Reviewing My Rawcliffe Research

I was prompted to write this post after reading Casmob (Pauleen's) September contribution on The three R's of Genealogy Research:  Revisit, Record and Revise.   [Thank you, Pauleen for the use of your logo].   

My  great grandmother Maria Rawcliffe (right) is at the heart of my family history story.  She married James Danson of Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire and I have written extensively on my personal blog Family History Fun  about the Danson family  who I have traced back to 1736.   

   

However following the Rawcliffe line has proved more problematical. Research revealed a story of eight daughters, (five surviving infancy),   the early death of their mother,  a step mother with  three illegitimate children, and the birth of four half-brothers and sisters - so plenty of material to ponder over in the life of my great great grandfather Robert Rawcliffe, Maria's father. 

The Issue

This was my first major research project undertaken in  the days before  computerized records when I relied on  old fashioned donkey  work of trawling through census returns on microfilm, and the IGI on microfiche.  But  I have had increasing concern that some of my early  research may not be correct and needed reviewing.  Some of the information on the public trees on http://www.ancestry.co.uk/ adds to this confusion, notably  regarding Robert's parents. An added factor was  the popularity of the Rawcliffe surname in the Fylde part of Lancashire around the seaside resort of Blackpool.

My  Research Journey  

• The initial research was straightforward, working back from the marriage entry for James Danson and Maria Rawcliffe   in the family bible, through census returns, marriage and birth certificate to establish that my great grandmother Maria was born in the  village of Hambleton in 1859 - her parents Robert Rawliffe and Jane Carr,  and sisters   Anne, Jane, Alice, and Jennet, with Margaret, Peggy and Martha not surviving infancy.  
   
•  I was very grateful for  information supplied to me  in good faith by fellow members of the Lancashire Family History & Heraldry Society - that mother Jane died in 1865 at the age of 46 and Robert was the son of William Rawcliffe and Anne (Nanny) Moon.   Bu I  never thought  to double check the facts beyond the then contributed entries on Family Search. 

• I sent away for the  Marriage Certificate of Robert and Jane  who wed on   14th November 1846  at Hambleton, Lancashire, both of full age with Robert described as a husbandman, father William, a labourer  and Jane's father also William, a labourer.  

• I then acquired the Marriage Certificate  for  Robert's second marriage to Elizabeth Brekle/Brekall  in 1875  - to find that here Robert's father's name was given as John - the same Christian name as his wife's father.   I am confident that this is the correct record for "my" Robert as census returns before and after the marriage confirm the information on ages and birthplace of both parties,   Elizabeth was single with three illegitimate children   - one,  Joseph Brekall  who my mother spoke about as "granny's step brother". 

• For many years  I was accepting that the name of John as Robert's father on the second certificate was  a mistake,  with the clerk copying the name of Elizabeth's father - but then the same could be said of Robert's first marriage certificate where William was given as the name of both fathers

So here is the conundrum.  Who was Robert's  father - William or John?  

In reviewing the earlier research, I have benefited by the fact that so many digitized records now appear on Ancestry, not just census returns, but also parish records and I have looked at these in some detail. 

So What is the Evidence? 

• All the census returns (1851-1901) consistently gave Robert's birthplace as Marton, Lancashire and his estimated date of birth as c. 1821.  This birth year was also confirmed by his age on death in 1904.

• In the Register of St. Paul's,  Marton, there is an entry for the baptism of a Robert Rawcliffe, son of William (labourer)  and Nanny Rawcliffe on 22  April 1821.  The maiden name of his mother  was not given.  
  

• But also in the St. Paul's Register, was a Robert Rawcliffe, baptized  10 September 1820, son of John (shopkeeper)  and Catherine Rawcliffe
  I also found:
  
  

 I also found

• At St. Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde on 22 April 1821, the baptism was recorded of a Robert Rawcliffe  son of William (labourer of Great Marton)  and Anne Rawcliffe.
• Also at St. Chad's Church,Poulton was the baptism recorded on 10 September 1820 of Robert Rawfliife, son of John and Catherine Rawcliffe.   

Here was the second puzzle - where was "my" Robert born/baptized - Marton or Poulton? 

Was it too much of a coincidence that both  Robert Rawcliffes were baptized  on  the same date in both Poulton and Marton?  

It was time to explore church history. 

I discovered that the parish of St. Chad's Church, Poulton had at one time included eight surrounding villages  including Marton, whose residents had to travel five miles to worship.  In 1804 the Church of St. Paul's was built in Marton,    but was designated a "Township-Chapeltry in Poulton Parish". It was not until 1892 that it became separated from St. Chad's.

