Relationships – GenealogyAtHeart.com

Why You Should Fill Out Lineage Society Apps

I know some of you are rolling your eyes at the title. Many of us have had poor interactions with societies. Some are just tea parties – they only want the members they currently have and enough new ones to do the grunt work, but those folks stand no chance of ever being fully accepted as an equal. Some societies are so picky that they require only direct evidence. Others will gladly take your money and fall apart, leaving you no connections to your interest area. I’ve even encountered downright rudeness, which is just unacceptable.

Still, you shouldn’t lump them all together, and even if you don’t SUBMIT the lineage society application, COMPLETING one will help you. Here’s why…

*By following the society’s process, you can spot holes in your research. You may think you have proven a relationship to a father and son, but do you have a document that states that? How solid is that document? Was it a county history written 300 years after the individuals died? Remember, the farther from an event, the more likely it is that memories will alter the events.

*Completing the application will also allow you to check for discrepancies in your research. I wish I had a buck for every wrongly engraved tombstone I’ve encountered. I value the death certificate higher than the tombstone but even those can contain errors. I don’t think I’ve ever completed an application that had simple, perfect direct evidence.

*You are reminded about the documents you previously found that you may have forgotten about. I’m notorious for forgetting second marriages if I’m related to the first. When I go back to an individual and am reviewing all the info, I gain much more insight into the individual’s life. I noticed that one of my husband’s third great grandmothers emigrated with her four siblings to the U.S., leaving behind her widowed father, who died two years after the migration. Can’t imagine how hard that must have been for the father – your wife is dead, and now all four of your children leave. Wow, just wow!

*Lineage societies want just the relationship and identify facts proven and typical, nothing else. This means you can readily check your accumulated documents to see if you have those records.

*Once you’ve completed the application, you have a nice set of documents that were sourced in a timeline for several generations of your family. This is the perfect time to write a narrative and include other items you have discovered. Got writer’s block? Turn to AI and make sure you ask whichever you are using to include footnotes or endnotes. Now you’ve started writing that family genealogy book you always said you would do.

*If you do choose to submit your work, you are having new eyes look at it, and that’s especially helpful. We all process information differently,y so having someone who isn’t emotionally involved is helpful to validate what you’ve acquired.

*Another plus for submitting is that your hard-earned research is now safely at an archive or repository outside of your home. You’re increasing the likelihood that your information will be available to future researchers. Who knows what the future might bring, and your information might be the only proof of an ancestor someday.

*You are memorializing folks that have been forgotten. This is especially true with woman who often just leave their first name, if that, in records. With an application for a pioneer society, I included photos of the church, worksites, and the home where a third great-grandmother once lived. I know that from church records, but I have no record of her birth/baptism or death/burial.

*If you are accepted, you might just find a new friend or colleague who shares an interest that you have for a particular region or time. I’ve met wonderful far removed relatives this way and value the connections we have because of a common ancestor.

*Last, you should give yourself a big pat on the back and be proud that all your hard work paid off. You made the discovery of your forefathers that you sought. They may not have been famous or even made choices that you would have, but you discovered information about people who were trying to make their way through this weird thing we call life so that someday, you could do the same.

Pretty neat!

And while ChatGPT created the graphic, it came up with a limerick to add:

To connect to your roots with some flair,

A form and some proof—show you care!

From laptop to scroll,

It’s a meaningful goal—

Your ancestors’ legacy laid bare.

The Case of Gerald Longpellow: Separating Fact from Fiction in Pedigrees

Recently I found a pedigree that contained a surname that I’ve researched in the past – Hollingshead. There was a minimal amount of dates and only some locations but it matched most of what I have found to be true.

My brick wall has always been Hugh Hollinghead but this pedigree goes back further – to 700 AD. WOW – now that’s impressive. Or not.

According to this unsourced pedigree, Hugh’s daddy was a man named Gerald Longpellow. Gerald was supposedly a son of Edgar Aethling of England.

Surname changes I can accept if there is proof that we have the same person who changed their name but in this case, I find absolutely no mention anywhere of a Gerald Longpellow.

He certainly wasn’t the son of Edgar Aethling, whose father was Edward the Exile. Edgar had no children. Perhaps there was an illegitimate one here or there but I don’t know that and scholars haven’t found any.

What’s twisted about this, though, isn’t really the mystery of who Gerald was or wasn’t. I had to laugh because, as I’ve been blogging about for the past few weeks, I’ve heavily been researching the Baines family. Although this pedigree does not mention any Baines family it indirectly does.

Edward the Exile had a daughter known at Saint Margaret of Scotland; she was then the sister of Edgar Aethiling.

St. Margaret was purportedly born in Hungary but went back with her parents and siblings to Great Britain. She married Malcolm III of Scotland. Malcolm’s sibling was Donald III of Scotland, the head of the Baine family in which I was researching. Love when things connect up, well, even if in this case, they really don’t.

Be careful of the pedigrees that you discover. They are helpful but unfortunately, unlike family group sheets, do not lend to having sources available.

The Lawsuite of Chapel Salary

As I’ve blogged recently about Mathew Baines and the Christopher Wood Panel in a church, I’d like to share a very informative court case that pitted James Baines, a Quaker landowner against the local Church of England minister. Both appeared to be stubborn men who would not give up their belief about their rights. Here is a summary of the extended court case:

The following account was taken from the Reverend Canon Ware, M.A. who addressed the Society at Seascale on 25 September 1884 regarding a lawsuit over the curate’s salary in Killington, Kikrby Lonsdale, in the 1600s.[1] Rev. Ware had received a collection of old papers from the Rev. R. Fisher. Rev. Ware had first learned of the papers from Rev. Fisher’s predecessor, Rev. H. V. Thompson.

The lawsuit was brought by the curate[2] of the Chapel, William Sclater [Slayter/Slater], who claimed he was due 5 shillings and 10 pence annually from Joseph Baynes Sr and 2 shillings and 8 pence annually from James Baynes, both of Stangerthwaite, Lancashire for messuages and tenements or land.[3] Others named in the suit were Thomas Alexander, Thomas Story, and Samuel Parrett. All were Quakers.

