he's a boy. Setting aside my feminist inclination to scream "Dude! What the actual even?", it is on reflection the way hubby received them. His father got them because he was the boy in a family full of girls. At least, as Francis Fulford identified when discussing primogeniture in The F***ing Fulfords, it's consistent. And thankfully we have two sets of medals, because we also have two boys, as much as I'd have loved to watch hubby's head implode trying to work out which should get the one set.

 

 

Medals awarded to Ron McPherson in WW2 - in pristine condition, because he never came home from El Alamein.

 

I haven't made up my mind yet about how I'll pass on the items I have. Thankfully being a (relatively) youthful type, it's not something I am statistically likely to consider for a bit just yet. I think I'll wait and see whether the kids are interested, their partners are interested, their kids are interested, what the nieces would value, other cousins etc. Mainly I'll be looking to pass them on to the people I think will treasure them the most and ensure they are shared and passed on, regardless of their degree or type of relationship.

 

3) In what ways do you share the item with others?

 

I personally photograph each and every one of the items which come into my possession and make those pictures available to anyone who asks. I show them to family members who visit, and if anyone ever needed to borrow one for a particular purpose then I'm sure we'd be able to work something out. I have a cousin who loaned me a prayer book for my wedding which my great-great grandparents had bought for her grandmother and which every bride in her branch has carried on their wedding day (which she's never asked for since, so I'm not sure if she intends to keep it or whether I'm supposed to keep it until the next family wedding! Eeep!) However, I do have one cousin who won't even send a photo of some items she's got, and another person I visit won't ever get anything out to let me photograph it. Weird...

 

Of course then there's the whole dilemma of what one ought to do if there was a divorce in the family, what you should do if you find a prized possession that doesn't belong to your family (we all know you use resources like Rootsweb mailing lists to track a rightful owner if you can, right?) and who knows what other scenarios.

 

At least we can all agree on one thing!





 





The Lure of the Famous

Everyone who carries out any level of genealogical project has probably encountered someone who is deep in the grip of the lure of fame. We all know the person who embarks on their family history, often starting with a completely unrelated person rather than their parents, in a vain attempt to prove they are descended from Ned Kelly/JFK/the King of England/Adam & Eve/a Pope.

 

Like all of you, I've remained blissfully free of this kind of thing. My genealogy started with the relatives I knew I had and has worked out from there. Along the way I've discovered a few people who would have been widely recognised in their own communities (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not) but nobody more notable than that, and that's about what I'd have expected. In fact, the vast majority of my ancestry comprises people who only ever made it into the paper if they got married or died, if that. I've never wasted time mooning over famous people and their possible connection to me, if only because there are so many famous McDermotts it would be hard to pick just one! ;)

 

This week I've been away on holidays. Nothing particularly genealogical, as the town and area we are in is not one which was heavily inhabited by family at any point. Consequently, the focus of my genealogical work has been catching up on the data backlog. I have three plastic pockets chock-full of information distant cousins have sent me about their branches of the family, and some of it has literally been sitting there for years waiting for me to compare those notes with my records, verify the details which are new to me, input the data and so on. Yeah, of course I've had research time in those few years, but my genealogical ADHD has lead me down other paths in that time.

 

One of these piles has come in from a distant Darby relation in WA. Like most of you, I have never chased the siblings of my immigrant ancestors as they could appear in nearly any country in the world. Well, not quite, but you know what I mean! However, I do collect information about them should it cross my path. Actively chasing them is a project for another decade! In this instance, the cousin supplied information about the younger sister of my George Darby, Susannah, who like George emigrated from Pitney in Somerset for South Australia in the mid 19th century. She married a man whose surname was Cave, and-

 

Wait, hold the press - did you say CAVE? In Australia? Fark!!!!

 

So, it turns out that there is a whole branch of Caves in Australia who are related to me (as in the surname, not the geological formation). However, I'm not going to go on a wild-goose chase looking for connections to music legends who may or may not have that surname. For a start, they're Victorians, and in any case the likelihood of there being any such connection is somewhere between fuck all and none. Now, if it had been Coburns from Cork perhaps... Nah, not even then.

 

In the highly unlikely event that Nick Cave ever appears on an episode of "Who do you think you are?" I will be sure to watch, but in the meantime it's going to be the very last item on my genealogical to-do list. You know, right after I finish my family history. And we all know that

 





Tumblr Goodness

Personally as a 'word' person I've never bothered much with Tumblr, but when the EE FB* page linked to this it was too good not to share: 50 Shades of Genealogy (SFW) . I haven't checked, but I'm guessing the author is another genXalogist. It mostly contains short animations connected with genealogical moments most of us would definitely relate to! Readers will no doubt have realised that I love making and sharing my own genealogy memes, so I always love it when I get to see someone else out there is making genealogy related funnies.

 



Poor Bad Luck Brian, still waiting to win the genealogical lottery
 

* I'm rocking the acronyms today: that's "Evidence Explained" and "Facebook". "SFW" is "Safe for Work", just in case the 50 Shades allusion had anyone worried!

British GENES (British Genealogy News and Events): Trove reaches ten million pages

There's a New Verb in Town

 

We all know about the treatment of Google as a verb rather than a noun (to Google, Googling and so on). Well, Trove definitely warrant becoming a verb in honour of their ten millionth digitised newspaper page! What a great resource it is for us all!

 





British GENES (British Genealogy News and Events): Trove reaches ten million pages: Congratulations to the Oz based NLA Trove team which has now digitised some ten million pages of Australian newspaper content, and within an...