A question re swapping of spouses already sealed
I had a situation where an Anna Maria born in 1820 was married to a Peter Johann and they had 6 children. All ok so far.
Then there was a second Anna Maria, a sister born 2 years later.
When I checked death indexes there was an Anna Maria who died on the day of her birth in 1820 and the parents then gave the next daughter the same name.
So I figured, easy fix. Just change the spouse for the husband to the correct person. Thirty minutes later I was finished swapping all the sources around then checked ordinances and all had been completed except sealing to spouse.
This sort of made me realise I may have done this all wrong. If I simply adjust the birth dates, then the sealing to spouse stays intact and so does the sealing of all the children to the correct parents. It would also have saved having to move all the attached sources.
The fact that all the ordinances for the sister who died on the day she was born were already done years ago, is sad because she only needed to be sealed to her parents. This I am finding constantly as I check death records. Ordinances that didn’t need to be done were done many years ago because the death records were not available.
Anyway, back to the original issue. Is this the best way to go about this? Don’t change the mother, just change the birth dates and death dates to correctly reflect who was actually married at the time? Not sure if I expressed this question correctly.
The initial way would mean that the sealing to spouse needed to be done again. Is this the way to do it? Means he would then be sealed to both the sister who died on the day of her birth and the sister born 2 years later.
Would appreciate people’s thoughts on this. Thanks 😃
Answers
-
@IngeAnnaDanaher IngeAnnaDanaher You certainly had one of those situations that makes us tear our hair out at times - two different children with identical names - one died early, the other lived a full life, for example. However, you may not have done anything wrong (I'm not certain - I wasn't fully following everything that was done because you obviously couldn't have put every detail into your question). Regardless, we need to remember that what's showing in FamilySearch does not have anything to do with what ultimately happens with ordinances. As an example, many wives are sealed to more than one husband (my mother being one example, where both sealings were done after her death, the deaths of both spouses, and the deaths of the spouses' other spouses).
According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, it will ultimately be up to the woman and the Lord as to which, if either sealing becomes valid. It is exactly the same with the argument some non-Latter-day Saints have against their non-member ancestors being "made into Mormons" in our temples. What they don't understand is that personal agency (choice) is an eternal principle, and that non-member ancestor may or may not choose to accept the work we do in our temples, and will never be forced into anything simply because some living people went into a temple and performed proxy ordinances for them. It's just conditional. And a lot of adjustments are likely going to happen after this life to correct mistakes that human beings make here and now. So even if someone has gone back and done changes in FamilySearch to reflect the proper person married to a spouse, rather than a deceased sibling of the same name, that does not change the original recording of the original ordinance. They're all tied to that unique (i.e. not the same as anyone else's) record ID number. Thus, merely changing things in FamilySearch won't automatically just move the ordinances over to the other proper person. It's a computer program, after all, and doesn't understand some of the subtleties involved that we can understand with same-named siblings due to early deaths as in your case.
The ordinance(s) MAY have to be re-done for the right person of the same name (having a different record number) now that you've done your great detective work and corrections of the genealogical record. But even if those aren't caught in this life, according to our beliefs (along with almost all other religions), God is a just God and not bound by unintended mistakes of record keeping that we mere mortals don't catch in time. It'll all work out in the end, as long as we've done all we can do. And that's a doctrine anyone should be able to agree with, not just Latter-day Saints.
So unless you're certain that you made a mistake in the corrections, and can then go back and unravel your changes and re-do it all correctly, I sure wouldn't stress about it. It may simply be a matter of getting the sealing done (again?) so the record is complete. In any case, your attitude toward it all is something that is so badly needed in too many cases, where people just see a name, assume it's THE person they're looking for, plug it into Ancestry, FamilySearch, etc., and smile a very complete and satisfied smile. Instead, you're verifying sources, and making sure that the record is as complete and accurate as possible. You can't change the FamilySearch ordinance records, but that's of no consequence, as long as the right ordinances have been performed for the right people in the end. It may simply be a matter of going back and having the ordinances done on behalf of the other same-name daughter (with the different record number). Ordinances (in earthly records) follow record numbers, not names, even if two sisters had the same name.
