Happy cousins and fellow researchers...
I'm moving this blog over to Wordpress.
TheFamilyOrchard.Com
Comments on this blogger site have been de-activated, so Update your links!!
All my past blogs have already been moved over to the WordPress site and that new site will serve as both my blog AND my website (condensing my need to maintain two sites).
Friday, July 19, 2013
Monday, November 19, 2012
It's a Small World
Just a personal story to share....
I teach classes online to national organizations. I'm always interested to speak to people from other areas, and I'm good at hearing accents (especially being from North Carolina).
So when I was talking to an organization in Wyoming, I knew this woman was from North Carolina, and more specifically, the Piedmont area.
When the training was over I had to ask.... "Are you originally from Wyoming?"
"No, I'm from North Carolina" Nailed it! "from Greenville, actually from a small town called Kinston"
My immediate response... "oh yes, I know Kinston. My whole family is from that area, am related to the Kilpatricks and Mewborns and Webbs"
Small gasp. "My aunt married a Webb"
And so it was that on a random training last week, me in Oregon and a woman in Wyoming, we realized that we were related. Not directly, her aunt married a Webb. But I have her aunt & the Webb uncle in my database.
It's a small small world.
I teach classes online to national organizations. I'm always interested to speak to people from other areas, and I'm good at hearing accents (especially being from North Carolina).
So when I was talking to an organization in Wyoming, I knew this woman was from North Carolina, and more specifically, the Piedmont area.
When the training was over I had to ask.... "Are you originally from Wyoming?"
"No, I'm from North Carolina" Nailed it! "from Greenville, actually from a small town called Kinston"
My immediate response... "oh yes, I know Kinston. My whole family is from that area, am related to the Kilpatricks and Mewborns and Webbs"
Small gasp. "My aunt married a Webb"
And so it was that on a random training last week, me in Oregon and a woman in Wyoming, we realized that we were related. Not directly, her aunt married a Webb. But I have her aunt & the Webb uncle in my database.
It's a small small world.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Arthur Young, Video
For me, genealogy research remains something For Fun that happens on nights when the interest hits me. Sometimes I pick a name and research for a day or a week. Other nights, like tonight, I go back to names that are familiar for me and just start Googling, to see if anything new has arrived to the world.
Tonight, in a random search of all my Great Uncles, YouTube, believe it or not, gives us a video of Art Young killing a moose with a bow.
It's old, it's a "Silent Film" with descriptive slides, and very loud classical music in the background. We're talking about Art Young, 1882-1935. The idea that a video of him in the flesh has survived, much less that someone put it on YouTube.. well, it is a fascinating world indeed.
Tonight, in a random search of all my Great Uncles, YouTube, believe it or not, gives us a video of Art Young killing a moose with a bow.
It's old, it's a "Silent Film" with descriptive slides, and very loud classical music in the background. We're talking about Art Young, 1882-1935. The idea that a video of him in the flesh has survived, much less that someone put it on YouTube.. well, it is a fascinating world indeed.
Monday, July 9, 2012
The Story of Edward Babbitt (Bobet, or Bobit)
There are times I just start typing away, transcribing pages from the books I find on Google books, not sure of what I'll find. Today, who knew I'd stumble upon an Indian Massacre. So I have to share.
Collections of the Old Colony Historical Society
Papers read before the Historical Society
Indian Massacres in Taunton, by Gen. Ebenezer W. Pierce
Read before the Old Colony Historical Society, Jan 9 1888
"....Edward Babbitt, or Bobit as Gen. Winslow wrote the surname, was enumerated among the inhabitants of Taunton who were able to bear arms in 1643, which fact shows that at that date, he was more than 16years old but under 60.
In 1668 he with John Hathway and Timothy Holloway purchased 400 acres track of land in what was then Taunton, but now Berkley. This tract had been the farm of Mr. William Hook and Mr. Nicholas Street.
