Stop Following the Herd!

 

One thing I often see both novice and experienced researchers doing is taking the short cut of trusting the research of others. It doesn't matter if it is on a tree on Ancestry, the common tree found on FamilySearch, compiled histories handed to you by a relative, or even in published books. It is all fine and dandy to use other trees for clues and hints but trusting should be out of the question!

I'm going to highlight an example of why trusting other trees is a bad idea.

I periodically go to the common FamilySearch tree to see if there have been any changes to folks that I'm following. Recently I noticed an update to Moritz Schoenberger (LXSK-9NP). He isn't a direct relationship to me but he is connected to my tree as the great-grandfather of husband of a grandaunt. That's when I noticed that I hadn't reviewed his tree on FamilySearch and, based on the list of children and only one spouse recorded, there were errors and missing issues. So I started drilling down into his family to do the usual minor updates or to provide additional details that I've discovered over the past few years.

That is when I noticed something I didn't have for Emil Schoenberger, the son of Henry Schoenberger and Lilliam Fischer,...a wife.

Screen capture for the profile of Emil Schoenberger, son of Henry Schoenberger and Lillian Fischer, from the McKinlay-McMullen database on Legacy Family Tree.

This is the the family profile from FamilySearch for the supposedly same Emil Schoenberger as of noon (ET) on 21 Sep 2022.

Screen capture for Emil Schoenberger (LX35-QT1) from FamilySearch as of 14h00 21 Sep 2022.

Anytime that I come across a discrepancy between my personally created tree and those I find online I automatically assume that I'm in the wrong and I work to verify that the information I've just come across is accurate. In the case of Emil, son of Henry and Lillian, I have quite a bit of information about him by following him and his parents through the various United States federal census enumerations including the 1950 census where we find him with his parents and recorded as unmarried:

1950 U.S. census, New Haven County, Connecticut, population schedule, New Haven, enumeration district (ED) 12-107, sheet 16, household 184; digital images, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com : accessed 21 Sep 2022); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T628, roll 3792.

So what about this Louise Joos that Emil is supposed to have married?

A quick check on the "Connecticut Vital Records — Index of Marriages, 1897-2001" site from the Connecticut State Library revealed that an Emil Schoenberger and a Louise Yoos were married on 30 Jun 1932 in Hartford, Hartford County, Connecticut, USA. Why don't I just look at the Connecticut marriage registration for details about Emil's family? That should answer the question right away. That costs money and takes a bit of time, especially for someone doing long distance research from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Sometimes the easiest path isn't the one that is possible at the time.

Just a second...if Emil was married in 1932 why did it say he was never married in the 1950 census? 

Immediately I knew there was something was amiss. So I checked what I have for "my" Emil in the 1940 Census of the USA. There I saw that he was recorded as a son living in the household of Henry and Lily Schoenberger in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, USA and he is single working as a grocery clerk.

So it was time to stop and look at this family of Emil Schoenberger and Louise Joos/Yoos from the beginning. On Ancestry I added this couple to my tree but didn't attach them to anyone else and I put in the information I was starting to find. One of the hints on FamilySearch was an obituary for her found on GenealogyBank from the 25 Mar 2005 edition of the Hartford Courant where it stated that she was born on 1 Nov 1906 in Germany and died on 19 Mar 2005 in a local nursing home. The obituary even included her two children, Robert and Margaret. Plenty of information for starting a profile on her household.

With those details entered in Ancestry started giving me hints to other records and the real winner was from the "Connecticut, U.S., Federal Naturalization Records, 1790-1996" collection on Ancestry for the Petition of Naturalization of Louise Schoenberger who arrived under the name "Luise Joos" on 21 Apr 1930 at New York on board the S.S. Berlin. That petition included her children including when and where they were born. It even stated that her husband, Emil Schoenberger, was born in Bavaria Germany on 12 Sep 1901 and he arrived in New York, New York in April 1926. 

How do I know that this is the same family found in that Connecticut marriage index? The petition also gave the date and place they were married: 30 Jun 1932 in Hartford, Connecticut. The same information found in the index. 

Just based on that one document I knew that there were at least two people with the name Emil Schoenberger residing in Connecticut at that time. One who apparently was born in Connecticut, the son of Henry and Lillian Schoenberger, and the other was born in Germany, the husband of Louise Joos.

