The Petty Sessions Court Registers are an invaluable source for Irish ancestral research. These court records are chock-full of fantastic information, and can offer a depiction of your ancestor that traditional Irish sources will not. Continue reading Irish Petty Sessions Court Registers
My father and his brother were the principal heirs of their father’s second cousin (and friend) Emily Bennett. As a result, a box of her papers ended up in my parents’ attic. The contents of the box included this undated and unattributed newspaper clipping. Current online research revealed that the clipping was from the Japan Weekly Mail of 30 November 1901, page 573.
I realized that “the late Mr. Peyton Jaudon” must have been related to Emily Bennett, whose mother was Maria Conrey (Jaudon) Bennett. Fortunately, a good Jaudon genealogy shows that the bride, Julia Ayamé Jaudon, and Emily Bennett were second cousins. Julia’s father, Samuel Peyton Jaudon (1831–1897), a resident of Japan, had married Oshidzu Matsura – and Julia was their only child.[1] Continue reading Cousins and their connections
A century ago today, on 7 May 1915, the Cunard liner R.M.S. Lusitania was reaching the end of her latest transatlantic voyage. The Lusitania left New York on 1 May with 1,266 passengers and 696 crew on board, bound for Liverpool in England. While steaming eleven miles off the Old Head of Kinsale in Ireland, the vessel crossed the path of German U-boat U-20. The launch of a single torpedo into the hull of the Lusitania claimed the lives of 1,198 passengers and crew, leaving 761 survivors of an incident that lasted only eighteen minutes. Even though American lives were lost, it would be nearly two years before America entered the First World War in April 1917. Continue reading The centennial of the loss of the Lusitania
What is it with these genealogists? They’ve been researching for hundreds of years, published thousands of books and magazines, and still can’t get it right! In my last post, we left off with the question, “Can we trust nothing? must we verify everything from scratch?”
The answer is no, you don’t have to verify everything – but it is usually a good idea to verify whatever you can. Those who love the hunt and enjoy being genealogical vigilantes don’t mind this little quirk about our “pastime,” but it can certainly be confusing to newcomers, especially the millions being courted today with advertisements of “easy” genealogy. Continue reading Trust but verify – again
Listen, my children, to my epistle
Of the long, long ride of Israel Bissell,
Who outrode Paul by miles and time
But didn’t rate a poet’s rhyme…[i]
I was in Lexington the other day, conducting research in the town’s library. I was researching the Lexington Alarm, specifically trying to find out when members of the Connecticut militia first arrived. During my search, I came across a man named Israel Bissell. If any of you already know about him, you can skip this post; but I have to claim ignorance! Continue reading The legend of Israel Bissell
The birth of the new Princess of Cambridge marks the latest addition to the main line of the British royal family: that is, the line closest in succession to the Queen. For their daughter, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have chosen a mix of historic family names (Charlotte and Elizabeth) and names hallowed by association (Elizabeth and Diana).
Charlotte: The young princess’s most notable predecessors were Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744–1818), wife of King George III, and her granddaughter, the unhappy Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817). In the way of European royal families, this previous Princess Charlotte was both the first cousin (paternally) and maternal aunt (by marriage) of Queen Victoria, the matriarch of the modern British royal family, from whom Princess Charlotte of Cambridge is twice descended through her paternal great-grandparents, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. Continue reading The royal baby’s names
Boston hosted most of the celebrated performers of the day, and Mrs. Gray saw many of them – and recorded her views, whether laudatory or critical. Within days of commencing her diary, in January 1860, she went to hear Frances Anne Kemble[1] declaim Much Ado About Nothing[2] and “felt the better for laughing heartily over her admirable rendering.”[3]
Saturday, 14 January 1860: Went on Tuesday to the Opera: Saffo.[4] [Marietta] Gazzaniga[5] was magnifique in it – [she] does act splendidly, and her deep tones expressing deep emotion are unsurpassed – some exquise music in it, too. Continue reading Mrs. Gray at the theater
A few months ago, we agreed that apostrophes do not belong in plurals: To make a plural, generally you add an s or es. No apostrophe. The same rule applies when you are referring to a decade, say, the 1920s. It is absolutely fine to put a letter after a number without an apostrophe between.
If, however, you decide to drop the 19 from 1920s, you would insert an apostrophe to show that something is missing: the ’20s. (After all, that is one of the apostrophe’s jobs: to show that something has been removed.)
You could also spell out the abbreviated form as “the twenties,” keeping it lower case unless you are talking about the Roaring Twenties, a distinct historic era. The Chicago Manual of Style,[1] NEHGS’s style guide of choice, says, “Decades are either spelled out (as long as the century is clear) and lowercased or expressed in numerals.” I’ll repeat: As long as the century is clear. In genealogical writing, we’re often discussing such long spans of time, and precision is so essential, that we will probably always want to use the form 1920s, to distinguish the twenties decade from the 1820s or the 1720s or the 1620s—and soon from the 2020s.
Here are some other basic guidelines for writing dates: Continue reading The 1920s, the ’20s, the twenties: writing dates
Sheilagh Doerfler’s recent post about finding Revolutionary War ancestors reminded me of the story I tell people about how much I love Revolutionary War pension records. They often contain significant genealogical information—but the first time I ever consulted these records, they yielded much more material than I ever would have expected.
In the early 1990s, I was doing the paperwork do get my father into the National Huguenot Society by right of his descent from our ancestor Abraham Tourtellotte (ca. 1655–ca. 1704) of Newport, Rhode Island. (I could not join then because I was not yet 18 years old.) The American generations went from Rhode Island—specifically, from Newport to Providence and Glocester—into Thompson, Connecticut, in the northeastern corner of that state. They generally stayed within a few towns of Thompson afterward. As I began to obtain every birth, marriage, and death record, I struggled to find the birth of my great-great-great-great-grandmother Lucy Tourtellotte. Continue reading Why I Love Revolutionary War Pension Records
Yesterday I wrote about substitute records that can be used to locate elusive modern vital records. These alternative records can be especially beneficial when an index to the civil vital records is unavailable. Using these alternatives, you can then contact the appropriate authority to provide a copy of the original vital record.
However, what do you do when a vital record simply does not exist? It’s a common problem, especially when documenting older generations, as each state legislated its own vital record compliance. Luckily you can consult several vital record alternatives that can be used to prove birth, marriage, or death. (Most will be accepted as proof by a lineage society.) Here are a few examples: Continue reading 8 More Vital Record Alternatives