This raised the question:  was the same baptism, marriage and burial. recorded in registers at both Poulton and Marton?   It certainly seems to be the case, as was found with other searches - namely the death of Nanny Rawcliffe (Robert's mother?), recorded at both Poulton and Marton, but with the entry assuming she was buried at each respective church.  No monumental inscription has been traced to confirm which church.  

I also took a close look at  Christian names within the two families of William/Nanny, and John/Catherine: 

• Surely one of Robert's eight daughters would have been called after his mother, if his parents had been John and Catherine Rawcliffe.  His eldest daughter was named Anne  with Robert's mother' name of Nanny a well known  diminutive.
   
• Robert had two sons with his second wife - named Robert and John - so this  fact does not lead anywhere near a conclusion, as John was also the name of his wife's father - as confirmed in earlier census returns for the Brekall family.
• Research also established that Robert had a sister, Grace born in 1814  to William and Nanny.    In the 1851 census, William was living  with Grace, now married with a family.   And Robert named a daughter of his second marriage  Grace.  
• John Rawcliffe too had a  large family of 15 children, with several dying in infancy. Daughters names included Anne, Jenny, Alice and Margaret. names of also of Robert's daughters - so no help with this information.    
   
• A death entry for 1859 was found for a Robert Rawcliffe, born 1820 aged 38, son of John Rawcliffe.  But given the proliferation of Rawcliffes in this area, it is impossible to say if that is the correct Robert and John. 
  
  This fact has not stopped someone on Ancestry showing this death but also linking Robert with the two wives Jane Carr and Elizabeth Brekall, despite the dates clearly not tallying.

So I have Revisited the information I held, checked the Records - and  no I have not Revised any of my early findings.   My conclusions:

• I am inclined to go along with the consistent census returns, confirmed with a baptism entry,  that Marton was Robert Rawcliff'e's birth place not Poulton-le-~Fylde.
   
• Who was Robert's  father remains  a mystery  - William or John?  My gut feeling says William, but then as family historians we know we should rely on evidence.    Efforts to trace more information on both men have come to naught,
  

Nevertheless,  this has proved a very well worthwhile exercise that has helped clarify my thoughts - I recommend it! 

Copyright © 2015 · Susan Donaldson.  All Rights Reserved

EXPECTATIONS

WHAT CAN I EXPECT IN 2015?

It is at this time of the year that we all get bombarded by new year resolutions and with the launch of the Genealogy Do-Over by Thomas MacEntee many of us are reviewing our work at setting ourselves goals for this coming year.

It is important that we give ourselves time to reflect and for those of us in the northern hemisphere the long winter evenings can be the best time of year to do this.

As I may have mentioned previously last January I attended one of The Boot Camps that Thomas and Lisa Alzo have been running. 

Next weekend they are running their Research Right Boot Camp (which sold out within a day), if you have not been able to sign up for this then it will be available from the following week. I have managed to sign up for this and hope to pick up some useful tips.

I have not managed to do much research at archives in the past two or three years and have been concentrating on getting a new organisation system in place. 
Those limited visits I have made were to look for parish registers not yet available online. 
I am hoping that next weekend's Boot Camp will help me optimise my research process so that I can make the most of my visit to Salt Lake City next month.

GOALS

1. Complete my reorganisation process
2. Optimise the research process
3. Ensure that all my sources are cited as accurately as possible
4. Make the most of visiting my cousins in the US and Salt Lake City for the Rootstech/FGS 2015 Conference

HOW WILL I ATTAIN THESE

This may sound a little "corny" but as the words of that song say "with a little help from my friends".

The genealogy community are a supportive group of people and by sharing and supporting each other we can all achieve our goals.

We must be realistic in what we aim to achieve and reassess the situation when we don't reach the endpoint we wanted.

Thomas MacEntee urged everyone who participating in the Genealogy Do-Over to slow down. Speed is not important getting it right is our aim.

The right plan with realistic goals will get more done. "More haste, less speed" is the saying that comes to mind.
I have parish register microfiche and some English counties have digital images available online, once I know what I have then I can concentrate my research objectives on those records not available in my home or via the Internet.
Some may say that goal number 4 should be number 1 and in the short term that is true. However without the other goals then I may not attain number 4. Goals 1 and 2 may not be reached before I leave the UK and 3 most certainly will not but that does not mean I cannot achieve number 4.

Preparation will be the key to my success and in my March post I will tell you if I achieved my goal and in April how I plan to make the most of my trip to Who Do You Think You Are Live.