Edward Bobit was juryman for Taunton in 1668. He appears to have been married in or near the year 1654. The names of his children:
Edward, July 1655, married Feb 1, 1683, Abigail Tisdale
Sarah, Mar 20, 1657, married Mar 25, 1680, Samuel Pitts
Hannah, Mar 9, 1660
Damaris, Sept 15 1663
Elkanah, Dec 5, 1665, married June 25, 1699, Elizabeth Briggs
Dorcas, June 20, 1667 died April 6, 1674, aged 6 years, 9 months, 20 days
Esther, april 15 1669, married August 23, 1693, Edward Paull. He died July 5, 1740; she died November 15, 1751
Ruth, Aug 7 1671
Deliverance, Dec 15, 1673
...At the commencement of the Indian hostilities in June 1675, Edward Babbitt and family were compelled to abandon their homes in what is now Berkley, and beat a hasty retreat to one fo the fortified houses not far from the Green in Taunton. There they remained nearly or quite a year when Edward ventured to visit his abandoned and desolate home; meeting no Indians on his way until he had reached his destination, made his examinations and was returning to the fortified house in Taunton, when he learned that he had been discovered by the Indians one or more of whom were following him.
When upon the high grounds a little easterly the site of Berkley and Dighton bridge, Babbitt despairing of escaping the foe by flight, sought to secrete himself in the top of a tree. He possibly would have succeeded but for his dog that altogether too faithfully persisted in keeping his master company by posting himself at the foot of the tree that he climbed, where by the foliage was hidden from view. Thus the dog betrayed his master's hiding place to his pursuers and he was shot and killed, and his dead body left at the foot of the tree, where the white people found it some time after, and buried it near by.
The precise spot where the remains of Babbitt were found and buried are still pointed out, and until quite recently has been marked by a slab of dark colored stone upon which was rudely carved:
BoBeT
KILLeD
JUNe 1676
A slight depression in the ground is pointed out as all that remains to show were Bobet was buried. I visited the spot June 17, 1878. The gravestone had been removed and was lying beside the wall several rods from the grave. It took considerable time and pains to decipher its inscription, that was rapidly becoming effaced. "
Collections of the Old Colony Historical Society
Papers read before the Historical Society
Indian Massacres in Taunton, by Gen. Ebenezer W. Pierce
Read before the Old Colony Historical Society, Jan 9 1888
"....Edward Babbitt, or Bobit as Gen. Winslow wrote the surname, was enumerated among the inhabitants of Taunton who were able to bear arms in 1643, which fact shows that at that date, he was more than 16years old but under 60.
In 1668 he with John Hathway and Timothy Holloway purchased 400 acres track of land in what was then Taunton, but now Berkley. This tract had been the farm of Mr. William Hook and Mr. Nicholas Street.
Edward Bobit was juryman for Taunton in 1668. He appears to have been married in or near the year 1654. The names of his children:
Edward, July 1655, married Feb 1, 1683, Abigail Tisdale
Sarah, Mar 20, 1657, married Mar 25, 1680, Samuel Pitts
Hannah, Mar 9, 1660
Damaris, Sept 15 1663
Elkanah, Dec 5, 1665, married June 25, 1699, Elizabeth Briggs
Dorcas, June 20, 1667 died April 6, 1674, aged 6 years, 9 months, 20 days
Esther, april 15 1669, married August 23, 1693, Edward Paull. He died July 5, 1740; she died November 15, 1751
Ruth, Aug 7 1671
Deliverance, Dec 15, 1673
...At the commencement of the Indian hostilities in June 1675, Edward Babbitt and family were compelled to abandon their homes in what is now Berkley, and beat a hasty retreat to one fo the fortified houses not far from the Green in Taunton. There they remained nearly or quite a year when Edward ventured to visit his abandoned and desolate home; meeting no Indians on his way until he had reached his destination, made his examinations and was returning to the fortified house in Taunton, when he learned that he had been discovered by the Indians one or more of whom were following him.
When upon the high grounds a little easterly the site of Berkley and Dighton bridge, Babbitt despairing of escaping the foe by flight, sought to secrete himself in the top of a tree. He possibly would have succeeded but for his dog that altogether too faithfully persisted in keeping his master company by posting himself at the foot of the tree that he climbed, where by the foliage was hidden from view. Thus the dog betrayed his master's hiding place to his pursuers and he was shot and killed, and his dead body left at the foot of the tree, where the white people found it some time after, and buried it near by.
The precise spot where the remains of Babbitt were found and buried are still pointed out, and until quite recently has been marked by a slab of dark colored stone upon which was rudely carved:
BoBeT
KILLeD
JUNe 1676
A slight depression in the ground is pointed out as all that remains to show were Bobet was buried. I visited the spot June 17, 1878. The gravestone had been removed and was lying beside the wall several rods from the grave. It took considerable time and pains to decipher its inscription, that was rapidly becoming effaced. "
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Ancestry... ownership, and accountability
So after being a member of Ancestry for, oh 12+years? When did Ancestry start? Because I was there back when it started and it was FREE. But now finally after being a Paid member for so many years, I finally decided to upload my "tree" to Ancestry.