The next step was to find the household of Emil and Lillian Schoenberger in the 1940 and 1950 census of the USA. Since I also had the names and birth years of their children it was really easy. In 1940 I found the household of Emil and Louise with their two children residing at 66 Busnhell Street in Hartford, Hartford County, Connecticut. There Emil is recorded as a cabinet maker. In the 1950 census I found the family still living at that address and Emil is still a cabinet maker. In both the 1940 and 1950 censuses Emil and Louise are recorded as being born in Germany.

1950 U.S. census, Hartford County, Connecticut, population schedule, Hartford, enumeration district (ED) 10-149, sheet 3, household 30; digital images, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com : accessed 21 Sep 2022); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T628, roll 5302.

In Emil's Petition for Naturalization dated 28 Apr 1933 he states that he married Louisa on 30 Jun 1932 in Hartford, Connecticut and at that time only one child was listed since the second child had yet to be born. He also stated he was born 12 Sep 1901 in Kohlberg Bougern, Germany, arrived in 1926 on the Bremen, and is a cabinet maker.

As I discovered and entered in information into Ancestry about the Emil who lived in Hartford and was married to Louise even more details appeared such as his date of death in 1980 and even a copy of his obituary from the Hartford Courant on Newspapers.com. The details in that obituary closely match what had been found in the census enumerations of his family and even his petition for naturalization. I knew I was looking at the right person.

Some very interesting differences between the two Emil Schoenbergers can be found once one starts to examine and read the records available online in various places.

I'll now be off to fix up that common tree on FamilySearch and send a note to several tree owners on Ancestry about the error in their individual trees.

I leave you with this thought though...

STOP following the herd in your research!

The Challenge of Being Challenged

Whenever you post a family tree online, whether it be in a one-world tree like on FamilySearch or WikiTree or in a self-manged tree like those found on MyHeritage, Findmypast, or Ancestry, you run the risk of someone saying that you are wrong. Hopefully, that person will provide a list of facts to back up their statement. Sometimes you are right with the information that you have, other times, the other person points out something that you had completely missed and caused you to follow the wrong family line.

Here is an interesting case in my own tree on Ancestry where a claim has been made and one piece of evidence provided that refutes what I had recorded. How you deal with such challenges is up to you but here is what I did in my case.

We need to set the stage first...

In the branch of the Fraser family on my tree on Ancestry I have Jane Fraser, born on 8 Sep 1839¹ in Upper Canada (what later became Ontario, Canada). 

L. A. Milne, Fraser : A Short History of The Fraser Clan and our own Branch of Frasers in Canada and The United States  (N.p.: L.A. Milne, 1943), p 59, photograph of Jane Fraser.

According to the Fraser book I have that was compiled by Louise Agnes (nee Fraser) Milne in the 1940s Jane was supposedly first married to "Manchester" (no known forename) and then to a "Wm Gould". I was able to locate Jane in the 1851/52, 1861, and 1871 censuses living with family in Drummond Township, Lanark County, Canada West/Ontario. In 1881 she is residing in the household of her older brother Thomas in Huron Township, Bruce County, Ontario. Where I next pick her up is in California, USA in the 1900 census. That find was based on a few premises:

• Comment in the Fraser book about after her mother, Sarah, passing away Jane went to California and married.
• Another comment in the Fraser book that stated "Old letters written to her people back home are full of expressions of affection for her husband and stepson."

So finding a Jane Gould in the 1900 Federal census of the United States of America in California living in Los Nietos, Los Angles County, California, USA with husband William Gould and an 18 year old James F Gould, recorded as a son to the head of the household, William, made sense. But then she disappeared.

That is what I had up until now when I started writing this post.

However, I'm in the midst of my review of my Fraser branches descended from Alexander Fraser and Sarah Howell and I decided to chase down Jane, their youngest daughter, before I continued with some of the other larger branches of Alexander's and Sarah's family since Jane didn't have any children listed in the Fraser book. That is when I came across this comment from five years ago attached to William Gould, Jane's husband, that I somehow missed:

"William Gould had only on wife Jane Fraser and James Fredercik [sic] Gould was there [sic] son  See the 1900 and 1910 census, married 24 years"

That comment came about since I had William Gould first marrying an Ellen Mourin before he married Jane.

With the number of records that have be placed online over the past decade I figured I'd have a good look at this family group and see if I could:

1. Confirm that Jane did marry a Manchester, and
2. Straighten out to my satisfaction that James Frederick Gould is a stepson of Jane.

The first thing I did was review the records that I had already found for Jane Fraser and make sure I had all the information entered into my master database in Legacy Family Tree. Just doing this sort of review can sometimes shed additional light on facts and events you missed the first time around.