Next month I hope to give you my impression of the first day at Rootstech 2015/FGS conference.

Why the Genealogy Do-Over is not for me

As Julie Goucher wrote in her post New Year - New Opportunity, many people have joined the Genealogy Do-Over, where you commit to starting your genealogy all over again and apply all the knowledge that you've gained over the years.

This challenge is not for me. Let me explain what my reasons are for not joining the Genealogy Do-Over.

Reason 1 - Starting over is inefficient

I think starting from scratch is very time-consuming. My biggest 'tree' is almost 60,000 people large and contains not just my own ancestors, but also my one-region-study for the area of the Achterhoek in the Netherlands, including the 6,000 emigrants from that area who emigrated to the United States of whom I've found 4,000 in US records. A conservative estimate is that I've spent over 15,000 hours of original research compiling that information. It's not something I can just 'do over.' Besides, if I had to do it all again, for the most part I would use exactly the same sources and come to the exact same conclusions.

Redoing everything is not the best use of my time, I would much rather focus on the parts that I know need work.

Reason 2 - I would end up with multiple trees

If I start over, I would end up with two trees: one with my old research and one with my 'new and improved' research. If a DNA match contacts me, I would have to consult both trees, especially if I haven't gotten far yet with the re-researching. Again, not very efficient. 

But what would I do with these two trees after I have re-researched a large part of my ancestors? Integrate them? Would that not miss the point and add a whole other layer of work? Or should I toss the old tree? But what if there are branches in there that I haven't gotten around to re-researching yet? Will I put my new, far more incomplete tree online and miss out on all the potential cousins who could have found the tree and connected with me? That seems very impractical to me. Or would I put both trees online, even though the old one may have information that I now know to be incorrect?

And what if in ten years time, after I've done more research and educated myself even more, I feel my current work is less than it could be? Would I start over again and end up with tree trees? Four? A whole forest?

Reason 3 - My tree isn't that bad

On one of my first trips to the archives, when I was 15, I met an experienced genealogist who advised me to always cite my sources, because there would come a day that I wouldn't recall where I had found everything. My early citations are far from perfect, but I have never had any problems relocating the source based on them. They may not always be understandable to an outsider though, so there is definitely room for improvement.

Almost all of the information in my database is based on original research which I've done myself. I have never just copied information from other people's trees without assessing the quality of the underlying research and verifying the underlying sources. Even as a teenager, I enjoyed doing the research myself so much that I never just accepted what someone else had written.

So although my database is far from perfect, it's not garbage either and does not deserve to be discarded. And I do not have the illusion that it would be perfect if I redid it today, my skills haven't grown *that* much :-)

My need: A process that embraces my growing skills

Instead of starting over when I arbitrarily feel that my skills have grown enough to warrant a do-over, I want to do genealogy in a way that will embrace my growing skills over time. I need a process that will allow me to revisit previous research periodically, not just once, to use my newly developed skills and experience to keep improving the quality of my conclusions.

Research reports to the rescue

The way I use my growing skills to revisit and improve previous research is by creating a research report for my ancestors, one per couple. I use the following format, which I also use for my professional clients:

• Background information
  Here I will lay out what I know about the couple based on the research into their child(ren). For example, if I have found a birth, marriage and death record of their child that lists its parents, I will include the information about the parents that I found in these records.
• Research questions I will state my research questions, which will include:
  • When and where were [husband] and [wife] born, baptized, married, died, buried?  
  • What children did [husband] and [wife] have? When and where were they born, baptized, married, died, buried?  Whom did they marry?
  • Who were the parents of [husband] and [wife]?
  • Did [husband] or [wife] marry more than once? If so, when and where did they marry and who was their spouse?
  Other questions might ask about the property they owned, addresses where they lived, occupations or military service of the husband, etc.
• Limitations on research
  Any limitations on the research, such as missing records or privacy laws restricting access. Since this is my own research, there generally aren't any time limits, except in special cases where I want to share it with a relative during a family gathering. 
• Summary
  Narrative summary of the findings of the research. 
• List of sources
  A biography of the sources I consulted during the research.
• Research notes
  Notes about my research, starting with an analysis of the background information. I will then create a research plan (put in the 'suggestions for further research') and start the research. For each source that I consult, I will write down any abstracts or transcripts as necessary, analyze the information and correlate it with information from other sources.
  When there is conflicting evidence, I will analyze the information and explain if and how the conflict can be resolved. If the evidence is sufficient to prove a relationship or event, I will write a proof statement or a proof argument (depending on the circumstances). 
• Suggestions for further research
  List of other sources I intend to consult. I actually fill in this part as I'm doing the analysis of the background information and throughout the research process. Every time I think of a source I need to consult, I will add it to the list. Then when I do consult it, I will cut and paste it into the research notes and describe what I've found there.
• Appendix
  In the appendix, I will include digital images of the original sources I consulted and longer transcripts. 

