Directionally Challenged

     As I was adding information to my genealogy database on a 4x Great Uncle's descendants, it struck me that collateral research has been my main form genealogy research lately.  I don't know when the last time was that I was able to add a direct ancestor to my tree, but I've certainly added tons of aunts, uncles, cousins, and in-laws.  That realization got me thinking and asking myself a few questions: why is this happening, and it it worth the effort?

     I think there are a number of answers to why I've been doing collateral line research as opposed to trying to discover a new direct ancestor.  First off, it's easier.  The line I'm working on right now, the McCurley family of Elbert County and Hart County, Georgia, goes back to William McCurley, born around 1774 somewhere in South Carolina.  Today I added information on some of William's Great-Grandkids, who were born in the 1850s.  Obviously, it's much easier to research someone born in the 1850s than someone born in the 1770s.  

     Secondly, I sorta feel like I'm not going to be able to go back any further than I've already gone.   This is was depressing thought, and also not true.  Yes, researching in the 1700s is harder than in the mid 1800s and beyond.  But it's not impossible.  For example, I recently went to the Lincoln County, Georgia, courthouse to do some research.  I was looking for the parents of my 5x Great Grandmother, Mary Glaze, or really any information I could find out.  I didn't actually find any new information about her, but I was able to determine that some other Glaze folks in the records were not her parents.  So, I didn't find a new generation, but I did find some information to direct further research.  This is hard work!

     This leads to the third reason: without any recent breakthrough's I've lost some enthusiasm.  Making genealogical discoveries is something of a high.  You feel elated to uncover a new ancestor, which gives you energy to keep going.  Without making these discoveries, I've sort of lost some enthusiasm.

     This brings me to my other question: is collateral line research worth it.  To me, this is an obvious yes, also for a number of reasons.  First, collateral lines help you connect with other researchers and find new, living, cousins, especially when considering DNA research.  Going back to my McCurley Family, I added a 4x Great Uncle, Richard, and his family.   Say that there's a descendant of Richard out there, who has not yet uncovered Richard's parents.  If they are looking at family trees, they'll see Richard in mine and make the connection.  If I didn't have Richard, they wouldn't find me until they uncovered Richards parents.  It only makes sense to add, at bare minimum, the children and spouses of all of the aunts and uncles in my tree.  And I often add a few more generations than that.

     Second, researching these aunts and uncles, might help me break down brick walls regarding older ancestors.  With my Waters family, I was able to gather and add together bits and pieces of information on my 3x Great Grandfather by finding records from all of his children, until I had a full picture.  If I had only looked at my direct line, I'd have never broken through that line, because there were gaps in my 2x Great Grandfather's records.

     One final reason for collateral line research is that it keep my hand in the game.  No, I don't get the same high researching aunts and uncles as I would uncovering a new many-times-great grandparent, but it's still genealogy.   Heck, I have fun doing family trees for friends and co-workers; adding a new 2nd cousin 4x removed is a lot more personally beneficial than that.

     But after thinking about the why and the worth of collateral line research, I do still have to wonder if it's enough.  The answer is No.  Though I enjoy collateral line research and find it valuable, I would be  overall more pleased to find a new direct ancestor.  And that's really the main goal isn't it?  To extend you family tree (if you'll excuse the expression) back to Adam and Eve.  I really do want to go back as far as I can with all of my lines, even if it's slow going.

     So I think I need to find some new inspiration.  Maybe I need to just pick a line and go for it: plan a research trip or mail off a records request, track down some family trees and send off some emails, try and find a DNA match on a brick wall line.  I'm not sure what exactly I'm going to do, but I do know that the next time I log into Ancestry, GenealogyBank, Georgia Archives, etc, the goal will be to go backwards, not sideways.

Forgetting the Halfs and Steps

     I've been working on extending a few collateral branches of my family tree. I've been trying to trace the descendants of my Great-ect-Great-Aunts and Uncles (I wrote about why this is important here). While doing this I realized something about how I relate to some of the half and step families in my tree. It's a little odd, so I'll explain it with an example.

     The parents of my Great-Grandfather, Nathan Britt, were not on their first marriages when they had Nathan. His father, William Britt, was on his third marriage. His mother, Amelia Parrish, was on her second marriage. To help find records about his father, I have researched the heck out of his children from all of his marriage. His mother on the other hand... I haven't looked twice at her children from her first marriage. I just realized this and was struck by it.

