The Slovak Yankee

April Fool's

No not really.  I did stop blogging, but I monitor this site every so often.  It once had over 1,000 posts, but I removed all posts that I thought were opinionated and left those that were pure genealogy, some 600 posts.  

In case you have a question, my email is mhollick@mac.com.  At least make it a good question.

I had a few genealogical goals in 2011 and I've already met them all.  It's amazing what not blogging can do for your research.

That being said I've made a few more goals and will now concentrate on them.  I wish you all continued success in your research.

Congratulations

In related news Eugene Cole Zubrinsky was elected a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists along with Alvy Ray Smith, with whom I'm not familiar.  I've spoke about Mr. Zubrinsky here, here, and here.  He's a fine and deserving choice.  In addition we met tangentially in genealogical literature as his two articles on James Cole of Plymouth intersected with my article on the Rider family (a Cole married a Rider).  Despite that, we've actually never met in person, although we have corresponded via email.  When I was doing my book I needed him to make sure I got his Carpenters correct.  If you are a Carpenter descendant from Rhode Island and Massachusetts you must run out and get his articles on the subject.  Some of which are here:

CARPENTER, WILLIAM, b. a. 1605, d. Rehoboth, Mass., 7 February 1658/9?.  NEHGR 161:300; 163:297-98 (correction on Abiah³).

CARPENTER, WILLIAM, b. ca. 1610, d. Providence, R.I., 7 September 1685.  NEHGR 163:297 (correction); NEHGR 164:36-40, 296-97 (immigration and marriage).

COLE, JAMES, b. ca. 1600, d. Plymouth, Mass., between  8 March 1679/80 and 1 March 1683/4.  Son John² at TAG 81:122-32, 238-45; 83:258 (includes information on James’s death date and other in print misconceptions regarding this family, including his children John and Mary).

 

 

Internet Genealogy Is Still Not Scholarly

From the most recent issue of The American Genealogist which just arrived at my door yesterday, p. 157.  Speaking of the Fellows of the American Society of Genealogists:

"The only qualifications for a Fellow are the quality and quantity of his or her published genealogical work, usually compiled genealogy, not abstracts or methodology.  At the meeting this  year, it was proposed that "publications" include those online.  The Society had decided quite a few years ago that digital/online publications did not qualify as permanent contributions to the field.  At this year's meeting, much was said on both sides of the question: Online publication is becoming increasingly common and increasingly excellent, but it remains fluid and its permanence is uncertain."

I do find this sad, but certainly something I agree with.  I've tried to get people to up their games on the Internet and have only been met with indifference to hostility.  For the time being the real work remains in print.

A Puzzling Revelation

Every morning begins the same way for me.  After I eat breakfast I sit down and do the New York Times crossword puzzle online.  I like the online version because it doesn't kill trees and there is a spiffy time clock that goes with it.  Today I finished in 4 minutes and 32 seconds.  That's good for me, I general don't finish under 5 minutes.  On the other hand I rarely finish over 6 minutes.  The crossword puzzles are easiest on Mondays and progressively get harder until Saturday which tends to take me closer to 20 minutes to finish.  However, I always finish the puzzle and have for decades.

When I was at Harvard Law School the first time, and long before the Internet, one of my jobs was to read the New York Times and cut out all law related articles and post them on a bulletin board by the library entrance.  [I know--how old school!].  I also did the puzzle, then in paper, and posted the answers for the students 24 hours ahead of the newspaper.  Yes in ink.  Very few mistakes.

I get this from my maternal grandfather who also did the daily crossword puzzle religiously.  They say it keeps your brain active and my grandfather was with it up to the day he died at age 95.  I remember seeing him do the puzzles and thinking, I can do that too.

So, after several weeks of pondering and soul-searching I've realized I was never a genealogist.  Yes, I've been doing genealogical research for over 30 years, but I was never a real genealogist.  I always knew I was never a hardcore genealogist.  My best friend is a hard core professional genealogist.  He's always doing things that I think are so boring, but he just loves.  Transcribing records--boring.  Indexing probate records--boring.  Editing a scholarly journal--mildly interesting to read, but in practice--boring [it's largely secretarial--all formatting].  He hadn't worked on his own family for over 20 years until moved to do so for professional gain.  And guess who helped?  Me.  Now, he's back doing other people's genealogy.

You see, I was always about the puzzle.  Everyone has 8 great-grandparents--can you name them? Can you name their parents? Genealogy was never the study of my ancestry per se, and certainly not about the people.  It was about figuring out who came next based on the evidence I could find.  I really don't care that two of my ancestors fought in the Civil War.  I only found that out because the pension records are so replete with clues.  I've only glanced at their military records which I also have.  Knowing their height and complexion, doesn't help finding their parents!

