<p>Kajon, one side I have entering colonies aboard a ship from Ireland in 1694 (that side I don’t have anything prior on in Ireland). Another branch to 1635 in Roscommon that was documented with family records–bibles, letters, etc. So, to answer you, no, I too have hit dead ends with church records.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the original source material that the LDS church supplies easier access to that is a gold mine for genealogists. The charts are supplied by ordinary people who send them in–and can have all sorts of mistakes on them. You definitely have to verify any info on them.</p>
<p>I will offer one correction to jonri’s explanation as to the practice of baptism for the dead. The Mormon church has in the past (not sure whether it is still done, but would expect so) “extracted” information from olde public records and has performed ordinances for those names extracted. So it is possible that a person who has been baptized for the dead does not have Mormon descendants. </p>
<p>Individual members can only provide names of their own relatives to be baptized, without some special dispensation from the uppity-ups.</p>
<p>Baptizing Holocaust victims–I know what the LDS church was thinking, but how insensitive! Yikes…all names have been removed. But my understanding is that if a family member of a Holocaust victim baptizes that person, then the LDS church will allow that to stand. So some (I would guess few) Holocaust victims could have baptism for the dead performed for them.</p>
<p>I think I am getting the hang of what " once removed" and the like mean.
For example the great- grandmother of Roger Sherman *Connecticut Representative
The only man to sign all four American documents of sovereignty was Roger Sherman. *
, was also my father’s great- great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother.
So that is a 2nd cousin- 8 times removed.</p>
<p>It probably made it a lot easier to research, cause we can track ties in the US back to the 1600’s, for example Edward Winslow’s Edward Winslow served as the governor of the Plymouth Colony. He also signed the Mayflower Compact. mother was my father’s grandmother x11.</p>
<p>My mother didn’t have any siblings, and my father has two half sisters, neither of whom ever had children, so finding other relatives is kind of exciting!</p>
<p>( but I promise I won’t make them pagan retroactively… unless they want to)</p>
<p>garland, I should have clarified that many, perhaps even most, claims of descendency from famous people are accurate. In no way did I intend to question your, or anyone’s, claim. I know some people make assumptions, jump to conclusions, or otherwise overstate the case. But when I look at my ancestor chart, I see hundreds of descendants from a single person from the 1600’s. If I included all descendants, not just my own direct line, think of how many people that is. A genealogist I know once told me that they estimate there might be as many as 4 million descendants of the Mayflower passengers. In addition to the question of who might be famous in an individual’s lineage, but how many people are related to famous people and don’t know it !</p>
<p>But when I look at my ancestor chart, I see hundreds of descendants from a single person from the 1600’s.</p>
<p>For instance- I looked up to see what my common ancestor was to Audrey Hepburn ( and why do I not have her neck?)
The Dutch grandfather who we had in common, was married three times- nine children with his first wife, seven children with his second wife and four children with his third. ( incidentally- he lived into his 80’s- his wives about half that)</p>
<p>huge, huge genealogy buff here. Garland - we must be related! I am a direct descendant of Hannah Boone, Daniel’s sister.</p>
<p>HI cousin! I don’t have the genealogy with me where I am, but I think if I’m remembering correctly, we’re a direct descendent of his brother, Jacob. Recently found the Boone genealogy on Amazon. My gg-grandmother is listed in there, Ida May Boone.</p>
<p>For those who are interested in free on line records the LDS church has a pilot project where they are posting original records - death certificates, census records, etc.</p>
<p>The project can be found here - it does take a while to load sometimes:</p>
<p>[FamilySearch</a> Record Search](<a href=“FamilySearch.org”>FamilySearch.org)</p>
<p>This links to all the US, Canada and Mexico records so you can see what is posted:</p>
<p>[FamilySearch</a> Record Search](<a href=“FamilySearch.org”>FamilySearch.org)</p>
<p>So, what did everyone think of the Broderick episode? I thought it was touching when he found out that “Postman Joe,” his grandfather, had won the Distinguished Service Cross (second only to the Congressional Medal of Honor) and never said a word about it to his grandchildren. </p>
<p>This episode made it clear, though, that the celebrities weren’t involved in any of the actual research. They just showed up and got the results.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve noticed that tendency too. It reminds me of some dialogue from the movie Bull Durham, although the characters are talking about reincarnation.</p>
<p>*Annie Savoy: I think probably with my love of four-legged creatures and hooves and everything, that in another lifetime I was probably Catherine the Great, or Francis of Assisi. I’m not sure which one. What do you think honey?</p>
<p>Crash Davis: How come in former lifetimes, everybody is someone famous?</p>
<p>[Annie and Crash pause, then both laugh.]
Crash Davis: How come nobody ever says they were Joe Schmo?</p>
<p>Annie Savoy: [still laughing] Because it doesn’t work that way, you fool!*</p>
<p>Besides providing a few photos and a name or two, I’m sure that no celebrities were used to perform genealogical work–LOL! </p>
<p>What amazed me about the experts is their knowledge of history, the kinds of records that are available to peruse and the identity of experts in specific areas. Many times areas of expertise are so narrow, but the knowledge is so deep. Civil War burial expert? Salem witch trials expert? Wow…</p>
<p>Kajon…re Post 39. I’m a bit confused by your message.</p>
<p>What period of time are you looking for in Ireland? </p>
<p>Basically, it was against English law to practice the Catholic faith for a couple of centuries there. No written records of Catholic marriages and baptisms were made for a couple hundred years because if they were found, those listed would be put to death. </p>
<p>Poor people still got married in the Catholic church. They weren’t considered married by the English government. If a Catholic had any property, he or she ALSO got married in the “Church of Ireland,” because otherwise his/her children were illegitimate and couldn’t inherit. So, if your ancestors were not dirt poor, try the Church of Ireland records, even if you know they were Catholic. They will be there. </p>
<p>Catholic records were sort of “phased in” over time. So, the start periods vary by as much as 50 years. Those records were NOT kept by county, but by diocese. Portions of County Clare belonged to several different dioceses. </p>
<p>Before you start looking for Catholic records, you have to know which diocese–and preferably which parish–you’re talking about. You might want to go to the website of the National Library of Ireland. It has among other things, a list of parish registers with the start dates. </p>
<p>You can’t photocopy these, even if you go in person. You can take notes, however. There is also a list of folks you can hire who will look up records for you. </p>
<p>Again, depending on the time period, you can also look for civil records. Note that the names of and boundaries of civil and Catholic parishes do not align perfectly–far from it. </p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>^Thanks for that information, Jonri. Also, while I am not Mormon, thanks also for providing a fair perspective on the beliefs and generosity behind that faith’s geneology focus.</p>
<p>BTW…I inherited some bitterness about the way my ancestor’s in Ireland were treated by their closest neighbor. I recently discovered that I am part English as well. Weird. I am still getting used to the idea.</p>
<p>Spideygirl, I’ve recently read about scholars’ research that revealed that some Irish farm owners used their clout to prevent the English government from distributing food during the famine. Essentially, historians now say that there was sufficient harvest in Ireland (not just potatoes) to prevent widespread famine. If true, I’m not surprised, given that some Irish gentry made money be shipping immigrants/laborers to the Americas.</p>