The case was first heard at Moot Hall, Kendal on 11 January 1696.[4] Lawyers for the defendants were Allan Chambre, William Corke, and Robert Kilner, along with gentlemen Anthony and Charles Saule.[5] The gentlemen were included based on a Commission under the Great Seal of England executed under Statute 43 Elizabeth (1601) entitled “An Act to Redress the Misemployment of Lands, Goods, and Stocks of Money Heretofore Given to Charitable Uses.”[6]

Fourteen men were summoned to serve as jurors. They were sworn in concerning the statute and commission. All agreed that “An Ancient Chappell” (sic) in good repair in Hamlett Township aka Chappellry of Killington in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale had and was being used for divine service and sermons by the curate who brought the suit. All jurors also agreed that from their earliest memories, an annual sum of money or rent was customarily paid by landowners or tenants to whoever held the curate position. Commonly the sum was divided equally in half with the first payment due at Lamas (sic) and the second payment on the feast of the purification of the blessed Virgin Mary.[7] The curate received the funds as part of his salary the Sunday following both holidays.

It was agreed that Thomas Story had not made his payments for the 12 years that he owned or occupied his land at Bendrigg, Killington.[8] There is no explanation as to why curate Sclater waited 12 years to take the man to court so he might obtain his salary.

Witnesses were called and seem to be the oldest inhabitants of the area. Thomas Hebblethwaite of Killington, age about 56, after being sworn in, recalled that the Chapel had been in existence for at least 50 years as he attended school and divine services there, but he did not know when the chapel had been built. Hebblethwaite noted that several men over 80 years of age believed it became a parochial location “very near” 120 years earlier.[9]

Hebblethwaite had heard from several older men, including his father Robert who had died 9 years earlier (1687) and had been over 82 years old at the time of his death (birth about 1605) that a salary, called a stipend, for the preacher was paid annually by the owners or occupiers within the township. This included demesne [10] of Manor Houses. An exception was the manor known as Killington Hall who was thought had been the original family that had given the land for the chapel to be built with space provided for their family’s burial. Since the family had likely donated the land, they were exempted from paying the annual salary to the curate.

This custom was honored until the Quakers were established in Killington about 1663. Landowners not of the Quaker faith continued to pay the curate but Quakers did not. Also noted was mortgaged land beginning in 1607 included terms mentioning the annual salary.[11]

Hebblethwaite also recalled in 1666, carpenter James Taylor, a moderate Quaker purchased land from Richard Hilton in Killington near the Chapel. Hilton showed Taylor his deed from 1625 which stated the tithe was not of corn but of a half peck of meal on silver.[12] Taylor decided to sell the land in 1687 to Quaker John Holme, inserting the tithe clause in the newly written deed. Holme refused to agree to the clause, and it was stricken. Holme later sold the land to Quaker John Bradley; that deed did not include the clause. Bradley returned to Holme after purchasing the land when Bradley learned about the tithe. Holme told Bradley all Killington inhabitants should withhold paying the tithe and it was alleged that Quakers James Baines and John Windson destroyed the original deed noting the required tithe.

The court’s decision was held on 14 June 1697 with the questioning noted for Jos. Baynes, James Baynes, Alexander and Storey. The defendants were ordered to pay the annual sums in arrears and court costs. The curate was permitted to enter and distrain, meaning he could physically go to the property and seize belongings to obtain his due payment. Not surprisingly, the defendants appealed the verdict.

Slayter vs. Jacobum (Jacob) Baynes, Exceptions to the Decree of the Commissioners of Pious Uses, James Baynes noted the following reasons for the appeal:

The controversy began with the Bishop of Chester which is out of the current jurisdiction.
The jury in the first trial had insufficient evidence, notably that the chapel was “ancient,” never consecrated, and curates salary was never due.
Information was not found as to how the yearly rent amounts were established, and they may have been intended to be a (one time) gift for charitable use.
William Baynes, father of James Baynes, purchased the property 46 years earlier (1651) from William’s father, James Baynes. Grandson James Baynes purchased land from John Robinson of Kirkby Kendall about 1677 and from Robert Hebblethwaite (deceased) about 1662. In May 1685, James Baynes purchased the land his father William had bought from his father, James, in 1651. The current owner, James Baynes, stated his father never paid the tithe nor told his son about it.
There is no proof that the tithe was anything more than a custom or a free voluntary contribution of benevolence.
James did not believe the Commissioners had the authority to execute a verdict for noncompliance since it couldn’t be proven that a permanent, inheritable tithe was legitimate and therefore, the curate could not be allowed to seize property for nonpayment.
James also claimed that the curate did not incur expenses that would be passed on to him.
There was a question of procedural validity of the court filing by the commissioners.
The decree was deemed too vague as it did not specify what portion of the property was liable for the yearly payments. Without clear land identification, the decree was flawed and should have been nullified, the heirs released from obligation, and they should be compensated for the court’s errors.

The Rev. Ware found a rough draft of the Answers to Defendants Exception, which was the curate’s counter argument.[13] He claimed the defendants were properly notified but failed to comply and were objecting to stall the case. He requested that the court enforce the decree and further penalize the defendants for their noncompliance. The curate maintained that in the previous trial the defendant’s attorneys contested the evidence regarding the chapel’s consecration and antiquity, the historical obligation to pay the tithe, and the noncompliance by Quakers who claimed they were conscientious objectors. He alleged that James Baynes was one of the prominent Quaker leaders who was behind the idea to resist payment.

The curate provided old rent rolls as further evidence that the ancient, voluntary agreement was valid and applicable to continue. He acknowledged he could not precisely identify the defendant’s lands or boundaries.

It was pointed out that James Baynes was aware of the salary obligation when he purchased land from John Robinson, as Robinson had testified that he had complied with the obligations when he owned the property.

The curate requested that the court required James Baynes to produce his deeds as it was likely that the deeds did contain reference to the salary obligation. The curate claimed James had fraudulently exchanged land with his brother to obscure ownership:

“he (Joseph) has beene sometimes exchanging pticular Lands or Closes with one James Baynes his Brother who had several grounds which lye contiguous thereto, so yt the Lands and Tenemts of the sd Exceptant and the sd James Baynes may be promiscuously till’d and enjoy’d together in Hotch pott nor can be discover’d but by the st Exceptant and his sd Bror or one of them.”[14] This is an interesting statement as it implies that James and Joseph’s father, William, had died intestate and that they were dividing up his land equally which had been given the property to one during his lifetime.

Finally, the curate maintained that James was dragging the case as he had knowledge that the curate had limited financial resources to endure a long legal battle.

