Will of William D Powell--July 1934-proved in Lee Co AL

"Tennessee Probate Court Books, 1795-1927," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:SQWX-JCFG-9?cc=1909088&wc=M6QW-V68%3A179727801%2C180198101 : 22 May 2014), Rutherford > image 293 of 327; county courthouses, Tennessee.


Reading thru the Probate Records of Rutherford Co TN and I happen to find a will that was written by a resident of Louisville KY, William D. Powell.   Looks like it was proved in Lee Co AL in July 1934.  It provides a full listing of the living children including the areas where they live.  I was not able to figure out why the copy was included in the Rutherford Co TN records.  I did look for the location of Henning, Tennessee but it is in Lauderdale County which is not near Rutherford County.  I love the detail found in this will too.  Mr. Powell instructs that there is to be enough money put aside from his estate to make a $100 contribution to the Southern Baptist for 3 years.  He also in Item 6 makes a statement of faith.

A check at Ancestry shows that the Probate Papers in Lee County Alabama are extensive
The Ancestry "packet" contains 52 images.

Cover Page 1
Order Papers 2–8
Will Papers 9–10
Petition Papers 11–14
Account Papers 15–34
Petition Papers 35–43
Order Papers 44–45
Petition Papers 46–49
Administration Papers 50–52

This makes me wonder about his descendants and if they stayed in contact given that he had children who were living in 8 different US states at the time of his death.

Shared Ancestor Hint thrown off by tree discrepancies

Overwhelmed with the number of matches lately but today I took the time to work the Shared Ancestor Hints and noticed this.  

The match in question is genealogically a 5th cousin which this should show.  It's really not thru any fault of Ancestry that it isn't showing correctly.  I believe that it's actually caused by the match's entry for the husband of Annie Rice.  We both have the husband as James Hatfield but the middle initials are different for each of us and the other tree has him living over 40 yrs more than what I have in my tree.  That difference likely caused the comparison tool to think it was comparing two different Annie Rices.  I did check the shared matches and they are my Pittman/Hatfield cousins.  I think the DNA may actually be thru the Hatfield line on this one or there may be different shared segments of DNA among all of us and part may be Rice...some Hatfield and maybe some Pittman.  Be prepared to investigate and see what is causing things of this nature.  Triangulation is necessary if I want to be able to mark the matching segment and assign it to a specific ancestor or ancestor group.

An example of why we must ALWAYS check the image.

Digging thru Riddles in the Warren Co TN area I was reminded of why you should always click thru to the image for further examination.

Reading the index would make you think this household is made up of 2 Males.  That really doesn't make sense given that the head of household is female.  Even if she were a person of color she would be listed in Total All column.

I pasted the column headers in just above the snippet of Mary's entry so you could see how many in each age group and gender were enumerated. (Click image to enlarge)

The index did not include the 3 white females in the household.  

1 ------- 30-under 40

1 ------- 50-under 60

1 ------- 70-under 80

I left a comment on this entry to make others aware of the omission.  

When you think about how many people this information has passed thru it's amazing that we still have any of it.

This particular entry was from the Ancestry Database of the 1830 United States Federal Census.  That database was made using images digitized by FamilySearch of the census pages which were microfilmed by the NARA.  I do not know who indexed the census. Those pages of census data were collected by the census taker from someone in that household(and in some cases probably a neighbor).  From what I understand it was not uncommon for the census taker to collect the data and then write it on the census form later in his best...or sometimes worst handwriting.  I checked to see if the 1830 census pages still exist but from what I can gather the NARA only has the negative photostatic copies for the year 1830. [1]

Ancestry Database:
Ancestry.com. 1830 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Images reproduced by FamilySearch.1830; Image 141 of 158.

Family History Library Film:
Census Place: Warren, Tennessee; Series: M19; Roll: 181; Page: 367; Family History Library Film: 0024539

Original data: 

Fifth Census of the United States, 1830. (NARA microfilm publication M19, 201 rolls). Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

It's a Blogiversary!! MarieB's Genealogy Blog turns 13!!

It is hard to believe that it has been 13 years since I started blogging about my genealogy. There have been times when I rarely posted and others in which I posted a great deal.  I am thankful I have an outlet to share my excitement about my family history research and things that I've found that have been helpful and maybe at times--things to avoid.  Thanks to my readers past, present and future for being part of the journey.  I love my research and I love sharing tips and genealogy "happy dance" moments with you.  In celebration of the Blogiversary I thought it might be a good idea to review the top 13 most popular posts of the 13 years!  Hope you enjoy and I look forward to sharing many more posts with you!