I'm still torn.
I figure, throw it out there for those to find it.
I still love Rootsweb. I'd thought that Ancestry tied in to Rootsweb. It used to, at least. You'd look someone up on Ancestry, you'd get their Rootsweb submission.
Today, still, you have a Rootsweb tree and you get the Ancestry hints (provided that you're an Ancestry member, of course). So it seemed like the two were still tied together.
But recently people have told me that they could find ME on Ancestry. Which after 17yrs of having an online database just seemed preposterous, yet... True. My database was not accessible on Ancestry.
So I did it. I uploaded my tree.
All my 28K people including thousands of bad data, because you can't have one without the other.
I've tried.
I've purged as much as I can about real people I know about, but so so many years of bad research with no sources and nothing to back it up... is still part of my tree.
It pains me that I've found yet another venue to perpetuate my years of bad research.
And so, I apologize to you out there for that.
---
I'm not a fan of the "online tree", as far as the online version housing my notes and sources. MY research is stored in my database, on my computer or server or wherever I have it. I do not want it to be on Ancestry. I'm not a fan of "including this source" into whatever record I find online. I do not want Ancestry to be my house. And I'm quite sure that somewhere in the rules and regulations that I clicked "accept" to without reading, I've now allowed Ancestry to OWN my data. Which I REALLY DO NOT LIKE.
That being said, I uploaded my gedcom without sources attached. I included notes, not that anyone will really look at the notes pages. Right now, it probably looks like an unsourced tree, which is grossly untrue and unfair. But my fear of Ancestry owning my sources, I'm just not happy with doing that... yet.
So the few "hints" that I've found along the way - there is something nice and appealing about that little green leaf that appears - I have "added" to my tree. Of course I've manually added to my own database as I move along. Because, well, I've learned better over the years.
---
I'm also recently not a fan that you can add someone else's submission to your own tree, whether photos or documents. Which it may source it through the Ancestry online tree, I find this oddly EASY to suddenly claim this document as MINE.
It's not MINE! I've found So many documents and photos attached to Ancestry online trees that so easily get incorporated into my own tree... and they're not mine! This is a LIE to just, with a simple click, attach them to my tree. Someone found that oral history, compiled it, wrote it down. For me to just attach it to my own tree.... it's just wrong.
I'll say it. It's WRONG. It's TOO EASY. And it's simply not fair to those that have done the work.
---
So in researching my own immediate family, no surprise to find that not only is my data attributed to others' trees, but so are my photos, which I supplied here on this blog.
And I'm questioning that a bit.
I mean, I post a picture of James Barney Webb. I have no more connection to him than any other cousin. Just because I own this picture doesn't make me any closer to him than a cousin out there that has equally never met him. Which is why I share! I claim ownership because I physically own that picture in my boxes and safes of historical documents about my family, but I have no ownership to this man.
And I'm happy to share.
Let me reiterate this for myself and everyone out there.. I am happy to share! It is, afterall, what we're all doing here. I posted pictures on this blog and on my personal website in the effort to share. I am SO thankful to people who've shared their pictures with me. And I am SO SORRY for those that I do not give credit - goodness knows I did not document anything for so many years. I am exactly the person I'm trying to stop right now.
But there's something about Ancestry... maybe it's just my own witness of "it's" changes over the years, that while I want to share, it does bug me when I see MY photo show up on 30 other people's online tree. I don't know what that is, and I'm working on it.
But as far as my online tree at Ancestry goes, I've now watermarked my images. If you want to research or do a simple google search, you'll find all the same images here on my blog, you can choose whether or not to source them. But just because you can simply "add to tree" to someone in your online tree... I think a watermark is warranted.
Let me know how you feel about this.
I'm still torn.
I figure, throw it out there for those to find it.
I still love Rootsweb. I'd thought that Ancestry tied in to Rootsweb. It used to, at least. You'd look someone up on Ancestry, you'd get their Rootsweb submission.
Today, still, you have a Rootsweb tree and you get the Ancestry hints (provided that you're an Ancestry member, of course). So it seemed like the two were still tied together.
But recently people have told me that they could find ME on Ancestry. Which after 17yrs of having an online database just seemed preposterous, yet... True. My database was not accessible on Ancestry.
So I did it. I uploaded my tree.
All my 28K people including thousands of bad data, because you can't have one without the other.