On 24 October 1699 Joseph Baynes Sr. petitioned Sr. John Trevor, Master of the Rolls, alleging bias in favor of the curate.[15] A certified copy of Bishop Chadderton’s Grant was given as evidence about the rights and obligations to Killington Chapel. A translation follows:[16]

“To all Christ’s faithful to whom these present letters shall come or whom the matters written below concern or may concern in any way in the future, William, by divine mercy Bishop of Chester, sends greetings in the Author of salvation.

A grave complaint and humble petition has been presented to us by the inhabitants and residents of Killington and Furthbank, in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale, in our Diocese of Chester. They have demonstrated that, because they are situated and distant from the said parish church by ten, nine, eight, seven, or at least six thousand paces, they are unable to carry the bodies of their dead to the said parish church for burial or to bring their children there for baptism without great danger to both soul and body. Nor can they attend divine services or receive the sacraments and sacramentals there, as Christians are expected and obliged to do by law, due to the distance, the frequent flooding of waters, and the storms that rage in the winter season in those parts, except with great expense, labor, trouble, and inconvenience.

For these reasons, they have humbly petitioned us to grant a license and faculty so that in the chapel situated within the territory or manor of Killington and Furthbank, commonly called Killington Chapel, divine services may be celebrated, sacraments administered, and everything pertaining to divine worship conducted there by a suitable curate or chaplain hired at their own expense and salary. These services should be provided in the same ample manner and form as in the parish church of Kirkby Lonsdale.

Therefore, we, William, by divine mercy Bishop of Chester, being the ordinary of the said parish church of Kirkby Lonsdale as well as of the chapel of Killington, favor the petition of the said inhabitants of Killington and Furthbank, especially as we understand it to tend toward the honor and increase of divine worship. Accordingly, we grant and impart our license and faculty so that in the said chapel called Killington Chapel, situated within the bounds and limits of the manor of Killington and Furthbank, divine services may be celebrated, sacraments and sacramentals administered, marriages solemnized, and the bodies of the dead buried in the same chapel or its cemetery. And the inhabitants of the said hamlet or manor may freely and lawfully hear and partake in these services and activities as freely and amply as they now or recently have done in the parish church of Kirkby Lonsdale.

We grant this license and faculty by the tenor of these presents, to the extent that it is within our authority and lawful power, both for ourselves and our successors. Provided that…

This is a true copy of the license or faculty, at least of what remains of the license or faculty, granted to the inhabitants of Killington and Furthbank, as written in the public register of the Lord Bishop of Chester and recorded therein. A faithful collation with the same copy and faculty written in the said register was made on October 26, Anno Domini 1699.

By me, Henry Prescott, Notary Public, Deputy Registrar.”

The case continued on 23 November 1699 both sides had agreed to examine witnesses, however, one of the curate’s commissioners, Mr. Husband, missed the court date due to a wedding. Although the curate and his witnesses attended, objections by Baynes prevented the commission from going forward.

The next agreed upon court date was 7 December 1699. The curate’s counsel, Josias Lambert, presented the court with costs incurred. The next court date for the witness’s testimony was scheduled for January 1669.

On 18 January 1699, the curate William Sclater was arrested by Charles Saule in Kendal over a debt of 150 pounds. The curate had been attending a commission of ongoing common law cases there.[17] The curate believed this was an attempt to disrupt the Commission’s proceedings, so he instructed his lawyers to have Saule and Nicholas Atkinson, court bailiff, arrested for their actions. The Master of Rolls agreed on 2 March 1699. But Saule had fled and could not be found. Questions then arose regarding his disappearance. Had he been collaborating with the Quakers? Was he overzealous in regard to the case? Or, was their some financial interests involved?

On 11 February 1700 the next hearing occurred. The curate argued that he had the right to arrears and payments but feared stating exactly what his court cost reimbursement request was believing that James Baynes would continue to exploit the system by requesting further hearings. The curate asked that the court minutes record that he can recover costs and that no further delays will occur.

The Lord Keeper agreed to the curate’s request on 20 March 1700.[18]

On 21 March 1701, the Lord Keeper ruled in favor of the curate and offered James Baynes to cover his legal expenses unless he could present a compelling reason to not do so by the next term.

Thus ended the drawn-out legal battle regarding the curate’s salary. Sclater received partial payment for arrears and released Bayne and others from further costs and obligations. Interestingly, William Sclater became the Clarke Preacher of Killington in 1677 and retained the position until his burial on 15 February 1724. He was succeeded by his son, William, who continued until his death on 20 December 1778.

For the descendants of James Baines, the case provided a wonderful genealogy of his sibling, father, and grandfather.

[1] Ware, Rev. Canon, Art. CI. – Killington, Kirkby Lonsdale, its Chapel Salary No. 1. Vol. 8, 1886. Pp. 93-108, digital image; archaeologydataservice.ac.uk: accessed 26 December 2024.

[2] Curate – a minister with pastoral responsibility.

[3] Messuage – dwelling house with outbuildings and land assigned to its use.

Tenement – a piece of land held by an owner.

[4] During this time, the year began on March 25^th and not January 1^st.

[5] Gentlemen – men of noble birth

[6] A commission under the Great Seal of England refers to an official document that is authorized by the British monarchy and stamped with the Great Seal, signifying the highest level of royal approval and authenticity for important state matters.

[7] Lammas, or Loaf Mass Day, is a Roman Catholic feast day on August 1. The loaf refers to the Eucharist. In the British Isles there were four quarter days with Lammas as the first, followed by All Saints (Nov. 1), Candlemas (Feb. 2) and May Day (May 1). Candlemas was the feast of purification of the blessed Virgin Mary.

[8] Since 1684.

[9] Parochial – relating to a church parish. Likely built about 1576.

[10] Demesne – land attached to the manor that the owners retain for their personal u

[11] 5^th Year of the reign of King James I was 1607.

[12] Reign of Charles I began 1625.

A peck is an imperial unit of dry volume equivalent to 2 dry gallons.

Meal – ground up grain as opposed to an ear of corn.

[13] Foul draught – rough draft

[14] Hotch Pott – the bringing together of shares or properties in order to divide them equally, esp. when they are to be divided among the children of a parent dying intestate. The collecting of property so that it may be redistributed in equal shares, esp on the intestacy of a parent who has given property to a child in his or her lifetime.

[15] Master of the Rolls is a high-ranking judge or British official.

[16] Translation from Latin to English by Chatgpt, 28 December 2024.

[17] Petty Bag – an archaic law term meaning records for common lawsuits kept in a bag.

[18] Lord Keeper is an officer of the English Crown was responsible for the physical custody of the Great Seal of England.

The Christopher Wood Panel

As I blogged about two weeks ago, I have been intensely researching my Baines Family lines. I came across some interesting info that I’d like to share, even if this surname isn’t in your family tree.

Did you know that back in the day you could “buy” a porch to a church and when you didn’t want it any longer you could “sell” it? I had no idea. This is a summary of an article by the Reverend R. Percival Brown who explored an inscribed tablet preserved at Kirkby Lonsdale Church in what was then Westmorland (now Cumbria), U.K.

The tablet recorded ownership and repair to the church’s south porch which implied that the porch was of private ownership of a portion of the church, a practice not typically thought of during that period in Great Britain. Brown reminded readers that churches have sold burial plots on church property and that the selling of a porch is not very different, especially since the porch was originally built to cover the burial sites of the family members who were interred there.

The sign, painted with black letters on a whiteboard, had been restored by various owners over the years, and from several sources who had recorded it, the wording was somewhat altered.[1] By 1925, Brown believed that the original wording was thus:

This porch by ye banes first builded was,

of heigholme hall they weare ;

and after sould to Christopher wood

by willyam Baines therof last heyre;

and is repayred as you see

and sett in order good

by the true owner nowe thereof

the foresaide Christopher wood.[2]

Brown noted that the above was metrically and verbally accurate and fits with an existing armorial shield.[3] I’d like to point out the spelling – remember there were no spelling rules back in the day!

Building, maintaining, and therefore, owning a porch affixed to a church may appear a strange practice in modern times. When one considers that the porch covered the Baines family burial plots the motivation for the original builder makes sense. The church likely needed a second exit, one close to the burial grounds, and the addition of a porch accessible to all would serve that purpose.

Further supporting that narrative was that the burial location for the family was adjacent to the south wall which, in those times, was regarded as a location of importance.[4] It is not surprising that an influential family maintained their status through a donation such as this to their local church while also benefitting through the preservation of their ancestor’s burial sites.

Luckily for descendants of the porch owners over the years, Brown researched the Baines, Wood, and Wilson families. Although the provenance of the porch is not firmly established, it was likely made by one of the earliest Baines family members to the area. What is known was that Adam Baines of Hegholme acquired land in Whinfell in 1428.[5] The estate became known as Hegholme Hall through the 18^th century.[6] Adam’s son, William, was known to be living there in 1497.[7]

William likely had a son, Adam, who inherited Hegholme as a portion of the land, known as Gilfoot, was sold before Easter 1546 to John Rigmaden and Anthony Rosse and the remainder was sold off at Michaelmas 1547 to the Bainbrig family.[8]

That Adam’s son was probably John, whose son Thomas Baynes of Hegholme was baptized on 14 December 1544.[9] John was buried on 4 April 1547.[10]

Although no baptism record survives, it was likely that Adam had a second son, Adam [Jr.] who appeared in the church record with baptisms for his children Mable, Thomas, and James.[11] Adam Sr. was buried on 18 May 1564.[12]

Brown places one more child in Adam’s family – William, who was the original builder of the porch.[13] William would have been an heir of Hegholme and therefore, be a part of this lineage. Further support was given through William, who had a known brother named Thomas.

William was first noted in records as being the father of a bastard, who was baptized on 18 January 1593-4.[14] A legitimate child of William’s, Adam, was baptized on 2 February 1599-1600 in the local parish chapel at Killington which became licensed to celebrate the sacraments in 1585.[15] William was buried on 23 August 1603 and at the time of Brown, William’s will existed.[16] William was noted to be “of Hegholm” and the will was witnessed by George Bainbrig.[17] William had named his underage heir, son Adam, leaving him land in Hegholme and Killington.[18] His goods, valued at 12 pounds after removing debts of 20 pounds, to his wife, Jane [Wright], and daughter Isabel who was also underage.[19] It is not known if Isabel was the bastard born in 1593-4 or a legitimate child whose baptism record was not found. Thomas was named as a brother of William, along with a brother-in-law, Oliver Wright.[20] Thomas and Oliver were appointed as supervisors for the children in the event that their mother Jane married second before the children came of age.[21]

Jane did marry second on 19 October 1608 to Richard Walker.[22] Son Adam married on 23 January 1625-6 at Killington to Elinor Bainbrig, the granddaughter of George who witnessed William’s will.[23] The uniting of families by marriage to retain status and land was not unusual for the time. I guess it’s not so unusual in modern times, either.

About 1593, lawyer Christopher Wood sought to purchase property in the area as his brother was already farming within the region.[24] Brown suggested that Wood purchased from William Baines Hegholme Hall as his residence but not the land surrounding the building.[25] This would support the will stating William was of Hegholme and not necessarily of Hegholme Hall.

The genealogy of Christopher Woods family who likely owned the Hall through 1617 was reported; from 1626-1659 records show a Walker family were owners.[26] Church benefactor Henry Wilson of Underley who died in 1639 may also have contributed to financing the maintenance of the porch.[27]

When ownership of the porch transferred was important as the church sign may have had the date modified over the years during restoration which reflected inaccuracy. Brown’s analysis of the work of Machel and close inspection of the stylistic nature of the writing leads one to conclude that the date should have reflected the ownership of Christopher Wood who was also likely the individual who composed the poem and had the sign installed on the church wall.[28] Brown makes a case that the date should have been recorded as either 1596 or 1606.[29]

The porch was removed in 1866 during a church restoration project.[30] It was noted at that time the porch was repaired by Christopher Wood in 1625.[31] If true, the maintenance was short-lived as the following year the Walker family was the new owners.[32]

The intricate history of the Baines family, Hegholme Hall, and the south porch of Kirkby Lonsdale Church serves as a fascinating glimpse into the intersection of family legacy, ecclesiastical tradition, and local history. Through Rev. R. Percival Brown’s meticulous research, we gain a deeper understanding of how land ownership, social status, and familial ties were enmeshed with church patronage during the period. The inscription, though altered over time, remains a testament to the intertwined narratives of the Baines and Wood families, as well as their enduring contributions to Kirkby Lonsdale’s heritage. Though the porch itself is long gone, the stories it sheltered live on through the records, offering a tangible link to the past for historians and descendants alike. Most importantly, the pedigree of former owners of the porch remains for descendants as a valuable record of their ancestral ties, social significance, and historical legacy within the Kirkby Lonsdale community.

[1] Wares cited: Ware, Notes on the Parish Church of Kirkby Lonsdale.

` A descriptive guide to the English lakes ‘ (8th ed. 1849)

History of Westmorland (1847) i. 364. He notes it as in `an ancient chapel.’

Machell MSS. vol. v, p. ais. (I am indebted to the Rev. Christopher Gathorne M.A. for the transcript.) Y

[2] Brown, Rev. R. Percival, The Christopher Wood’s Inscription in Kirkby Lonsdale Church, 1925, p. 321.

[3] ibid, p. 322.

[4] ibid, p. 323.

[5] ibid, p. 324 citing Records of Kendale, vol. i, p. 225.

[6] ibid, p. 324.

[7] ibid, p. 324.

[8] ibid, p. 325. George Baynebrig had acquired part of the land as his descendants were found there several generations later. Baynebrig paid a Fine on Easter 1546 for 40 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow, 60 acres of pasture, and 60 acres of juniper and scrub.

Adam Baynes sold to Miles Bainbrig in late September 1547 four closes in Hegholm. Closes are enclosed field or parcels of land.

[9] ibid, p. 324 citing 4 Dec. 1544. Bapt. Thomas Baynes sone of Jo: Banes of hegholme.

[10] ibid, p. 325. Brown provided no source, likely parish records. His wife may have been Elizabeth Mansergh, daughter of Edward. Elizabeth’s brother, George left a widow Margaret who married John Wood, later owner of Hegholme Hall.

[11] ibid, p. 325. Mabel January 1550-1, Thomas February 1553-4, Thomas December 1560.

[12] ibid, p. 325.

[13] ibid, p. 325.

[14] ibid, p. 325.

[15] ibid, p. 325.

See Samuelson, Lori. The Lawsuite of Chapel Salary, to be published soon, for further information about the Baines family’s interaction with the chapel.

[16] ibid, p. 326.

[17] ibid, p. 326. Bainbrig was likely a descendant of the George Bainbrig who originally purchased land from Adam Baynes before Easter 1546.

[18] ibid, p. 326.

[19] ibid, p. 326.

[20] ibid, p. 326.

[21] ibid, p. 326.

[22] ibid, p. 326.

[23] ibid, p. 326.

[24] ibid, p. 326 citing Christopher Woods in parish records as 16 Jan. 1594- 5 Bapt. Margretae woodd filiæ Xpoferi. 8 Feb. 1611-2 Sepult. Xpo: wood gent. z8 Feb. 1611-2 Sepult. vx: Xpo Wood vidu. He married widow Margaret Mansergh. For the Mansergh line Brown cited Edw. Mansergh esq. of 1539 (Records of Kendale i, p. 84). His will dated in April 1543 shows that he left three sons Christopher, George and Alexander, and two daughters Alice and Elizabeth, the latter married to John Baynes (probably of Hegholme). Christopher who died seised of Nether Hall etc., in 1568 had a son Edward (b. 1542) who died in infancy: and at his inquisition of 1591 his heir was found to be Jane (b. 1544). Alexander was buried two months after his father. After 1568 therefore only George was left. In 1571 a daughter (name not registered) of George Mansergh was baptized, and in 1573 a son, registered as Richard: George Mansergh was buried 28 March 1575. On these facts it seems practically certain that Richard is a mistake for Edward and that Margaret Mansergh whom John Wood married in Nov. 1575 was the widow of George Mansergh.

[25] ibid, p. 326 citing Records of Kendale i. Zoo, and ibid. ii, p. 393 for the transition of the property and Chancery Series ii, vol. 675: one of the same year is quoted in the Court of Wards in Records of Kendale i. 293, and a number of others appear in the 2nd vol. including (p. 424) that on William Baynes

[26] ibid, p. 327 citing nq. p.m. of 15 March 15 James I. Chan. Ser. ii, vol. 675, no. 227.

[27] ibid, p. 329.

[28] During that time, lawyers often wrote in poetry.

[29] ibid, p. 327.

[30] ibid, p. 328.

[31] ibid, p. 328.

[32] See footnote 27.

Tracing Roots: An Afternoon with a Distant Cousin Exploring German Genealogy

Last year I blogged about meeting a distant cousin through Whova, a conference ap. I also mentioned it in the lecture I presented for the National Genealogical Society in May. Social media is a wonderful way to connect with your disconnected relatives. We are 7th cousins. Definitely not close but we have been able to connect through a share German great grandfather Kettering.

On May 22, Gerhard and his girlfriend, Rita, visited my home. It was a wonderful visit! In the morning we visited our local farmer’s market, toured my town, went for brunch, and then returned to my home where we spent hours doing genealogy together.

Gerhard looked over my online family tree and corrected the many German name misspellings I had, particularly regarding locations. I have terrible trouble with diacritical marks!

He brought me updated tree info with sources found in German archives that are not accessible online. I agreed to create a tree for his colleague who found an old genealogy that claimed that some of his family emigrated to Indiana in the 1800s. I confirmed that indeed, they did, after stopping first in Kentucky. I was able to find living descendants for the colleague to contact.

The best part of our genealogical afternoon, besides spending time with a new cousin, was his explanation of a mystery newspaper article that I have written about previously. I had a dickens of a time initially getting native speaker consensus on the word “birthshaus.” I used a German teacher who was born and raised in Germany, some of my family members, a Facebook posting, and a posting to a genealogical group I belong to and received the translation as tavern or coliseum. I have even tried AI and gotten the same results. Clearly, there was no coliseum in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1834. I did find a tavern so I selected that word to use in the lineage society application I was submitting.

Gerhard laughed when he saw the word. He explained a better word usage would have been “beer house.” I was confused so he explained German culture from that time period. After church on Sundays, the ladies would congregate together and spend the day chatting. Their husbands would retire to the house next door to the church that served beer. There, they would drink the day away until their wives came to get them to go home for dinner. Gerhard did not know that the culture had been brought with the immigrants to the U.S. Apparently, it had in Ohio, all because of the newspaper article I found and Gerhard’s knowledge of the customs of people from the home region.

In the United Kingdom, a public house where beer was sold and consumed was known as a beerhouse (Beerhouse act 1830 (11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4 c. 64). That would have been the best term to use in the translation.

Having someone who was knowledgeable about the language, customs, and culture was what I needed to solve my genealogical mystery.

Next week, more helpful hints from Gerhard!