13 Most Popular Posts

at MarieB's Genealogy Blog

1. Arrival in America of my Putman/Putnam and Shropshire Ancestors--Oct 3, 2009
2. Elisha Miller Robinson(1825-1896)--Jul 10, 2009
3. How the houses my Grandparents lived in look today(Part 1 Part 2)--Oct 26, 2013
4. My Grandmother's Post Cards--Tennessee Buildings--Oct 9, 2009
5. My 32 Great Great Great Grandparents( 30 known, 2 unknown)--Sep 5, 2009
6. Skill builders from the Board for Certification of Genealogists--Jul 19, 2004
7. Examining a Maternal DNA Circle--Mason Combs(1746-1802) --Mar 21, 2017
8. Dear Cousins: If you have taken an atDNA test--Nov 18, 2016
9. Researching Confederate Records of the Civil War.--Aug 30, 2016
10. 1840 Williamson Co. TN Census Head of Households Dist 25--Apr  19, 2016
11. AncestryDNA Circles Spreadsheet strategy--Aug 9, 2016
12. March 21, 1891--Birthday of Pearl Gray Jakes Cooke--Mar 31, 2017
13. A plan for helping to identify my 3rd and 4th cousins DNA matches--Aug 27, 2016

AncestryDNA results--a 3 generation comparison of DNA Match

I have an example of  a DNA match across 3 generations and also a very good illustration of why the ability to compare in a chromosome browser is the only way to know with more certainty how we match someone.  Below you see the match, Joy compared to my Mom,Beatrice.  They share 10.1 cM across 1 DNA segment

Next let's look at my sister, Rebecca compared to Joy.(You can only do the comparison with tests for which you have admin or editor rights.)  Looks like she didn't get that segment from Mom.

Compared with Joy she and I share 25.3 cMs across 2 segments.  Wait--Mom only had 10.1 cM.  Where did I pick up the other 15.2 cMs?  Was it a no-call on Mom's test and actually from her side?  Did I get it from my Dad?  Dad passed before he could test but I have a phased kit of the DNA which I got from him.  I could compare my paternal phased DNA  if Joy were at GEDmatch.   Hopefully she will upload her results there.

Now let's take a look at my daughter, Brittany compared to Joy. Looks like she got both segments and would have the potential for passing these segments on to any children she may have.

Thoughts:  We can't know for sure that the 15.2 cM segment that I have and that I passed on is from my Dad without comparison of the tests results in a Chromosome Browser. Then we can draw some conclusions.  Think about it though--Rebecca's two children will not have these segments because she did not have them to pass on to them.  That is how sometimes we have different matches than our siblings  DNA Randomness. It's no wonder that on average we only match about half of our 4th cousins.

Perfect Example of why you should always check the image

Never in my research has there been a better example which illustrates the importance of always clicking thru to view the linked images.  If you check the image you will see this is the page on which the census taker, Lula S. Berry is adding all the people that were left out of earlier households. She has the words "Out Of Order" written at the top of the page.  It looks like the information to find the households which they were a part of is included in the Location & Household Column along with a note on one of the earlier entries before this grouping that says Information furnished by Ms? Irvine.   It is difficult to tell what her system may have been for referencing those households.  The snippet I included is of the Record which is linked to Stamped page 261 Sheet 61A.  The people ABOVE the blue line are included on the page which is linked to the record.   It looks like it was in question whether some infants should have been included or not and the census taker waited til the last to add them.  Also the persons who are shown on the record snippet BELOW the blue line and  located Two images ahead are guests at the Imperial Hotel in Monterey TN.  Always check the image and never blindly add from the record.  Additionally, It's a good idea to check at the end of a district to see if there are any persons of interest which were left out of the initial entry and are included at the end of that district.  Browsing thru this district which is in order by the stamped page number, you will see that sometimes the sheet number doesn't follow the pattern you would expect it to follow.  Always check the image and browse a few pages before and after the entry of interest especially if it doesn't appear to be a standard enumeration.  We could blame this on the census taker or the indexer.  In my opinion the blame is on us as researchers for not checking more closely.

1940 U.S. census, Putnam County, Tennessee, population schedule, Monterey Town, Enum. Dist: 71-18, p. 261 (stamped), digital image(45 of 48), Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com/ : accessed 20 April 2017); citing NARA microfilm publication T627, roll 3928.

Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1940. T627, 4,643 rolls.


Enumeration District : 71-18; Description: CIVIL DISTRICT 14, MONTEREY TOWN, DR. W. C. OFFICER´S SANITARIUM