As you can see in this clipping from the 1900 Federal census of the USA for the household of William Gould, it does state that Jane has 1 child born and 1 child still living.

1900 U.S. census, Los Angeles County, California, population schedule, Los Nietos Township, enumeration district (ED) 110, sheet 29A, dwelling 676, family 704, Household of William Gould; digital images, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com : accessed 11 Aug 2020); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T623.

What isn't showing but is in other columns is that for the number of years in the USA and her immigration status it is recorded as "unknown". Even the year of her arrival in the USA is blank even though her stated place of birth is Canada Eng. The immigration details for James F Gould, the listed son, are blank and he was born in New Zealand. Something seems to be amiss here. With both Jane and James not born in the USA there should have been additional details recorded.

However, the 1910 Federal census of the USA tells a different story.

1910 U.S. census, Los Angeles County, California, population schedule, Los Nietos Township (part of Rivera Precinct), enumeration district (ED) 282, sheet 1A, dwelling 11, family 11, Household of Wm Gould; digital images, Ancestry (www.ancestry.com : accessed 11 Aug 2020); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T624, roll 85.

Here it is stated that this is both their second marriage and they've only been married for 10 years. Also no children are recorded for Jane and, although not shown in this snippet from the page, it states that that Jane arrived in the United States in 1882.

Right away we have conflicting information from the census enumerations. Oh, joy! However, there is some hope now that the Fraser book was right and Jane did marry a Manchester before she married William Gould.

How about that supposed son of William and Jane, James F. Gould? What can we learn about him beside that he was born about 1881 in New Zealand.

For that I went to the New Zealand Government site for Births, Deaths & Marriages Online to search for historical records. I entered in the basic information I had concerning James:

• Family Name: Gould
  
• Given Name: James
  
• Search From Date: 01/01/1879
  
• Search To Date: 31/12/1883
  

I gave it a +/- 2 year range for the date of birth just in case and only three names that were registered in that time period were returned. One of them was for a James Frederick Gould, child of William and Ellen registered in 1881.

Wait a second, Ellen and not Jane? It is looking like the 1910 census might be right after all.

Since James isn't in the 1910 census with William and Jane he might have died, married, or moved away. A search for a Frederick James Gould that was born about 1881 in New Zealand find a Fred J Gould born about 1883 in New Zealand living with wife Jessie E in Los Nietos Township, Los Angeles County, California. Also, they've only been married for two years.

The California, County Marriages, 1850-1952 collection on FamilySearch is a wonderful resource for images of California marriage registrations. Keep in mind that not all marriages will be found here and the ones that are, not all may have images. But it is a good place to start to see if I can find a marriage for James F Gould and a Jessie.

We struck gold this time. A marriage license was found and the certificate of marriage include the Personal and Statistical Particulars.

It is a little faint to read but it states that James believed that his mother was Nellie Mourin.

Way back when, when I was doing my initial research, I had come across a mention of a marriage in the Perth Courier between Wm. Gould and Nellie Mourin. It was an interested notice since it stated that they married at Piccadilly, London.

"Gould-Mourin," The Perth Courier, 29 Sep 1876; digital images, PaperofRecord.com (https://paperofrecord.hypernet.ca/default.asp : accessed 9 Oct 2010).

On Ancestry in the newly available "Westminster, London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1935" collection there is even a copy of the marriage record from Parish of St. James (Piccadilly) Westminster for a William Gould and Ellen Mourin that took place on 12 Aug 1876.

What about Jane's marriage to William Gould? Well a search of FamilySearch in the "California, County Marriages, 1850-1952" collection didn't uncover a marriage to a Jane Fraser between 1881 and 1900 but there is one to a Jane Manchester. Recall that in the Fraser book they said that Jane first married a Manchester. There a marriage is recorded taking place on 26 Jul 1898 between a William Gould, residing in Rivera, a native of Canada and Mrs Jane Manchester, residing in San Gabriel, a native of Canada.

"California, County Marriages, 1850-1952," index and images, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org : accessed 11 Aug 2020), entry for William Gould and Jane Manchester, married 26 Jul 1898; citing Los Angeles, California, United States, county courthouses, California; FHL microfilm 2,073,995.

 

Curiously the witnesses are a W. G. McMullin, a resident of Los Angeles, and A. F. Mills, a resident of Pasadena. In my tree I do have a William George McMullin/McMullen, a sheriff in Los Angeles, and an Alexander Fraser Mills, residing in Pasadena around that time. Looks like she may have asked her nephews to act as witnesses.