I've tried.
I've purged as much as I can about real people I know about, but so so many years of bad research with no sources and nothing to back it up... is still part of my tree.
It pains me that I've found yet another venue to perpetuate my years of bad research.
And so, I apologize to you out there for that.
---
I'm not a fan of the "online tree", as far as the online version housing my notes and sources. MY research is stored in my database, on my computer or server or wherever I have it. I do not want it to be on Ancestry. I'm not a fan of "including this source" into whatever record I find online. I do not want Ancestry to be my house. And I'm quite sure that somewhere in the rules and regulations that I clicked "accept" to without reading, I've now allowed Ancestry to OWN my data. Which I REALLY DO NOT LIKE.
That being said, I uploaded my gedcom without sources attached. I included notes, not that anyone will really look at the notes pages. Right now, it probably looks like an unsourced tree, which is grossly untrue and unfair. But my fear of Ancestry owning my sources, I'm just not happy with doing that... yet.
So the few "hints" that I've found along the way - there is something nice and appealing about that little green leaf that appears - I have "added" to my tree. Of course I've manually added to my own database as I move along. Because, well, I've learned better over the years.
---
I'm also recently not a fan that you can add someone else's submission to your own tree, whether photos or documents. Which it may source it through the Ancestry online tree, I find this oddly EASY to suddenly claim this document as MINE.
It's not MINE! I've found So many documents and photos attached to Ancestry online trees that so easily get incorporated into my own tree... and they're not mine! This is a LIE to just, with a simple click, attach them to my tree. Someone found that oral history, compiled it, wrote it down. For me to just attach it to my own tree.... it's just wrong.
I'll say it. It's WRONG. It's TOO EASY. And it's simply not fair to those that have done the work.
---
So in researching my own immediate family, no surprise to find that not only is my data attributed to others' trees, but so are my photos, which I supplied here on this blog.
And I'm questioning that a bit.
I mean, I post a picture of James Barney Webb. I have no more connection to him than any other cousin. Just because I own this picture doesn't make me any closer to him than a cousin out there that has equally never met him. Which is why I share! I claim ownership because I physically own that picture in my boxes and safes of historical documents about my family, but I have no ownership to this man.
And I'm happy to share.
Let me reiterate this for myself and everyone out there.. I am happy to share! It is, afterall, what we're all doing here. I posted pictures on this blog and on my personal website in the effort to share. I am SO thankful to people who've shared their pictures with me. And I am SO SORRY for those that I do not give credit - goodness knows I did not document anything for so many years. I am exactly the person I'm trying to stop right now.
But there's something about Ancestry... maybe it's just my own witness of "it's" changes over the years, that while I want to share, it does bug me when I see MY photo show up on 30 other people's online tree. I don't know what that is, and I'm working on it.
But as far as my online tree at Ancestry goes, I've now watermarked my images. If you want to research or do a simple google search, you'll find all the same images here on my blog, you can choose whether or not to source them. But just because you can simply "add to tree" to someone in your online tree... I think a watermark is warranted.
Let me know how you feel about this.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Loops of Wisconsin, Photos
These were all given from Susan Bauer back in the early days of our correspondence about the Loops family, when we first discovered that Charles (top picture below) of Wisconsin was the brother of Frederick (MY ggGrandfather) of North Carolina.
Charles & Theresa Klebenow Loops
married 1874
Grace Deloris Loops
1893-1967
George Frederick Loops
1876-1951
George, Theresa (mother), Harry Charles Loops (1883-1958)
Olive Caroline Loops (1885-1960), Theresa (mother), Grace
Theresa K. Loops
Walter Albert Loops (1878-1946)
and Vincey Elizabeth Preston (1876-1944)
Friday, April 20, 2012
Janet Dekle Loops Stewart
Tonight we lost my aunt Janet to, well, the worlds stupidest, most infuriating disease... alzheimers. She said goodbye peacefully in her sleep. She was 75.
She was hysterical, SILLY, flighty :-), devoted, generous, loving... just a wonderful woman. Her home was "the family home" to visit multiple times a year, she and her husband were more than just family... they were friends; their friends were family; their kids friends' were family. I remember thinking it the Most Fun House EVER!
She was hysterical, SILLY, flighty :-), devoted, generous, loving... just a wonderful woman. Her home was "the family home" to visit multiple times a year, she and her husband were more than just family... they were friends; their friends were family; their kids friends' were family. I remember thinking it the Most Fun House EVER!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)