Until I've answered all of the research questions, this report is a living document where I'll add to the research notes when I work on it; updating the suggestions for further research, summary and source list as I finish each research stint.

Since my starting point for each research report is very basic, it's like a miniature do-over, for one family only. That keeps it very tidy and doable. I can often do a one-family "do-over" in one evening. See my column (Re)searcher to read how creating research reports has helped me with my research.

If I come to new conclusions or find additional information, I will then add it to my database. I will also update any source citations that weren't clear yet.

Best of both worlds

For me, creating a research report for my ancestors gives me all of the advantages of a genealogy do-over without any of the drawbacks. It allows me to analyze the information with fresh eyes, utilizing my growing skills. At any point in time, I have one database that shows my current understanding of my family, which I can share with the world.

Why do a do-over?

To the people who are doing a do-over, I would like to ask the following questions:

• What do you hope to achieve by doing a do-over that you couldn't achieve with a less drastic and time-consuming process, like creating research reports?  
• How do you intend to handle the multiple trees that will result from the do-over? Are you going to toss your old tree, take it offline but keep it for reference or integrate it with the new tree? 
• Do you intend to repeat this every couple of years if your skills improve again? 
• How will you handle the period when you've only re-researched a part of your tree? Will you not use your old tree? How will you deal with requests from (DNA) cousins?

I know that my point of view is probably not a popular one so I look forward to reading your comments and exchanging our views. In the end, I think we all want to improve the quality of our work; there are just different ways to go about it. Discussing the various ways will be interesting!

Genealogy new year resolutions

A lot of ideas are coming through for reinvigorating our genealogy research in 2015.

Thomas MacEntee has proposed a genealogy do-over starting 2 January. There is a schedule of topics taking us up to the end of March. There is a FaceBook community with 836 members already excitedly exchanging ideas. Many experienced genealogists have come on board and it will be interesting to learn from them.

It is hard to start again but I think it is definitely an opportunity to put into practice all we have learned and apply it to our own family. All of us know more about genealogy research than when we started and do not often revisit the very core of our family tree. There is no question we will make new discoveries. We will probably also be more organised. It is a great opportunity to follow up on Pauleen Cass's post on her three Rs of Genealogy Research : Revisit, Record and Revise.

Some of the ideas that are being shared on organisation:

• Jenny Lanctot on consistency in file naming: http://aremyrootsshowing.jenny-ology.com/2014/12/28/genealogy-do-over-prep-time/
• Miriam Robbins has an elegant way of naming files at http://ancestories1.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/tuesdays-tip-organizing-your-digital.html
• Russ Worthington will not be doing a complete do-over but will be participating. He has already been doing a lot of work with citation templates http://ftmuser.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/genealogy-do-over-and-my-ftm2014.html

I have found blogging to be a great way to revisit and record my family history. A couple of prompts I use to help me find inspiration are:

• Trove Tuesday, started by Amy Lehmann in 2012
• The Sepia Saturday prompts are a lot of fun and it is a very nice community of fellow bloggers (several of whom contribute to this blog)
• Last year I participated in the A to Z blogging challenge. It was a lot of work to produce 26 blog posts in the month of April but I am really pleased with the results. It was very important to prepare so as to be able to complete the schedule.
• Randy Seaver has enjoyable and thought provoking prompts at Saturday Night Genealogy Fun (SNGF)
• Thomas MacEntee has lots of prompts and ideas at http://www.geneabloggers.com/

This year I plan to join in the 52 ancestors in 52 weeks challenge by Amy Johnson Crow.

My own family history blog reached 150 posts late last month. I can't quite remember what the prompt was but I decided to print my blog. I used blog2print. It works on various platforms. There are several other providers who also print from blogs. I found blog2print very easy. There are limited options to tweak though you can choose to print only part of your blog using tags or a date range. You can vary the size of the photographs, whether you have a page break between each post ... I am really pleased to have a print copy of my blog. Some of the formatting has not translated perfectly from the screen to the printed page but overall it is a marvellous souvenir and back-up. I look forward to printing volume 2 towards the end of 2015.

Happy researching in 2015

Regards
Anne

My three Rs of Genealogy Research

As family historians we need the traditional three Rs of reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic, after all how else to locate our families’ records, write their stories and calculate and cross-check their ages, dates of births, deaths and shot-gun marriages.