What about a marriage to a Manchester? 

Again, FamilySearch comes through for us with their California, County Marriages, 1850-1952 collection. Here we find the marriage for James S Manchester, a native of Maine and a resident of Los Angeles, to Jane Fraser, a native of Canada and resident of Los Angeles, on 8 Sep 1885 with a George McMullen as one of the witnesses.

"California, County Marriages, 1850-1952," index and images, FamilySearch (www.familysearch.org : accessed 11 Aug 2020), entry for James S Manchester and Jane Fraser, married 8 Sep 1885; citing Los Angeles, California, United States, county courthouses, California; FHL microfilm 1,033,135.

The question that then arises for me is did James Manchester die before Jane married William Gould? That was answered through a paragraph in The Los Angeles Times found via a search on Newspapers.com.

"Pasadena - Brevities," The Los Angeles Times, 4 Sep 1891, p. 7, col. 1; digital images, Newspapers (www.newspapers.com : accessed 11 Aug 2020).

There is the A. F. Mills that was a witness for his marriage to Jane Fraser and I also have J. S. (John Stevenson) Mills in my tree and they are nephews by marriage to James Manchester.

What about Jane? Why did she disappear from the census records after 1910. A bit of search and I found her death registration in the "California, County Birth and Death Records, 1800-1994" collection on FamilySearch. She had passed away on 31 May 1916 in Rivera, Los Angeles County, California. The only glitch in the record is that they list her father as John Fraser instead of Alexander Fraser. But surprisingly the unnamed informant got her mother correct, Sarah Howell.

Using that same collection on FamilySearch I found that William Gould had predeceased her on 11 Oct 1913, also in Rivera. Their grave markers can be found in the Rose Hills Memorial Park in Whittier, California.

Jane Fraser had, for many a years, been one of my little annoyances. Until I decided to revisit her and see what new information could be found she had been one of my lost sheep. She is now welcomed back into the flock.

I have sent a reply back to the person that commented on William Gould's profile and included a link to this blog post for their reading confusion/enjoyment.

So take another look at those people in your tree that you had issues with finding more details about their life story. With new collections and records be added monthly on many of your favourite genealogy sites you might just find the answers you could find the first time around.

---

1. "Fraser : a short history of the Fraser clan and our own branch of Frasers in Canada and the United States"

Records that don't make sense...and what to do with them

Everyone comes across records on the genealogy sites that don't tell us much and we are puzzled as to where the record came. Such was the case of a posting in one of the genealogy related groups I follow on Facebook.

"Can someone explain to me how and where I can access the actual record for this marriage? I found this index on ancestry, but I guess I am not smart enough to figure out where the actual source document is or how to reference it. It does mention the film number, but that's all I've got (Film Number: 000010066)."

Screen capture from Ancestry.com for the index entry of Lillian E Overlock and Chas A Overlook from the Maine, Marriage Index, 1670-1921 collection.

First of all, never sell yourself short when it comes to your genealogy and family history research knowledge. We have all been in the same boat way too many times. Just by asking the question shows that you are smarter that many others that will just take that index entry at face value. Even I didn't know where that film number came from. Fortunately the hive mind on Facebook did but I'll get to that shortly along with a common problem that I came across with some of the records we use.

What also caught my attention with this query is that the original poster provided all the details needed to help us to answer the question and he was only asking one question. This is something that I mentioned in my post "Questions and Answers: Dos and don'ts". Even better, his question include a screen capture that included the Ancestry logo and the collection name at the top with all the necessary details.

My first reaction when I come across an index entry like this is to click on the link for the other party listed to see if there is any additional information. However, in this case, nothing new was provided:

Screen capture from Ancestry.com for the index entry of Chas A Overlook and Lillian E Overlock from the Maine, Marriage Index, 1670-1921 collection.

Next I will check the "Learn more..." link under Description for the collection. Again, no additional information was provided by Ancestry as to the source other than it was from "Various Maine County marriage collections." Great...it came from a bunch of stuff and you aren't going to tell us from where.

I also noticed that there was no marriage date recorded in the index. That seemed strange to me for an index consisting of marriages.

Fortunately there are many that are familiar with this collection within this Facebook community and they stated that the "Film Number" is from FamilySearch. The hive mind can be so awesome!

So what can you find out about that film number? After logging on to FamilySearch with your free account start a search of the catalog by Film/Fiche Number:

Screen capture from FamilySearch for a search of Film/Fiche Number 10066.

