Apparently, the hit BBC show Who Do You Think You Are (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/family_history_faq.shtml) is coming to the U.S. courtesy of NBC (link: www.nbc.com).  The show, in its fifth season in Britain, presents the genealogy of famous people to the celebrity subjects.  Apparently, the show has sparked a renewed interest in genealogy in Britain. It reminds me of Henry Louis Gates' PBS (link: www.pbs.org) show African American Lives 2 (link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/) which presented the genealogy of famous African-Americans with suprising twists and turns and heart-wrenching stories of perfidy and heroism.

According to the story published in Hollywood Reporter, the British Who Do You Think You Are "uncovered backstories included tales of bigamy, wartime heroism and, in one case, attempted murder. Celebrity participants often are brought to tears as they learn about their relatives' hardships."  The full story can be found here (link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ib8b5060e33b9624e43b1e8bb77126058)

Posted by Stephen

During the Baton Rouge research trip, we, of course, climbed through cemeteries. Magnolia Cemetery in Baton Rouge is amazing. It's a shame that something on the National Registry of Historic Places is not better maintained, but I am sure money must be an issue. But to see gravestones fallen over, broken or covered with fire ant mounds as big as volleyballs is hard.

We also visited the Foundation that oversees Magnolia, housed in the old governor's mansion building, beautifully restored and impressive. Goes to show you that, yet again, those who have passed on get the minimum.

Stephe and I just returned (well, a few months back) from a research trip to Baton Rouge. We had a grand time. The weather was okay. The food was great. And, wow, did we find some amazing things. And I will have several postings about this trip.

We spent most of our time in the East Baton Rouge Parish clerk's office (Louisiana has parishes instead of counties). We could have spent another week there easily. We were the odd folks out amongst all the real estate title people and attorneys. No matter. The East Baton Rouge Parish clerk's office is very welcoming to genealogists (not always the case), and the staff was welcoming, helpful and encouraging.

The research was fabulous. We found answers to old riddles, discovered new scandals, scratched our heads over new puzzles and ended up with a five inch pile of documents to transcribe: marriage licenses, successions (probate), divorce proceedings, lawsuits and more.

None of these things were on the internet. None were in books, as far as I know. I'm not sure even the Family History Center would have the full microfilm (and copies would be impossible).

I was reminded of an important lesson. Nothing takes the place of going to a locality and doing the research onsite. It's very expensive. It's very tiring. And there is never enough time. But when all else fails, you have to go there.

And I can't wait to go back! Thank you, Stephen.

I've been working on my paternal side for a while; actually, Stephen and I have been working together. We've come across several naming patterns that have us baffled.

First is a many-times-great grandmother with the birth name of Virginia Harney Elam. Harney is really her middle name; it is not a previous marriage name (yes, we're sure. We have her Bible and a trillion records). So what is the problem? There are no known Harneys in the family. We've searched Baton Rouge (where she lived her whole life) and there is only one person with a Harney surname that we can find that lived there…and he was a military doctor that came AFTER she was born (a bachelor who never married). Further, the same name pops up as a middle name is several other branches of our tree, some related to Virginia Harney Elam, some not.

What's up with that? Did they just think it a cool name? Was there a celebrity with that name, now lost to history, but everyone latched onto the name (along the lines of Southern women loving the name Scarlett)? Are we missing an obvious connection-a maiden name or a distant relative?

The second is on another branch (actually, it's the husband of the above referenced Virginia), William Hull Gayle. Again, we can find no Hull's in the family (and this family has been researched quite well. We've found a William Hull who was a general in the US Army during the War of 1812 (so the timeline fits). Only problem with that is he was in command of the forces in Michigan (a long way from Baton Rouge) and was court-martialed for losing Detroit to the British (he was later remitted, or pardoned). Not particularly convincing as a solution. There is a William Hull back in old "home county" in the Carolinas, but that is a bit of a stretch. There is a William Hull in a nearby Louisiana parish (county), but we have found no connection as of yet. Or maybe it has nothing to do with a William Hull, maybe there is another "plain" Hull floating around somewhere.

These are minor points…maybe. Naming patterns can be so helpful in genealogy. One "odd" name can be a thumbprint for connecting a family. While not actual proof, in a research sense, that odd name can encourage further investigation.

Or it can just make you crazy with curiosity!
Posted by Andrea

Posted by Stephen:

I honestly don’t know how many times I have found myself looking up a possible census hit only to realize that the person lived next door to relatives I had already found.

Apparently, or at least in my family, we either keep our relatives nearby or we marry the neighbors.

For example, I tracked my great-great-great grandmother in the 1870 East Baton Rouge, Louisiana census. Her maiden name was Mary Jane ROBERTSON, but in the drawl of Anglo-Louisiana (as it had come to me), her name was sometimes listed ROBERSON, ROBESON or even ROBINSON. I thought, (based on poor transcription), that her father was Isiah and her mother Catherine TITREVILLE (turned out to be TIDWELL), but had no idea about siblings or any other relatives. I knew she had married a COOK after the 1860 census. I found her in 1870 living with her daughter and a Lizzie ROBERSON (no ‘t’), probably a sister.

Having triumphantly added one new relative to my tree (like a Christmas ornament), I didn’t even bother to notice that two households up the census page was a David A. ROBERTSON. He would turn out to be my ggg-grandmother’s brother.

And it was a couple of years before I found out that her other sister, Sarah Ann, had married a Charles ROBERTS. When I checked the 1870 census, Sarah Ann and Charles ROBERTS were the household between David ROBERTSON and Mary Jane COOK. The fact that Sarah Ann had named her children traditional family names should have attracted my attention previously, but it didn’t.

I have learned my lesson, however. Now whenever I find relatives, or "people of interest" as I like to call them, I always take a careful look at the neighbors. I notice their names, ages, places of birth and occupations to see if there are clues or similarities to my family. Oftentimes I don’t always see anything meaningful, even when the neighbors later turn out to be relatives. But every once in a while, I come across a neighbor household that just fits. After looking further, I will discover a person who I had seen in a census, but because of the pervasive use of nicknames, or poor handwriting, was lost.