--Chris
0 -
Thank you very much @Chris Schmink for this comprehensive answer. You have certainly confirmed what I felt, that the sealing was connected to the record number. After I had made the first changes, by swapping sisters, it showed up that now a new sealing had to be performed. To reduce the amount of work for sealings I then undid all the original changes so that I was back where I started, i.e. the sister who died was sealed to the husband and their children. Then I adjusted the birth dates which was of course a far quicker change which meant in the end, sealings were complete and all sources attached to the right person. I guess it is no different to finding a source and adjusting the recorded information for that individual. Changing dates doesn't alter the ordinances performed. My concern was that I wanted to find out the preferred way to go about this because I have come across this a few times already and as I also train others, I don't want to pass on bad habits.
So ... what I get out of this is that the easier fix is actually also the better fix because it keeps the ordinances with the people they were meant for. Which is a relief because that change takes a few minutes whereas swapping mothers took me 30 minutes to fix up all the sources
I do agree with you that we don't need to stress but do the best we can and somehow it will all get sorted out. Thanks again
0 -
Oh - NOW I understand what you did with the birth/death dates. Excellent! That preserves the record number with the ordinances, and to me it would also seem to be the best route to take. Nice! If more or different info is needed, hopefully one of the FH/FS Department experts can weigh in further and enlighten all of us further.
Again, thanks for your diligence in trying to keep the records "honest," rather than settling for what initially may appear to be "right," when sometimes it's not. Over on Ancestry, I found some records that I suspect were copies of copies of copies of what someone else had done wrong years ago. My grandfather had a brother who showed up on one person's tree with my great grandparents as well as my grandfather and great aunts. But there were also people that I KNEW were not part of my family as additional siblings. Further digging (long story in between!) showed that two different Melvin J. Quinns were born just a few days apart, just a few blocks apart, but one was born in Orange, NJ, while the other was born in West Orange, NJ. The two Quinn families MAY be related (haven't sorted that out yet), but because someone saw "Orange" in the birth place, and the somewhat unique given name combination of "Melvin J.", they assumed that the wrong one was my great uncle, and the records not only were partially "merged" (i.e. parts of one family given to the other family), as if they were all one. I haven't taken the time to track down all the different people that have it incorrectly depicted in Ancestry, but I got mine correct in both Ancestry and FamilySearch, and use FS as my main database anyway, with plenty of sources as well as notes to document who's who, and WHY each is who they are (hopefully people will read the notes and sourcing). So I deeply appreciate others that are diligent in sourcing and documenting.
Thanks,
--Chris
0 -
Hi @Chris Schmink I have come across very similar situations in Family Search, some I must confess, of my own making. I was too fast with the merging and assumed that there wouldn't be 2 identically names couples getting married and having children at the same time so I quickly merged them all. Then when I finished things looked a bit odd and investigating sources I had to admit there were 2 families in villages only a few kilometres apart and yes, they had married around the same time and had children in the same period. That was quite a mess to unravel but taught me a lot. Also how to undo messes you create
It is only recently that full Death Certificates are being digitised in Germany. The Catholic church is having all their records slowly made available online. Then there are crowd sourcing projects digitising civil certificates and as well as FamilySearch making more death records available for viewing online. There are loads already stored on film in Granite Mountain archives but I have raised a suggestion in the feedback area that if these were all quickly made available online, don't even need to be indexed as the church records are brief enough to eye scan them page by page to find ancestors. This would greatly reduce the number of ordinances that need to be performed because so many children, sadly, died before the age 8.
Then there is the added bonus of finding ancestors without descendants. I have found in my family sibling of my grandparents and great grandparents nobody had known about because they died so young they were never mentioned and because they didn't marry and have children, nobody was looking for them. I can literally feel the rejoicing when these families are completely sealed to each other. Imagine the parent who's offspring lies forgotten in some dusty church record book. I know eventually it will all be put right but it feels great to be able to contribute to this process.
Sounds like you understand it all so keep up the great work you are doing. Oh... yes I prefer to use FamilySearch as my main base. I have everything also in Rootsmagic and occasionally go to the trouble of updating Ancestry and MyHeritage. I find all my german dna cousins on MyHeritage. MyHeritage seems to be more popular in Germany than Ancestry for some reason. Could be that they were the first to offer DNA testing when the law in Germany forbade it. That's how I ended up with DNA on MyHeritage. I was visiting Germany and wanted to get my aunt's DNA (last living relative of her generation). Ancestry wouldn't sent me the kit but MyHeritage had no qualms about sending it. Now the law has been changed so more people may use Ancestry. I live in Australia so for me things have improved greatly with digitised records in the last year. Kind Regards, Inge.
