False positives
We all have them. You know, those silly family secrets we were all told never to tell. Even now, decades later, I can still see them etched on my mother's face, or in the crook of my grandmother's finger, pointedly reminding me we are all proxies of those blood vows. You know vows like, "You must never speak of this around Nana" or "Your grandmother mustn't know that you know the truth." Indeed, I shudder to think how I will answer for my attempts to relay the truth behind those secrets should I ever arrive someday at the Pearly Gates.
Stay tuned for the next episode of Celestial Family Banishment...
Growing up, we had more than a few of these on each side of my family tree. These secrets were hardly earth-shattering. They usually revolved around the murky circumstances surrounding someone's birth, marriage, or some problematic issue of their demise. The old-school reasoning was that the telling of the secret (i.e., "the truth") would hurt those we love and ultimately cause more harm than good. For the most part, this has seemed like sage advice if not a good rule to live by. In a nutshell, though, times have changed, and we've (hopefully) moved past always having to live in the shadow of Our Lady of Perpetual Shame.
I have to say, though - at least in terms of genealogy - all of these secrets have made for some interesting "family record-keeping." Recently, I was reminded of this (and all those darn secrets) while working on a lineage application for a distant cousin. The application process has been an extremely difficult one, with each generation being thoroughly examined and reviewed. The standards for approving applications have also changed and over the years, become more rigorous.
Lately, it isn't enough to cite a county history or a couple of nineteenth-century genealogical tomes to help prove your lineage from, say, Willie Wonka or The Great Wizard of Oz. The latest standards ask that you prove any individual in question as "one and the same" as they connect to each generation, and with each of these generations connected only through some form of original documentation. In this instance, virtually any information contained in secondary sources (published works) is viewed as "extra" (or suspect ) in that it should only complement the original records and not serve as the proof itself. Secondary sources are often viewed as nothing more than "he-said she-said" hearsay. In this instance, I am using the term "hearsay" as an account made by someone with no direct "genealogical knowledge" of a person or an event.
This is all well and good, and no doubt as it should be. I mean, who wants to document their ancestry off the faulty premises and the wishful thinking of some late 19th-century bon vivant or vanity riddled dowager? However, it got me thinking about the premise behind original or official documentation and it being the only "go-to" form of proof for the ultimate "genealogical standard." The idea that nothing can be proven (or truthful) without "originals" seemed too absolute. This got me thinking about Aunt Fae.
Yes, I know, of all people, my maternal grandmother's older sister, Fae.
Now my family prides itself on its connections. We do love our Mayflower lines and our Salem Witches, and I've done my best (and not without some success) to prove them both with and without original documentation. So for the sake of argument here, let's suppose we wanted "to prove" and verify my family's maternal connection to Rebecca Nurse of Salem 1692 fame - and to do it only through "original documentation." Let's say we have been fortunate enough to have proven all the other twelve generations and that we didn't have to rely on any secondary sources, or as some might call it, "hearsay."
Of course, because my grandmother's sister, "Aunt Fae" shares this "Salem witch" ancestry with the rest of us. We can easily include her along with her "original documentation" in the mix, proving she is "one and the same" "Celia Fae Sage," daughter of Samuel and Mary Elizabeth (Ginder) Sage, born 15 Jan 1906, and also a descendant of Rebecca Nurse of Salem and Gallows Hill fame.
We will include a page from the family Bible, which, while not an "official record" is original documentation created by someone who would have had direct knowledge of the event (her presumed mother) and a document that will likely be shown as "acceptable" since it is in-line with other 'official records.' We will include Fae's delayed birth certificate (as none were issued in Wyoming in 1906), Fae's death certificate, and her obituary, which will also contain the same information.
Her obituary may also be labeled as not an "official record" but again, 'en masse' all these sources seem to concur with the primary ones. (Fae's birth, marriage, and death records) We will even include a copy of the 1910 census to supplement the documentation to meet the genealogical standard that this "Celia Fae Sage" is "one and the same" and is the person we are trying to verify.
The trouble is - she isn't.
Not that she isn't Aunt Fae - of course she is - and she will always be near and dear in our hearts. However, in terms of proving her ancestry, the "primary source documentation" proves her to be only the person she was represented to be in life and not necessarily the person she actually was. Sometimes two things can be true.
Now consider this next information about Fae. It comes from an old family letter. This excerpt is from the letter written by an older cousin of ours and written years after and a generation or two after Fae was born:
"My grandparents had a rather rocky marriage from the start. My grandfather apparently drank and was somewhat abusive to his wife and children. My grandmother had had a child out of wedlock before marrying my grandfather. That perhaps caused problems, especially to the Dunkards. However, the child, a girl, was raised by her parents. Apparently, my grandmother was severely beaten by her father, Sam Sage, when he found out about the child. My mother always referred to "Faye" as her aunt. She was a beautiful girl. She got married and moved to Idaho..."
So just who is Fae in the primary source documents?
Well, of course, she is Fae Sage, daughter of Sam and Mary. But again, if we read the letter, we can see that she isn't.
The problem with the letter is that even while true (in terms of genealogy), it becomes nothing more than hearsay. The question is then: Does the "original documentation" trump the stated memories in the letter? Without the letter, does the original documentation regarding Fae's life become a verified fact? With the letter, does it fall short? For all intents and purposes, "Celia Fae Sage" certainly was the woman she was represented to be in all the "official documents." Remember that in Fae's case, there is no record of any formal adoption. More often than not, there is no guidance on how to resolve or navigate conflicting information.
Remember all those family secrets? There is very little in all that original record keeping that is accurate at all. Celia Fae Sage wasn't the daughter of Sam and Mary, and sadly, everyone knew this. We just never spoke of it. She was Sam and Mary's granddaughter, born out of wedlock to their eldest daughter and "folded into" the family in the style and secrets of the times.
So what does all that "original documentation" mean in proving out anyone's lineage - or in Fae's case - to tie her to our family of Salem and 1692? In this case, and admittedly sans dates and places, the secondary account in the letter tells more truth about Fae and who she was genealogically speaking than any other record. Fae's lineage to the Salem Witches (while remaining intact) would more accurately be told by piecing together the facts contained in the letter than by enshrining her identity as proven in "primary source documentation."
In terms of how anyone's ancestry can be proven or disproven, the story of Fae and the secret of her birth is a genealogical lesson that "official documents" don't always tell the full story - or even the true story. Often fabricated, they hide the hearsay we're taught to ignore. These official records hide both the truth and the hearsay. The official records become just the secrets our ancestors wanted us to tell. They are the original records someone else needed or wanted us to record.
Sometimes, though, to actually get at the genealogical truth, you just might have to consider a little secret or two, or a little hearsay along the way.
☮
.jpeg)