An Ancestry.com Thank You and A FAN Club Hint

Before I begin with what I had planned to share today I want to give a shout-out to Nordia, a Customer Service Rep with Ancestry.com. Yesterday afternoon I discovered that, although I was signed on to Ancestry, I could not access complete information when I was researching. Some of the information was a blurry gray and when I clicked to view or save, I would get a pop-up telling me I needed to pay for membership. Umm, I took care of that back on February 4^th when I renewed. Evidently, the individual I spoke with did not provide me with a seamless transfer as I had asked. My “gift” membership expired on the 23^rd and he began the renewal on the 25^th leaving me in limbo on the 24^th.

I was in a panic as I had work for a client to do and Nordia saved the day. She canceled the original renewal and re-entered it with the date of the 24^th. By the way, if you are using a gift membership, you should get an email with a code. I hadn’t received that.

Personally, I’m not recommending Ancestry gift memberships. In 2021, I renewed that way as there was a Black Friday discount available. So, it was a gift I bought for myself. Ancestry changed its policy in 2022 so there was no gift membership discount for current members. After I received a renewal notice I called to ask if I should continue my membership as a gift or as a regular customer. That gentleman told me it was simpler to keep it as a gift so I did. Apparently, it wasn’t but I do appreciate the quick support and professionalism of Nordia.

Now, for my regular blog. . .

I reviewed the relationship analysis for John as the father of Thomas Duer that I blogged about last week and it struck me that there were two names that I did not have in my family tree – John Piersol and Robert McClelland. Both individuals were named in documents for both John and Thomas Duer. Who were these folks?

I quickly looked at who John Piersol married and discovered it was Anne Morrison. I have a bunch of Morrisons as Jane Morrison married Thomas’s son John Duer. Jane was noted to have received money from the guardian of one of Thomas’s children while her father, John Morrison, served as an appraiser for John Duer’s will.

I knew the names of Jane’s siblings but Anne wasn’t one of them. Was she related? Morrison is a very common name but interestingly, the only male was Jane’s father, John, in any record, I found in Trumbull County, Ohio through 1830. In the 1850 US federal census, Anne reported that she was born in Pennsylvania.

I looked for online public trees on Ancestry, FamilySearch, MyHeritage, Geneanet, and FindMyPast but did not find one tree that had information about Anne. Now that was startling!

Time to investigate Anne’s husband. I quickly discovered a county history that told his story. Born in Fayette, Pennsylvania, he traveled with his mother and step-father to what is now Bellaire, Ohio but he returned to live in Pennsylvania with an uncle. Hmm, John Duer had sold land that is now in West Virginia and across the Ohio River in Bellaire, Ohio. Did the Duers meet John Piersol on the frontier?

Another county history stated Anne was the daughter of Joseph Morrison of Fayette, Pennsylvania. Again, no public online family trees for Joseph. Honestly, I can’t remember the last time I didn’t find a public tree for someone I was searching for – I’m thinking it was back in the early 2000s.

John and Anne, as a tic mark, were in Trumbull County, Ohio by 1820 and remained there in the 1830 US federal census. John Piersoll signed as a witness to John Duer’s land purchase in 1826; the other witness was Thomas Duer. After Thomas’s death, Piersoll became the guardian of three of Thomas’s children.

Only identified family members, including in-laws, were involved in court guardianship records. It’s likely that the relationship between Piersol to the Duers was through his wife, Anne. I still have a long way to go but I just might have identified a brother of John Morrison. Love the FAN Club and using Mills’ Identity Triangulation method. Best of all, this took less than an hour to discover.

Duer Dilemmas

My long-time readers know my obsession with the Duer family. I’ve been good, though, and haven’t blogged about them in almost two years. Honestly, I have not researched their lines since the pandemic was full throttle.

Last month I watched a Legacy Family Tree presentation by Elizabeth Shown Mills who is, lucky for us, back from retirement. The lecture gave numerous ideas on how to problem-solve using “trivial details.” A comment she made resonated with me; there are going to be times that we will NEVER find a document that clearly establishes a relationship.

I’m one of those genealogists that believe that somewhere, somehow, that long-sought record will unveil itself and leave me with a happy ending. Too many Disney movies, I guess! The lecture made me come to my senses. It was time for me to resurrect, review, and re-analyze all of my Duer findings and move toward a conclusion.

Briefly, my 5th great grandfather, John Duer (1748-1831), died after my 4th great grandfather, Thomas Duer (1775-1829) so Thomas and his family were omitted from John’s will. Another daughter of John’s who had died early was also omitted, however, her only son was named in John’s will. None of Thomas’ children were named. Thomas had died intestate (of course). The family originated in New Jersey; only one document there ties John and Thomas together but doesn’t state a relationship. That document was both men witnessing a will for a neighbor.

John is found in a deed in what is now West Virginia. He made the purchase in 1792 but didn’t move until about 1797. By 1805 he was in Trumbull County, Ohio. As was Thomas. There is no deed for either John or Thomas in the early years in Ohio but they are on tax lists, next to each other. Property maps show them residing next to one another.

And that is all I have. Not!

Using what Mills discussed, I pulled out every document I had for both men and created a different timeline than I had previously done. This time I made 5 headings – Date, Event, Place, Source(s), and Name. I began with the earliest records I had for John. Some of the sources, I’ll admit, are stinky like this for birth – http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/e/a/Scott-C-Beal/GENE4-0004.html (no source) – though I recorded each as together, clues are provided. In the Name column, I recorded who was named in the record. The few that showed John and Thomas together I highlighted in pale green. I then went through Thomas’s records and fit them into the same timeline in chronological order. This is where I realized there were many more connections between the two men – guardianship of Thomas’ children, land sales among the surviving family members, and religious affiliation. I highlighted those in pale orange. Yes, it is an ugly color scheme but it does stand out.

I then wrote 9 pages of relationship proof. It also includes DNA. My plan is to share this with colleagues over the next few weeks for their insight. Possibly, I’ll be publishing it, too. I may even approach a lineage society and complete an application.

My husband remarked, “So, you’re now done with the Duers.” I thought, “Is one ever done with a line?” You know the answer. No, in analyzing the John-Thomas information I noticed some very interesting (to me!) nuances. I decided to take on a major Duer surname study of the New York, Antigua, and possibly Connecticut lines in the hope of identifying their shared relative. Clearly, they all had a shared relationship both in the Caribbean and in the Colonies. It also involves John Duer’s maternal grandfather, Daniel Hollingshead, who I have written extensively about. During the pandemic, I was able to find how Daniel, a Presbyterian, was related to the Quaker line. I was unable to understand his relationships with the New York Duers who married into the Alexander family, as Daniel did, but those Alexander families don’t seem to connect, either. It is a convoluted mess! As you can see by the tree shown at the top of the page, every generation of every line has a John, Thomas, William, and Daniel. And, they intermarry. And, they don’t leave a lot of records. And researchers confuse them, particularly the Ohio and Pennsylvania John’s Revolutionary War Service. It’s going to be fun to sort this all out so look forward to more blogs about my Duer Dilemma!

DNA Match Unexpected Find

I bet you think this blog is about unexpected parentage but it’s not! I had a wonderful surprise in late January that I just have to share.

I have tested with Ancestry.com, National Geographic, 23andMe, and MyHeritage.com. The reason is that the companies’ tests are not identical. I wanted the large database that Ancestry offers, the amount of Neanderthal and Denisovian identified by 23andMe, and to better explore my eastern European background at MyHeritage. I uploaded the results from Ancestry.com to GedMatch and FamilyTreeDNA, too. This gives me an even larger match potential.

Typically, I get emails from the companies telling me when I have a new match but it’s usually for a 4th or 5th cousin. I’m not quite sure why I didn’t receive an email from MyHeritage.com with a 1st cousin once removed or 2nd cousin match. I was working with a Client and showing her how to explore matches when I logged on to MyHeritage and discovered I had a new closely related match. WOW!

I have to admit I was anxious to get in there and start investigating. Minutes after I left the Client I was online looking at the small family tree associated with the match. None of the names were familiar. I was certain I was going to find an unexpected parent result. I messaged the submitter questioning our relationship. I provided my email address if they preferred to correspond that way.

The following day I received an email that surprised me. The online tree didn’t match any of my family’s known names because it wasn’t for the individual’s DNA sample. The person was overseeing the DNA for a “friend” and had linked it to a tree that had no genetic relationship to the friend.

The person who managed the DNA checked with the DNA owner and was given permission to share their connection with me. Surprisingly, they were not a 1st or 2nd cousin but a 4th cousin. We shared 5 segments, the largest being 74 cM. I hadn’t thought much about DNA from that particular line I haven’t researched adequately.

I wrote back thanking the manager and then received another email asking if I had family photos. I did not but responded I would love to see one of my great-grandparents.

A few hours later I received the photo above which not only shows one of my paternal great-grandmothers but also her parents, my 2 times great-grandparents! I had never seen them before.

I so greatly appreciate this distant cousin sharing the photo with me. Turns out, we live only 2 hours from each other. I will be updating those lines this weekend and sharing my findings with my newfound relative.

DNA matches can provide more than unexpected parentage – they also can unveil unexpected photos.

Reconnecting With Long Lost Family

As I write, we’re experiencing our first snowfall of the season. Grab a cup of cocoa and enjoy reading blogs this weekend.

In late September my husband was contacted via Facebook by his first cousin who he had not seen in 50 years. We were not Facebook friends with this line so the message wasn’t expected. In August, after relocating, I wrote on Facebook explaining why we had suddenly pulled up roots in Florida and relocated to Indiana. Another cousin who is a Facebook friend told the cousin which is how my husband got the message. You know family, always playing telephone!

The cousin asked us to let her know when we had settled in our new home so we could come for a visit; the family lives about an hour and a half from us. We made that visit the first weekend in October which was timely, as the family was relocating to Florida for the winter the following week. We had lived in Florida for almost 50 years and never knew that they were coming down for 6 months each year for the past 13 years.

It certainly could be awkward to reconnect with someone you haven’t seen in years, even if there had been no falling out. In our case, we simply moved away from where the majority of the family lived and raised a family, working, and maintaining a home, life just got in the way of keeping up a long-distance relationship. When my husband’s parents were alive they would keep us updated on family events but since they passed we just lost the connections. By the time Facebook came to be, it had been over 10 years since we had any information on the extended lines.

Yes, Facebook and other social media are very good tools to keep in touch with relatives but I’m just not into it. I don’t enjoy learning vicariously about friends and family. I go on it maybe twice a year to catch up. I much prefer text, phone, and face-to-face contact, even if that means Zoom or another service. If you want to reconnect, a message on a social media site is a great way to do that, however. After the initial few messages going back and forth and the exchange of emails and/or phone numbers, someone needs to be brave and make the phone call.

The call doesn’t need to be long, in fact, it’s better if it’s not. After exchanging pleasantries, get down to basic updates, such as we are fine and love (fill in the blank). Being positive is a good way to begin. I’m not saying don’t share bad news. If you’ve just been given a terminal diagnosis and want to reconnect quickly, by all means, share that.

In my case, I asked what a good time for our visit would be and was told any time after 10 AM. I said 11:30 AM would work for us and so the meeting was set. We arrive a few minutes early. I knew that lunch would be prepared for us but I wanted to bring a little something. If you don’t know the family well enough bringing a gift could have been problematic. I decided on a box of chocolates made by a local company. Alcohol, flowers, a desert, or memorabilia that belonged to that line could all work.

Let the person you’re visiting take the lead in the initial hellos. Some families are huggers and others aren’t. Some may still need you to mask up. Whatever the host family requires makes you a good guest.

We started with a handshake and smile that evolved quickly into hugs. Then we got a tour of their beautiful home on a lake. My husband has spoken of this lake for our entire relationship but I’ve never been there. He spent his preschool summers there. It was where he first fell in love with a nameless older girl who was about age 6; he tried to catch a perch with his bare hands for her birthday present. He loved climbing up on a chair to play on an old pinball machine in the family-owned store. The beach house had an upstairs with mattresses strewn on the floor for the children and he loved hopping from one to the other. There was an older man who made funny faces when he thought; my husband imitates him to this day.

Like most visits as an adult, hubby was surprised the lake was as small as it was. It seemed like an ocean to him at age 3.

After the outside/inside house tour, we grabbed a plate and sat at the table for some eating and reminiscing. You can ask if anyone objects to the conversation being recorded or not. I did not record. I also did not take photos. You could also take notes. Since we are living nearby we agreed we’d meet in the spring when I returned to their area to research. Perhaps then I may record and photograph.

The family knows I’m a genealogist so it wasn’t surprising that the talk turned to ancestors early on. I had to laugh when a second cousin remarked that one of his cousins who were not present had done a fantastic amount of research. Yep, I agreed, I sent it to him.

I should have brought my laptop to have my tree readily available but I didn’t. I promised to send two of the second cousins’ info about the Civil War and various other lines we discussed. Keep your promise!