0 -
Hi Inge,
What a great tip you just gave me. I'd have had no idea that MyHeritage was the more popular DNA kit in Germany. My birth name is Bieneman - now a rather rare name in Germany. A distant relative in Wisconsin (now apparently deceased) did travel over to Germany years ago, and met who she believed to be the "last" of our Bienemann relatives, but she apparently died before I could get further information. I've only made decent contact with a different branch of the family that settled in the Pittsburgh area, and that seems to be where most of my Ancestry DNA results are also coming from in the U.S. (Pittsburgh branch of the family, not Wisconsin/Illinois).
The family story (not able to be verified) was that an official was so pleased with the honey produced by a 1500s Bienemann ("bee man" or bee keeper, as you probably know), that he decreed that our surname could not be used by anyone else. I have yet to meet a German in the US who ever heard that surname back home in Germany, and there are very few left as far as I can determine (probably far more in the U.S. than in Germany).
Due to unfortunate family circumstances when I was still a child, I was cut off from my birth father's family entirely, and later in adulthood was unable to find anyone interested in re-establishing contact among the cousins I remembered knowing as a young child. Now most are deceased, and their children that I've located are similarly uninterested. So it might be interesting to see who still has some of the original Bienemann DNA in Germany. Ancestry systematically reduced my percentage of German ancestry with each update over the years, to the point where it's negligible, according to them now. Originally they reported almost exactly what I already knew I had - 1/4 each English, Irish, Swedish, and German. I don't know how Ancestry determines such major changes with their "updates," but with your hint, I think I'll try MyHeritage. I've been considering an alternate DNA service anyway just because of my growing skepticism about Ancestry, so MyHeritage may be just the answer. (Schmink is merely an adopted name.)
Thanks!
-- Chris (Bieneman) Schmink
0 -
I think your solution was a good one, especially since they were sisters. Dates need to be changed on FS all the time. I have seen dates that are up to 10 years off. Many people just guess or use only one source when they should check all sources and many people added from years ago have no sources. I use a tree in ancestry to do my research and keep all of my data. Then I use the FS tree icon to either connect or add a person and transfer sources. I have also found it's very important to review the entire change log for people in familysearch before I make any changes myself. I found someone on my direct line, born in Maryland, who started out as someone with a different name, an different husband and was born in Canada. Merges had morphed her into someone else.
0 -
Hi @Chris Schmink I only just noticed your last reply. Very interesting and I am glad you can pick up on the hint re MyHeritage. I hope I am not too late, but if you already have DNA in Ancestry then you can upload that raw data into MyHeritage and not have to pay again. I unfortunately, did it the other way around and Ancestry won't let you upload other companies DNA results.
I find MyHeritage great when it comes to DNA matches because, like I said, so many German cousins end up there. Now when it comes to Ethnicity, Ancestry is far more accurate. I have actually been in touch with MyHeritage to try and find out why they think I have 0 % of Germany Ethnicity. They are investigating it. I have gone on some lines, back to the 1300's and have yet to find an ancestor who was NOT born in Germany. Ancestry started out lousy but they are getting better and initially I had zero German and that has now increased to 54%. I did some research last year to try to understand this situation and found out that there is very little difference between English and German DNA so if the pool of German DNA is low, no wonder they lump it all under English 😃 Hopefully as more German's use Ancestry, that will also improve. If you wish to discuss, I am more likely to notice messages emailed to me directly via ingemlb@gmail.com Kind Regards, Inge.
0 -
Yes, luckily you can restore merged people. Rather messy but I am glad mistakes can be corrected
. I use FamilySearch as my main database but I have it synchronised with Rootsmagic. I usually update FamilySearch first, then sync it with Rootsmagic, providing it is correct, then I go into Ancestry and compare with FamilySearch to keep that in sync. The Ancestry connection i had neglected for a while until a Genealogist I use in Germany told me he saw my tree in Ancestry. Well I am now working on fixing that one. Then i will have to get back to fixing MyHeritage. The problem with sources was that there were not so many available until the last few years. Digitised that is. I am now going back over my tree and trying to fix any missing sources, where they are available, or upload them into memories and turn them into a source that way. People can of course "unattach" sources but if they are also stored in memories, at least they will stay there. A lot of extra work turning digitised sources into memories. Download then attach as a texture. I must admit i am behind in this task. 0 -
Hi again @Chris Schmink I just came across a conversation between bee keepers where a Bienemann from Germany started a thread. Thought you may find this of interest to follow up.
0 -
So sorry for the delayed response - been sidetracked locally with some time-consuming issues at my end, thankfully now resolved. Thanks so much for that tip. I'm going to check it out now!
--Chris
0