But today I’m going to propose that another three Rs are also needed for our family history research.

REVISIT

Traditional wisdom suggests we maintain a research register/spreadsheet which documents every record set and document we’ve checked in the course of our research, either online or offline. This practice, or some variation of it, is certainly helpful to ensure we don’t waste valuable research time searching the same records again and again.

However, I’d argue there’s a benefit to visiting at least some of the records more than once. Certainly we should revisit those documents we’ve stored in our files, databases or trees.

Why?

Because I firmly believe that research findings, and our perception and understanding of them, are not static. The documents themselves will not change but the research “glasses” we’re wearing will certainly change how we see the detail on them.

What we know of our history changes over time, either incrementally or in large leaps forward. Things we haven’t noticed about a record will suddenly leap out at us as having a new or additional meaning. The significance of names will become clearer as in the interim we’ve learned of family connections. If we only look at the record the first time we find it, and don’t squeeze it for every single drop, we run the risk of missing the key to a brick-wall breakthrough.

And then there’s the one-time search of a particular record set, especially online. I’m sure we’ve all had searches that we’ve rejected as unsuccessful on one occasion, only to revisit the search and see, with those new glasses on, something important that turns it into a relevant record for our research.

And what of looking at adjoining pages to see who’s living nearby? We used to do this automatically when searching offline but the downside of an online search is that it takes us straight to our ancestor’s document and tempts us just to exit to the next search without checking out the broader context.

RECORD

Each of us has our own way of recording our family history. Most will keep at least key information in family history programs or trees, either online or offline. Others have their own family websites. Others again will publish the family’s story in a book.

Shutterstock Image ID: 137910917

It’s probably a fair bet that the participants of this Worldwide Genealogy blog are also writing their family history online ie writing a genealogy blog. I’ve noticed that when we say “blog” people sometimes conclude we’re just playing around on the internet, telling others what we had for breakfast etc. Some time ago I wrote a post suggesting that we should start reframing how we refer to our blogs, by “telling it how it is” and saying we write our family history online.

Blogging is a great option for recording our family’s history and revealing the grassroots of history by contextualising it within the broader framework of traditional history.

I feel sure that the centenary of World War I will produce many micro-stories of the impact of war on families and communities as well as the contributions made by individuals on both sides of the military fence. This reveals a more nuanced tapestry of history than the big-picture, important-people version that we all learnt at school. It also exposes the sheer scale of war’s impact at the grassroots level. We can do the same for so many aspects of our family history by revealing more about a community, which in turn might lead to a One Place Study.

Blogging also provides a less threatening way of starting to document a family history rather than the daunting prospect of writing a book. From a personal perspective blogging suits my approach to a narrative recording my family’s history and allows me to add new information to the family history I’ve published. Of course to a large extent I’m preaching to the converted on this topic.

REVISE

Having identified and documented your research findings, do you look at what you’ve actually written or recorded? Do you check you’ve not leapt to conclusions and blipped over an assumption you’ve made? You know what they say about assumptions…

I recently wrote a story on my blog about my research into the Callaghan family of Courtown near Gorey in Wexford. In my research I’d looked at the 1901 and 1911 census records from the National Archivesof Ireland online. The family comprised head of house, David Callaghan, son David, daughter Bridget, daughter-in-law Kate and grandson, another David. Even though it was staring me in the face, I made a stupid mistake and jumped to the conclusion that Kate was son David’s wife whereas it was very clear she was a widow. If I hadn’t gone back to revisit the document, and review what I’d written, I’d have left myself following an incorrect research trail and potentially led others astray as well. A really stupid beginner’s error despite years of experience. You might be interested in my post about the success, the surprise and the assumptions stupidity.  

I certainly hope I’m not the only one to make such a silly mistake which is why the revisit, record, revise steps are so important. We need to do them in a cool moment not while we’re in the thrill of the hunt for more data and excited by each new discovery.

RECAP

Of course with so many records coming online it’s tempting to just keep searching for new and fascinating titbits about our families. Still we’d be wise to stop every now and then, and revisit what we’ve written or recorded in our family trees. 

Revisit those documents we have stored, look again at that photo we’ve been mystified by, and assess whether there are certificates we need to purchase,  microfilms to be ordered in or another avenue of research to be explored. 

Record each new discovery and assess what its impact is on the discoveries we’ve made before. 

Revise our assumptions and family links. There is a constant flow between revisiting, recording and revision. 

How do you approach your research and do you use any of these steps? Have you made silly mistakes that needed revision?