I wrote an entire article about the murder of my great-great-great-grandmother filled with dozens of newspaper articles from 1888 with all kinds of unique personal information some genealogists would die for.  The real reason I did all that research was that death records in Maine don't start until 1892 and she didn't have one.  I needed to find a more specific place in Ireland to search for her origins and I hoped that one of those newspapers would have something biographical about her.  None did.

I certainly  know I'm not a family historian.  I couldn't care less about who my ancestors were and what types of people they were.  I'm not sure why, but I never have.  I suspect it's because all of my ancestors, without exception, would never have approved of me.  Most would have tied me to stake and burned me.  It's not like you'd want to have dinner with people like that.  No, I've only cared to the extent that it provides me with the next clue, the next document, the next piece of evidence.   So why did I write all those articles?  That's easy.  I'm the world's best assistant.  However, no project in my professional life has ever been mine and mine alone.  It's always someone else's.  These articles were mine.  I could control them, write them, and publish them.  It was a tiny bit of independence in an otherwise dull professional career of helping others do things I found (on the whole) tedious.  And still find tedious.  

I often wondered why I could give it up so easily.  Someone once said, it was addictive, how could I give it up?  It's because I was never really an addict to begin with.  I've seen the addicts.  Truth is, I find genealogists boring.  They are all Johnny One Note.  This is why I don't attend genealogical conferences.  After 24 hours I'd be drinking the Kool-Aid and talking to my ancestors in person.

There were no genealogists in my family.  There is no cache of letters to transcribe, no notes to go through.  There was literally nothing before I started.  And now, for me, the puzzle has been solved.  I didn't know much when I started and now I know a great deal.  What I don't know, I do know can't be known.  And because I'm comfortable with that, I can give it all up and find something else to puzzle about.

 

 

The Genealogy of Harry Potter

Naturally I've already seen the Deathly Hallows, Part I.  It's hard to believe its been over three years since I finished reading that book (in two days).   I spoke briefly about how genealogy has been incorporated into fantasy world literature before.  However, the movie versions of these books must leave out those things.  Movies are visual and based on the actions of the characters.  Movies always falter a bit with long explication.  So, if you are only a Harry Potter movie fan, you are missing something. [SPOILER ALERT: if you are just a movie fan, you may wish to stop reading now.]

For instance, Ron Weasley and Sirius Black are third cousins through the Black Family.  Both are great-great-grandsons of Phineas Negellus Black, headmaster of Hogwarts.  That also makes Ron and Draco Malfoy, third cousins, once removed.   Nymphadora Tonks (Dora Tonks) is Draco's first cousin despite their being on opposite sides in the war against Voldemort.  It isn't apparent in the movie that Bellatrix Lestrange and Narcissa Malfoy are sisters (the third sister being Nymphadora's mother).  And thus far, it isn't clear that Harry Potter and Voldemort are cousins through the Peverel family either.  

I did enjoy the fact that J.K. Rowling used medieval English family names such as Lestrange and Peverel in her world.  I really do descend from both families.

John Briggs of Sandwich, Mass.

John Briggs of Sandwich first appears when he receives land there on 16 April 1640 and died shortly thereafter and certainly before his widow was granted administration on his estate on 1 June 1641 [Plymouth Colony Records 2:18, and Mayflower Descendant 3:224-25] .  It's very hard to learn much about people who leave so few records.  John's wife's name is Katherine as seen in the inventory of his estate which also mentions his two children, Samuel and Sarah.  This John is often confused with two other records for a John Briggs.  The first in Watertown actually belongs to John Griggs of Watertown.  The second is the passenger list for the ship Blessing in 1635.  It is doubtful the name is Briggs or Biggs, it is directly below a Thomas Briggs, and the passenger's age is listed as 20, too young for this man. [Anderson, The Great Migration 1634-1635, I:400-401]

Certainly this John Briggs, was a joiner (carpenter) and his inventory attests to that.  A joiner, out of apprenticeship, would be older than 20 in 1635.  Additionally his daughter Sarah marries in 1654 and if an average age of 21, she was born ca. 1633, when the passenger was only 18.  This is highly unlikely.  If married for the first time in 1632, our John Briggs was likely born circa  1607.

There so happens to be a clue, I've never followed up on.  A John Briggs, widower, married Katherine Coote, singlewoman on 19 June 1632 at St. John Timberhill, Norwich, Norfolk.  This seems like a good place to start.  John may have been older, this was a second marriage, and certainly perhaps he died say age 50 or so.   Sadly it seems Katherine, after the inventory and probate,  falls off the face of the earth as well.  Samuel Briggs married Elizabeth Ellis.   Sarah Briggs married as his second wife, Stephen² (John¹) Wing.

Additional Sources:

• John Briggs of Sandwich, Massachusetts by E.A. Hannibal (1962).
• An Emerson-Benson Saga: The Ancestry of Charles F. Emerson and Bessie Benson and the Struggle to Settle the United States by Edmund K. Swigart, Ph.D. (Gateway Press, Baltimore, 1995) [which has the 1635 mistaken identification].

 

Slovak Emigration to the U.S.

"The 1870s saw massive emigration to the United States and Canada due not only to the boom in these countries but also to the slow pace and alienating conditions of industrial development and employment in Hungary. On average, for the the half century preceding the Great War, some 30,000 people emigrated annually.  Often the departure was short-term to make money in order to purchase property back home later, and a third of the emigrants throughout this period are deemed to have returned."  Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival, 2nd edition, p. 152.

50 years (1864-1914) x 30,000 = 1,500,000 of whom 1/3 returned, or ca. 500,000 returned, leaving 1,000,000 or so Slovaks who came to this country and Canada.

"Population statistics show that in 1869, there were 1,818,228 Slovaks in Hungary (in Slovakia around 1,570,000).  In 1900, that number rose to 2,008,744 (1,684,681 in Slovakia).  [Ibid, p. 153]

By the year 1900, there were roughly 2,000,000 Slovaks in the Hungarian kingdom.  But we know that beginning in 1864 (or so), 30,000 a year on average were leaving, with 1/3 returning (on average).  So by 1900, 720,000 Slovaks had left permanently.  That would be 26.5% of the entire population that left.  So, that's 1 out of every four persons.  Put another way, 77 million Americans would have to up and leave this country within the next 36 years for a comparable exodus.  

Prince William Gets Engaged

How deeply ironic that four days after the death of Bill Reitwiesner, Prince William of Wales announced his engagement to Kate Middleton.  Bill and Gary Boyd Roberts literally wrote the book on the ancestry of Diana Spencer, Prince William's mother almost 30 years ago when her marriage was announced.  Of course, this current romance has been brewing for a while and it's no surprise that Bill had Kate Middleton's ancestry already online.  So when you next see some Ancestry person note the relationship of Kate and anyone or Diana and anyone, remember it's Bill's (and Gary's) work first, despite the fact you won't see their names given credit.

I will probably not live long enough to see King William V, but on that day, he will be the first British monarch in 300 years to be a descendant of Charles II and James II (the last being Queen Anne who died in 1714).  He will also be the first British monarch descended from George III who will be eligible for membership in the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).  So, there's a historical twist.  Lastly, it seems Kate may descend from Sir Francis Knollys and Catherine Carey.  Catherine's mother was Mary Boleyn, the sister of Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's second wife and mother of Elizabeth I.  Catherine's paternity has long been in dispute and she may be the illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII, which would add his blood back into the royal family. [the late Queen Mother may have been descended from this couple as well, and if so, then the current Queen would also be Henry VIII's descendant.]  Kate's closest royal ancestor is Edward III, the same as mine.  Of course, someday she will be Queen Consort.

William Addams Reitwiesner 1954-2010

A fellow researcher died on Friday.  Bill had colon cancer for a while and the cancer won.  He had the same dark sense of humor I have, and tracked his disease through a blog called Malignant Asshole.  Most notably, he was a genealogist who researched famous persons so that the average genealogist might have fun knowing that they shared ancestors (i.e. was a distant cousin of) with a movie star, historical figure, rock star etc.  However, his dark humor was evident there too.  His lists always had the notorious as well as the famous.  Jeffrey Dahmer and Gary Leon Ridgway were on those pages too.  I'm not sure people brag about those two as cousins!

His and Gary Boyd Roberts' book on the Ancestry of the Princess of Wales came out in 1984.  Additionally, he had his web page at WARGS.com.  I contributed research to several trees most notably Jennifer Aniston and Tim Robbins.  Bill was also a contributor on SGM for years (and like me, probably a lurker for much longer).

It's always sad when a good researcher leaves us.  I have no idea how long his web site will continue, so visit now.

 

Leaving Things For the Next Generation, Part II

Part I is here.  A further thought came to me on why, perhaps, I shouldn't leave my research all organized and wrapped up with a bow on it for my nieces and nephews.  What if I made a mistake?  The hardest thing in genealogy is to read something and then completely forget it and look at the problem anew.  Wiping out all preconceived notions is terribly difficult.  

So why impose my theories and notions on the next generation?  It might be better and serve them better to start from scratch.  In some instances, they will, no doubt, be re-inventing the wheel.  However, on the other hand, they  may see things, with resources not yet available, that I couldn't and put the puzzle together correctly.  I've always maintained that one answer to a brick wall is that you're looking in the wrong place with the wrong information.

So, in organizing this research I always thought I would add: THIS IS MY THEORY, or UNPROVEN, in addition to all the usual genealogical weasel words as likely, probably, and possibly.  On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't organize anything and as they sort it out, which first means someone is interested, they can try to piece the puzzle together themselves and will use their logical skills and not accept my theories at face value.

Of course, this is just me.  It's always been about the research not the family history.