     The children of Amelia's previous marriage are just as much Nathan's half-siblings as the children of Williams's previous marriages are. Why did I only look at William's kids? Researching Amelia's kids should tell me more about her and my half-aunts and uncles.

     I think it has to do with surnames. William's children shared the Britt surname with Nathan and Amelia's did not. I'm not really sure what other reason there is that I completely disregarded my Great-Grandfather's half siblings. I can think of at least one other family where I've done something similar.

     Well, at least I recognize the holes in my research and can now correct them. Maybe I'll connect with some new cousins when I'm done.

Why Should I Care About Great-Great Grandmother's Siblings?

     I was reading comments on Ancestry.com's blog the other day and a particular of a comment caught my attention.  I'm not trying to call someone out, but to point out an error that others might be making in their research. This comment wasn't directed at me, but was posted on a public blog, so I will re-post part of it here.

"Had spelled the name correctly three years ago, but never got a leaf for her to guide me further. Revisited that profile page again last week! Since I knew her brother lived with her in the 1900 Census, I decided to give him a separate profile page of his own (even though I am not really interested in him, since I only deal with direct blood lines). No sooner than that I had done this that I had a “leaf” on his profile page that led me to two ancestry trees that had HIS SISTER (the ancestor of interest) and her ancestry in it..."

     Do you see the problem here? The researcher was completely ignoring collateral line ancestors. Since they weren't her direct ancestor, she thought they didn't matter. But the minute she added them to her family tree on Ancestry, she got hints that lead her to other family trees for her ancestor.

     I often offer to do family trees for friends and co-workers, since I enjoy the challenge. I always ask them to give me information on someone who was alive in 1930 (now 1940!), including any information on their dates, locations, parents, and siblings. I need enough information to distinguish one Lucy Miller, born 1915, wife of William, with daughter Margaret, from another Lucile Miller, born 1916, wife of Bill, with son Edward. If my friend is the descendant of son, Robert, who was born in 1941 and not yet in the census, I'm at a loss. But if I know that they had a daughter named Margaret, I can pick between the two options (and look for further evidence). If I didn't know about Margaret, I wouldn't know which family was the right one.

     It's extremely important to research the siblings of your direct ancestors, especially if you're stuck. If you have a "brick wall ancestor" and you haven't tried researching their siblings, you might be overlooking an obvious answer. For example: if my ancestor's death certificate lists her parents as John Smith and Mary Smith, I want to look for the other children of John and Mary to find her maiden name. One of their death certificates might tell me that Mary's maiden name was Quisenberry. Hello! Also, think about an obituary of a sibling that might list the parents, or a society piece in the newspaper that mentions a family visit. Any record that ties your direct ancestor to their parents likely exists for the siblings. If your ancestor's document is faulty, the siblings' document is like a second chance.

     You can't stick to your direct blood line relatives if you want your family tree to grow. It's that simple.

Waters - Smith - Carson Connection

Edited 12 Jun 2011

     One of the earliest brick walls on my mom's side of the tree is the Waters family. I can't uncover details on J Waters and Mary, parents to Leverett, Millard and Queen Waters. To try and uncover the ancestry of this couple, I'm researching all of the children, not just my direct ancestor.

     Today, a search on Genealogy Bank turned up a result for "Mrs. Millard Waters." I know that Millard appeared in 1920 with a wife whose name looks to be Suzie. In 1930, their known children, Ben and Ida, as well as a new girl, Marie, show up with a mother, Bessie Edwards. Is Millard's wife Suzie or Bessie? Did she marry a Mr Edwards after Millard's death?


     I can't find any mention of Millard after 1920 and I didn't have information on his wife - until today. I found an obituary for Allen M Carson, who had a sister called Mrs. Millard Waters of Atlanta. This provided me with Suzie's parents: William and Ella Carson. And guess what? They were already in my tree, complete with two daughters named Susan and Betsey!

      I'll need to do a little more research to sort out Susan and Betsey, but this information didn't actually add anyone to the tree, it just connected people. In fact, it created something of a circle. This family connection gets pretty confusing, so instead of explaining everything, I drew a family tree: