If you have been out there, actively pursuing your own
genealogy, you have likely encountered those little leaf-shaped icons dubbed by
many Ancestry.com customers the Shaky Leaves. A researcher using Ancestry.com’s
services plugs in an ancestor’s name and, if lucky enough to have that name
match any others in the vast holdings of the company, be rewarded by the
appearance of a “hint” in the form of that shaky leaf.
The idea is that the hint is figuratively tapping you on the
shoulder and whispering, “Pssst! Over here!” Clicking on the leaf would thus
lead you to a digitized image of a document which included your very own
ancestor’s name.
That’s the idea, anyway. When it works, it’s quite slick.
When it doesn’t work, the subscriber gets rewarded with hints nudging him in
the direction of adding a John Smith from Australia
to his Smith family which never left Texas. Thus, the irate responses to shaky
leaves gone astray.
Today, however, I don’t want to grouse about stuff like
that. What I want to explore is the possibility that a shaky leaf can lead you
to a viable match which, when clicked, brings you through the routine of
matching the hint’s data with yours. When you’ve gone through that process,
have you ever had the dialog box give you more information than what
subsequently showed up on your ancestor’s “Source Information” listing, the
next time you click on it?
I’m wondering if that is what’s happening to me. Here’s why.
In puzzling over the Edward Broyles that was supposedly my maternal
grandmother’s “great uncle,” I wasn’t able to re-locate him in any of the
Broyles family’s material on my own tree. He certainly wasn’t among the names
on the 1850 census for the patriarch of my grandmother’s own grandfather’s
childhood home. There were no census
enumerations before that point that named each member of a household. So where
did I find the information showing me that Edward was son of Ozey Robert Broyles,
and thus brother to my second great-grandfather, Thomas Taliaferro Broyles?
Since I had just been working on this line only a few days
ago, it was easy to pull up the material I had recently added to the household
of Ozey Robert Broyles, Thomas’ father. It seemed to me I had found a report of
another son’s marriage—a son I had yet to find documentation on—through the inclusion of the groom’s parents’ names.
Yet, when I looked back on the two collections garnered in that search, on
second click, neither of them mentioned anything other than the names of the
bride and groom. In one instance, the entries didn’t even provide first names—only
initials.
One collection was gleaned from “marriage records from the Pendleton Messenger” and was actually an
index of entries spanning a date range from 1641 through 1965. When I pulled up
the link once again to double check it, the only items provided were the names,
C. E. Broyles and L. A. Johnson. (For the hopelessly romantic among us, the
marriage date was provided as 28 June, 1848—though knowing it still doesn’t
help me explain how I came upon that
fact.)
The other collection was called U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900, an online
database “extracted from a variety of sources including family group sheets and
electronic databases” including, incidentally, such thoroughly-vetted sources
as “pedigree charts, family history articles, querie.” That, at least, is what
the source information says for this index on Ancestry.com.
Could I find the details on how the shaky leaf hint led me
from Ozey Robert Broyles and his wife, Sarah Ann Taliaferro, to this apparent
son, C. E. Broyles? Clicking on the link again in my file, I found the answer
was, sadly, no. At least, the file offered me the consolation prize of
providing the full name for Mr. C. E.: Charles Edward Broyles. And for Miss L. A.
Johnson? Lucy Ann.
Setting aside any qualms regarding reliability of the information
included in such a catch-all “index,” my question is: how did those hints find
their way to me, by sheer connection of parents’ names? And if that is indeed
how they came to pop up on my Ancestry.com page, why don’t those details show
up when I try to click through for a review, later?
Okay, maybe I’m getting a little too cranky about this
trifling matter. Admittedly, I could wander to the other end of this particular
lifespan and see if there might be any parent information on a death
certificate. Or maybe a great entry on Find A Grave, at the very least.
Indeed, there is
an entry on Find A Grave for a Charles Edward Broyles. But he isn’t married to
any Lucy Ann Johnson. And he certainly wasn’t buried anywhere close to their
1850 Murray County, Georgia home.
Does that mean there are two
Charles Edward Broyleses? Which one, then, would be son of Ozey Robert Broyles—and,
more to the point, brother to my second great-grandfather, Thomas Broyles?
Worse, what if neither of these
Charleses is the “Edward” referred to in that letter to my grandmother?
As it turns out, there is plenty of material online
regarding a Charles Edward Broyles from this time period. Though it takes a
while to sort through all the available records, it eventually unfolds to tell
what, for me, became an unexpected family story.
Tomorrow, we’ll begin retracing these steps by starting with
the 1850 census record, back in Georgia,
for Charles Edward Broyles and his bride, Lucy Ann Johnson. Remembering the
need to pinpoint residences in Georgia,
we’ll work our way through the decades and track the family’s whereabouts in the
state.
We can’t just stop there, though. We’ll have to work our way
through the schism that caused a Charles Edward Broyles to disappear in Georgia before the 1880 census was enumerated,
and a Charles Edward Broyles to materialize nearly on the other side of the
country with an entry in the 1880 census record for Colorado. Though only a detour on our quest
to locate the Georgia
connection that allowed Charles’ brother Thomas to find his own Georgia-born
bride, Charles Edward Broyles’ story provides enough adventure of its own.
Hold onto your hat! Sounds like an adventure to me:)
ReplyDeleteOh, just wait 'til we get to Colorado!
DeleteI like the hints - but have learned to be very, very careful with them!
ReplyDeleteOh, definitely! There's no wholesale acceptance with that bunch!
Delete