We also caught up on what everyone had done in the time since we last met. Photo albums were passed around.

We were in for a surprise as one of the second cousins was going to take us out on his pontoon for a ride around the lake. We learned that there had been three stores during my husband’s time there; his aunt owned the one he recalled. I asked how the family came to the lake and was informed that the first cousin’s uncle on an unrelated line to us had discovered a cottage there and decided it was a wonderful place in the 1950s to spend the summer, away from the heat and congestion of the Chicago area. Other families came to visit and as property became available, more families made purchases. I learned my father-in-law encouraged his sister, a widower with two young children, to purchase a cottage and then one of the stores. Both sides agreed to help her out which is how my husband came to spend his summers there.

My husband and his older male first cousin laughed at how my husband loved Alley Oops and being held high by the cousin so my husband could dive off him into the lake. Good times! By the time my husband was 6 the cottage and store had been sold. So, how did these first cousins have property there now?

We were told that for 15 years after the sale the family frequently recalled the wonderful times they had there and wanted the same experience for their young children. It took them a year but finally, a cabin came up for sale. They’ve owned a place on the lake since 1976; as other lots/cabins became available they made additional purchases so now they and two of their children have a summer place. The daughter of the aunt who originally bought there also owns a place, along with one of her children. But there was more. . .

As we toured the lake I learned that they hadn’t been aware that there was even more distant kin that was neighbors. Right before the pandemic, a neighbor was having a garage sale. The female first cousin went to check it out and somehow, the conversation turned to funny family names. She remarked that she didn’t think they could top her husband’s cousins’ names – Milnut and Elzine. The garage sale folks were stunned and replied that they, too, had cousins with those names. They also had a number of other cousins who owned cabins around the lake. I’d say, a quarter of the lake cabins are owned by two lines who had become united through a marriage in 1941. And none of them knew they were related until one cousin met another at a garage sale. Weird!

When we returned home I immediately checked to make sure I had the garage sale man’s name in my tree and I did so I was able to let all of them know how they are related. I also was able to explain how Milnut (really Milnett Rosinda Emelia) and Elzine (really Edna Gladie Elzene) were related to all of them.

By reconnecting with a known line, we were able to connect with three other lines that had been disconnected probably prior to the 1960s. It is indeed a small world and finding all of this family in one location was a pleasant surprise.

Now comes the hard part, staying in touch! Make it a point to reconnect every so often. You’ll be glad you did.

Family History Research – The Backstory of the Document

Like me, you were probably interested in exploring the 1950 US Federal census that was unveiled by NARA on April Fools Day. Finding my maternal grandparents, the joke was on me!

Above you can see under Charles and Theresa Bauer, their next-door neighbors, that my family wasn’t found at home by the enumerator. No surprise there since I knew my relatives so well. My mother was still living in the home and she and my grandfather were likely at work.

My grandmother had a weekday routine that never varied. Monday she would rise early and wash clothes in an old wringer Maytag and then hang them outside to dry. By the next census, she had an electric washer and dryer but never used them, preferring the wringer washer until she moved from the home in 1973. Tuesday was baking day. Wednesday was mending day. Thursday was grocery day. Friday was cleaning day until I got older and the task was turned over to me to do on Saturday mornings.

After Non was done with her “job” for the day she would begin cooking dinner. She had a gas stove with a well so whatever she made stayed warm until supper.

As soon as the food was done the rest of the day was hers to enjoy. Unless there was a snowstorm you wouldn’t find her at home. She loved to visit her many friends and shop till she dropped. Occasionally, she would have the “ladies” come over to her home to visit; I know that didn’t happen on 25 April 1950.

My husband knew my grandmother well and when I said, “Guess where Non was on the day of the 1950 census.” he replied, “Not home.” Yep, pretty much.

By looking at the page number I can gauge that my grandparents’ house was not one of the first stops for the enumerator that day. He likely came by after 11:00 AM that Tuesday. If he had come back by 4:30 PM someone would have been home.

Not surprising, my paternal grandmother was home that day and provided the enumerator with the information; my dad and grandfather were at work. She was likely reading when the enumerator stopped by. I’ll never know that for certain but I did know here routines. My husband’s grandparents seem to have been missed. Sigh.

Looks like many people were out and about the day the census was taken. If you find yourself in that situation, don’t despair. Look at the notation after “No one at home.” It refers you to another page (sheet) in that document. All I had to do was go to page 74 to find the information. Remember, the sheet number is in the upper right-hand corner of each page; it is NOT the image number. My image number happens to be 29 of 31. Here’s what I find:

Surprise, surprise – there is one person I hadn’t expected to find living in the household! Frank Trputec was a boarder. During the Great Depression, my family turned their old farmhouse into a boarding house to make ends meet. I had thought all the boarders had left by 1950 but apparently not.

I vaguely remember Mr. Trputec. I was told he bought my favorite stuffed animal, a spotted dog that would squeak when you pinched his tail, for my first Christmas. It’s the only stuffed animal I ever kept. I remember him coming to parties at my grandparent’s home when I was young. I can still visualize him sitting at the kitchen table next to my grandfather. He was a quiet, gentle, and kind man.

Mr. Trputec, however, was not a “cousin” as listed on the census. Well, not in the genealogical sense. In my family, everyone was considered a cousin. Sure, we’re all related so close friends and neighbors of my family were given the endearing titles of cousins. My grandmother’s closest lady friends were often called, Kuma, Croatian for Godmother. Except they hadn’t been officially deemed as Godmother for my grandparent’s four children by the Roman Catholic Church on any documents I’ve ever found. Likely, they were just good role models for the children growing up. My family really believed in “It Takes A Village.”

Mr. Truputec never married or had children so as he got up there in years, I can understand why he remained in my grandparent’s household. They kind of sort of adopted him. He became pseudo-family.

My point here is that any document we find does not tell the whole story. In 50 years a descendant will look at the 1950 census with a different perspective than I do because they had no intimate background knowledge of the individuals listed. They may wonder why no one was home and how Frank Trputec was related. If they discover he wasn’t related they may think my family was trying to hide that they were renting out a room. His relationship can easily be identified as “lodger” in the 1940 US federal census. In the intervening 10 year time period, he became “family.”

Keep this in mind when you are analyzing documents for the family members you do not know well. Do your future family a favor and write down your interpretation of documents you find for people you know well. There’s often a back story that is just as important as the “factual” documents you discover. Happy Hunting!