As Jennifer has worked on the family genealogy, she has discovered several interesting family stories. Her summaries of those stories are linked to below. Enjoy.
Hart Family Ancestors in History:
Genealogy Disclaimer
(Caveat Emptor)
I’ve spent some weeks now going further with Chad’s genealogy to see what I can find on the internet. In that time, I’ve noticed that there are a lot of different types of genealogist on the internet. They run from people who, I swear, make things up, to people who refuse to post anything they haven’t verified for themselves in the actual records in the actual county or parish in question.
Now I was a scientist before having kids, so I can really relate to the people who are diligent about verifying sources and who always document what the proof is for any person or relationship they might post – and they are not content just to bookmark to somebody else’s ged.com file, they have either a centuries-old book of genealogy or parish birth and death records or they’ve looked up wills. I really admire these people. None of us would have ANYTHING to post (except made-up stuff) if they didn’t do the real work for us.
However. I am not that type of person. I have small children and a limited amount of time and money to spend. I do have enough time (in the winter, while they are in school) to go online and see what I can find, but I don’t have the time or inclination to travel to Europe and look through piles of musty record books. And if I limited what I post in our genealogy to only what the REAL genealogists post, let’s face it, I wouldn’t have much.
So I do have ancestors in our genealogy whose information I got from somebody’s ged.com file who didn’t post their sources. In making the decision to include this information, I know that sometimes I will get things wrong or perpetuate myths. I will always include the best information I can find – which means that if I find conflicting information, I will go with the one with the best documentation. That’s already happened, in the Woolsey line. There is a wonderful page by a REAL genealogist (Wilfred Whittaker’s Woolsey Myths http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~woolsey/index2.html ) showing systematically how some information about the Woolseys has been carefully debunked and what the real story is. Of course, I had the bogus information on our genealogy, so now I will change what we have to reflect this better-documented information. I will try to do this every time I can find better information. I do want to have the most accurate genealogy I can.
However. In the case of the Stricklands (John and his daughter Elizabeth), there are several very learned and admirable genealogists who will not accept that they are father and daughter because nobody REALLY knows where they came from in England, so we have no birth records for them. Now I can appreciate accuracy, and I completely understand where these genealogists are coming from. However, for me, the amateur, I feel there is enough contemporary (in their time) information referring to them as father and daughter that I can accept the relationship. I know there’s a difference between what can be proven right, and what can’t be proven wrong. However, I have made the decision to go ahead and include things in our genealogy that have not been definitively proven right, but haven’t been proven wrong, as long as they make sense to me. I know that a REAL genealogist would cringe at that, but so be it. This isn’t a doctoral dissertation. It’s supposed to be a fun hobby.
So in conclusion, as you read our genealogy, please have fun. I have tried to document where I found each piece of information online. If you are setting up your own genealogy, by all means check the links and decide for yourself whether the information is good enough for you to use. There is a lot of stuff out there, and some of it makes sense and some does not. I am trying to make this a genealogy that makes sense, but not necessarily one that contains nothing but what can be definitively proven. Caveat emptor.
One last thing: We list only birth, death and marriage dates. In some cases, I have used christening/baptismal dates interchangeably with birth dates and I have used will probate or burial dates interchangeably with death dates if there are no birth or death dates available, figuring that they are a pretty good estimate. Also, some sources are careful to list a date falling between January and March as (for example) Feb 1, 1758/1759 to show that they understand (and assume that you understand) that there were discrepancies in calendar dates depending on when a country (such as England) switched to the calendar (and New Year’s day) that we use today. I’m just not that anal, so I picked a year and went with it (ie. Feb 1, 1759). Apparently there is also confusion over using numbers for months. For instance, 4/1/1780 might actually mean June 1, 1780 if June was the 4th month (since the New Year was celebrated around Easter instead of Jan 1). I am not even attempting to verify dates like this one way or the other. If I’m recording stuff that happened 300 years ago, being off by a couple months doesn’t really worry me.
I hope you find some things that interest you in our genealogy. I know I did.
Jennifer Hart