The search reported back that the film/fiche number is for the "Vital records, 1892-1907" authored by "Maine. Division of Vital Statistics; Maine. Division of Vital Statistics." Following that link brought me to this collection that has 184 microfilm reels.

Screen capture of the description for the collection, Vital records, 1892-1907, containing film 10066.

A search for 10066 on the page brought me to the following:

Screen capture from FamilySearch for a search of 10066 on the Vital records, 1892-1907 collection page.

Only one problem, we are looking for a surname that started with an "O" and the digitized microfilm reel has surnames Woodward to Wyzanski. Something is definitely not right. Time to go back a few steps to see if we can straighten out this point of confusion.

We are going to go back to Ancestry and the Maine, Marriage Index, 1670-1921 collection and try searching again but using a bit of the knowledge we have gained. As you can see below I've just entered in the surname of "Overlock" and the exact film number "000010066". It is important to include those leading zeros since that is what the original record for Lillian E Overlock used.

Screen capture from Ancestry for a search of the Maine, Marriage Index, 1670-1921 collection for a Last Name of "Overlock" and exact film number of "000010066".

Only one results appears with that criteria and the spouse listed has a surname of Wotton. A name that fits within the range provided for film 10066 on FamilySearch.

Screen capture from Ancestry for a search results of the Maine, Marriage Index, 1670-1921 collection for a Last Name of "Overlock" and exact film number of "000010066".

Now we can go back to FamilySearch and look for a 1905 marriage in Maine for Grace M Overlock and George B Wotton.

Screen capture from FamilySearch for a 1905 marriage in Maine, United States for Grace Overlock and George Wotton.

That first record looks like a promising candidate and there is even an image available as indicated by the camera icon on the right side. After selecting that entry I clicked on the image that was presented.

"Maine Vital Records, 1670-1921," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939K-RBGW-P?cc=1803978&wc=71R8-F7C%3A1029440301%2C1029483501 : 20 May 2014), Vital records 1892-1907 > Woodward-Wyzanski > image 1681 of 3463; multiple sources, Maine.

I always try to remember to check the next image to see if there are any additional details. In this case the names of the bride's parents didn't make sense to me:

"Maine Vital Records, 1670-1921," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939K-RBR3-C?cc=1803978&wc=71R8-F7C%3A1029440301%2C1029483501 : 20 May 2014), Vital records 1892-1907 > Woodward-Wyzanski > image 1682 of 3463; multiple sources, Maine.

So, what about going to the previous image? I know from experience that sometimes the back of these cards/forms get microfilmed first.

"Maine Vital Records, 1670-1921," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939K-RBLL-H?cc=1803978&wc=71R8-F7C%3A1029440301%2C1029483501 : 20 May 2014), Vital records 1892-1907 > Woodward-Wyzanski > image 1680 of 3463; multiple sources, Maine.

Look at that, there is a Chas . A. Overlock and Lillian E. Overlock listed as the bride's parents! I think we found the image of the document that the original poster was asking about.

How do I know that this image isn't associated with the image before this one? Well I checked that image and it is for a birth registration. So it seems that this image is the back of the form for the marriage of Grace M. Overlock and George B. Wotton.

Why is there a separate entry for Chas A Overlook [as transcribed by Ancestry] and Lillian E Overlock? I'm guessing that the transcribers didn't realize that the cards had a front and back to them and just recorded what they saw, creating a marriage entry for Chas A Overlook and Lillian E Overlock plus a separate entry for Grace M Overlock and George B. Wotton.

So the short answer, which was provided by the others in the Facebook group where the question was originally proposed, is that the film number is from the FamilySearch collections. However, the longer answer found a marriage registration for a daughter and a possible explanation as to why the original index entry was created.

My Top 10 Other Genealogy Web Sites for 2014

I covered my personal top favourite 100% free or Canadian owned genealogy research related web site at My Top 10 Canadian Genealogy Web Sites for 2014 but there are other sites I also use on an almost daily basis when doing research. Since I deal in researching not only ancestors in Canada but also in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and the United States of America I have many sites I consult. Some are free while others need a subscription or are pay as you go.

Be warned that this is just a very, very small selection of sites I use but they are my initial "go to" places I probably couldn't live without. Often I will start with them and then move on to the more obscure or specialized web sites to find additional details. Once again, I'm certain I've omitted your favourite site that you can't live without so tell me about it in the comments.

