Conflict resolution? Another set of eyes to a problem? West Prussia 1890s
Hello. I am not sure where to ask this. So first, if I am asking in the wrong place, please direct me to the correct one.
Another user keeps removing the name Anna from a person who is documented to have been baptized Anna, because this is evidence that two people ought to be merged: PMVK-G6V and KWVQ-6X5.
For some inexplicable reason it is important for the other user to hold onto the idea that a Anna was born in Lower Saxony in June 1893 instead of West Prussia in June 1892. The West Prussia record has her born in the same place as her brother and father: Gdingen now Gdynia.
I am able to find and interpret old German records, including civil registrations of births, marriages and deaths. I have been going to FamilyHistory centers for twenty years, have contributed a lot to FamilySearch, and have traveled to "West Prussia" (now Poland).
So, I found a civil birth registration from 1892 that was made by August Kohnke, who said that his wife Eva nee Lassin gave birth to a girl in Gdingen (now Gdynia) on 22 June 1892 and that they were naming her Franziska Rosalie.
The other user first encountered a baptismal record made on 26 June 1892 for a child born on the same day and in the same place for a daughter of August Kohnke (same father's name) and Augustine nee Lassin (different first name for mother) with the daughter named Anna Rosalie (same second name but different first name).
Before I presented the civil registration to the other user, they assumed that the father's name was wrong in the baptismal record, that it ought to be August Lassin. Clearly, when the civil record was filed, the father knew his own name. But, the other user decided that the child was born to a couple who weren't married until five years later. The wife of that couple, Augustine nee Lassin, was the younger sister of Eva.
The other user cannot accept that the child was baptized Anna Rosalie. That is because their ancestor, Anna nee Konke, was supposedly born in June (same month) of 1894 (two years later) in a far-away part of the German Empire (Lower Saxony). They do not have a birth record from Lower Saxony. Instead, they are basing this on a US death record, which I have not seen.
When this family immigrated on 10 April 1895, their last residence was the aforementioned Gdingen (Gdynia), which is where the father and brother of the Anna who migrated was born. But, the other user will not accept that their Anna was born in Gdingen. They have developed this complicated story about the mother - whose husband had gone to the USA - traveling to Lower Saxony to give birth and then returning to Gdingen before migrating to the USA.
I have politely furnished translations of things. The other user is more closely related to the "two" Annas. And, I don't want to merge profiles if somebody is just going to unmerge them. Already she has written notes on many sources with unfounded explanations why they ought to be dismissed. She repeatedly removes everything Anna.
In her mind, the Anna Rosalie baptized in 1892 - who was recorded in the civil register as Franziska Rosalie - died in infancy (I cannot locate a death record) and for no reason she has decided that the name Anna in the baptismal record was a mistake. She calls the child Franziska since that was the name reported in the Civil record by the husband.
So, in summary she is creating reasons for disregarding a birth record in Gdingen in favor of a reported place of birth on a death record. And, she has changed the name for no reason, thrown away Sources for no reason. I do not understand what is so important about thinking that a person was born in Lower Saxony in June 1893 instead of West Prussia in June 1892. It's important to her to think that her ancestor was 100% German and not Polish at all. Ironically, her family attended a Polish church in Chicago.
In all of my years, I have never encountered a person like this. Again, if this is posted in the wrong place, please let me know as I have been unable to locate advice.
Answers
-
Some very surface-level poking raises as my first question: has anyone managed to access an image to go with the indexed Oxhöft baptism? That is, are you certain that it's not misindexed as Anna and Augustine? (And for that matter, are you sure that Oxhöft is correct?)
My next observation (beyond the total lack of supporting documents for Lower Saxony) is that KWVQ-6X5 until recently had a birthplace of Berlin, of all places. Where did that come from, and why was it replaced with the equally-preposterous Saxony?
Third: the civil registration says August was illiterate. This means that if the registrar made any "subconscious" errors, such as writing Franziska but meaning — and therefore saying — Anna, August may not have noticed.
And then there's "ick, Illinois." (I've done very little U.S. genealogy, but even I know that Illinois records can be hard to get at.)
1 -
I've been through similar issues and can empathize.
You can try the Report Abuse option but don't hold out much hope. A difference of opinion - even when one is backed up by facts and the other is not - is not considered abuse. The bar is VERY high to achieve resolution through Report Abuse.
A quick look at the profiles shows some faulty math - perhaps you can try pointing that out if you have not already. The note about the year of birth for Anna shows "On the ships manifest in April 1895, she was listed as 1 year 9 months. This would have made her born in 1891." That calculation is inaccurate.I also looked for Cook County, Illinois birth records for the later children since those certificates often list the number of the child born to the mother. Unfortunately, that search did not bear fruit. I did find several Archdiocese of Chicago RC baptisms, and some of those dates are in conflict with the dates of the corresponding profiles. You might attach those records to those profile to bolster your proof.
Best of luck. Hope this helps.
Edit to add: Julia and I were writing at the same time. I was at my Affiliate Library and was looking at the relevant Chicago images and the Prussian baptism while I wrote.
And a link to the passenger list from which the arrival card was derived: https://www.ancestry.com/sharing/31043629?mark=7b22746f6b656e223a22497570702f734c4c6131762b2b496375732b6452555a6b594478354c6251336a467635386c6a39345348553d222c22746f6b656e5f76657273696f6e223a225632227d
3 -
In the grand scheme of things this is a minor detail, but further to Áine's note about the math error in "April 1895 minus 1 y 9 m = 1891", the April 1895 arrival date is the wrong input for that equation anyway. On ship manifests, ages (and everything else) were copied from travel documents, not calculated (or invented) on the spot. The 1 year and 9 months needs to be subtracted from the date those documents were prepared, which we do not know; all we know is that it was at or prior to the departure date (which I can't quite read: March somethingth?). March 1895 minus 1y9m = June 1893, by my calculations, exactly matching the Gdingen birth and baptism.
3 -
This is the person who Mr. greenforest is talking about. The person we are talking about is my great grandmother. It is obvious that he is giving his version of the story with a slant in his own direction—including his representation of me. The baptismal record is obviously flawed with the incorrect mother’s name and the incorrect birth name when compared to the civil registration record. The civil registration is generally viewed as the official record. My great grandmother was born June 9th, 1893—an exact match to the ship’s manifest age of 1 year 9 months. The baptismal record for Anna Rosalie is June 1892. She would have been almost 3 at the time of the arrival.
In addition, my great grandmother’s death record had her from Seesen, Lower Saxony, Germany. Three of her children’s birth records had her birthplace as “Seesen”
Along with records, a lot of my information came from my grandmother, Anna’s daughter, who I interviewed in 1974. I used the interview as starting point when I began my genealogical research. So, the viewpoint that I have is not unfounded and not unreasonable. It was also not uncommon for the wife to wait somewhere else closer to the departure place while they waited for the husband to send for them.
0