In no particular order here are my other top 10 research sites not mentioned in My Top 10 Canadian Genealogy Web Sites for 2014 list:

Ancestry ($$$), whether it is .com, .ca, .co.uk, .com.au, etc, is my go to place due to the number of indexed records that they have available and the coverage of the areas I research. I have their world subscription and it is worth every nickel (pennies aren't made in Canada anymore). However, the one complaint I have is that their transcriptions can sometimes be just a little wacky.

• Since I do a lot of Ontario research, the Ontario, Canada Vital Records: Births, Marriages and Deaths collection is of key importance. It covers Ontario births between 1869-1913, marriages 1801-1298 (a little spotty before 1869), and deaths 1869-1938 along with deaths overseas between 1939-1947.
• The 1921 census of Canada is also hosted on Ancestry.ca and is supposed to be freely available to Canadians residing in Canada.
• For tracking those elusive US relatives the U.S. City Directories, 1821-1989 is very useful for those times between the various census enumerations.

FamilySearch.org is free and is the next place I visit when doing my research. Not all of the collections are indexed but that is just fine with me. Going through the images page by page is just a digital way of scrolling through a microfilm. Even then, most of those collections have some sort of finding aid to speed up the process. If I can't find the record or index on Ancestry I'm fairly certain I will find it here. Some of my personal favourites are:

• The various collections that make of the births and marriages collections from Scotland I've mentioned in Saving Money When Searching ScotlandsPeople.
• Those researching their New Brunswick ancestors need to consult their New Brunswick, County Deed Registry Books, 1780-1930 collection. It is not indexed but I brief talk about using that collection in Expecting only Deeds and Mortgages? How About a Will?
• When I'm having a challenge locating records I always head over to the FamilySearch Research Wiki to find the answer. This part of FamilySearch has been created with the help of fellow researchers like yourself and is always being updated with new information.

If you are doing any researching of ancestors in Scotland then ScotlandsPeople.go.uk ($$$) is a must use site. It makes use of a pay as you go model where to see the results of a search you typically need to pay 1 credit and to see a record it costs 5 credits. An overview of the charges can be found here. Only here will you see the images from births, marriages, deaths, and censuses along with valuation rolls and other documents. Yes you can fly to Scotland to do the research (I highly recommend it and if you are thinking of going then talk to Christine Woodcock of Genealogy Tours of Scotland) but for the price of the airfare and hotel you can get a whole lot of records downloaded to your computer.

Findmypast ($$$) (.co.uk, ie, or .com.uk) is another site I find very useful especially for my English ancestors. But it also includes quite a number of newspaper collections that help fill in the gaps in their lives. You can either purchase a subscription or pay as you go to access images of the records. For my research I purchased the world subscription and it has been invaluable.

For finding my Australian cousins the Trove newspaper collection is the site I couldn't live without. Here you may find immigration lists, birth, marriage, and death announcements in newspapers. Even better, the site is free and you can easily make corrections to the OCR transcriptions of the articles to make them easier to find for the next researcher (always nice to give back a little).

Where would we be without Find A Grave to help us locate and then see the markers of where our relatives, distant or not, were supposedly buried? Remember that just because someone is supposedly buried in one place that they didn't die in another. As always, what is written on grave markers need to be taken with a grain of salt (or is that chunk of marble?) when it comes to their accuracy. But they do offer a starting point as to the time frame for when our ancestors were living

Speaking of death ... one of my first stops when trying to locate a death record in the United States is the Online Searchable Death Indexes & Record site. Here you will find links to sites hosting indexes, records and/or obituaries in the United States of America.

Often I will come across a book mentioned as a source in an online family tree. Since I prefer seeing the source myself and if the book is out of copyright I head on over to the Internet Archive to see if it has been digitized and placed in their collection. But I also use the Internet Archive to check out websites that may have disappeared from the Internet. Their Wayback Machine is a great tool to see those lost web sites or pages.

The National Archives ($$$ or free) located at Kew is yet another go to place when I'm doing any UK research. Many times I will come across a reference to a WO, ADM, FO, HO or AO record in an index. Since you really need to see the source record and not just rely on the index for details this means I need to search The National Archives site. Some of the collections have been digitized and placed on line there or through one of their partners. Other times you will need to pay for the digitization and have them send you the documents in question. It is still cheaper than flying over there, staying for a day, and then flying back!

Where would we be without the FreeBMD site holding transcriptions of the civil registration index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales? Yes, Ancestry and Findmypast both have copies of these civil registration indexes but when I can't find the entries on those sites I immediately head over to FreeBMD.