Genea-Musings

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Treasure Chest Thursday Post 301: 1750 Birth Record of Abigail Pierce (1750-1776)

It's Treasure Chest Thursday - time to look in my digital image files to see what treasures I can find for my family history and genealogy musings.

The treasure today is the 1750 birth record for Abigail Pierce (1750-1776), daughter of Samuel and Abigail (Stearns) Pierce, in Waltham, Massachusetts:

The snippet for the birth record of Abigail Pierce in 1750:

The transcription of the birth record is:

"Abigail [dup. Peirce] d. Samuel and Abigail, Apr. 12, 1750"

The source citation for this record is:

Vital records of Waltham, Massachusetts, to the year 1850 (Boston, Mass. : New-England Historic Genealogical Society, 1904), Births, page 72, Abigail Pierce entry.

There are two entries for an Abigail Pierce, daughter of Samuel and Abigail (Stearns) Pierce. The first Abigail was born in 1740, and died in 1747. The second Abigail was born in 1750.

Abigail Pierce (1750-1776) is my fifth great-grandmother. She married Jeremiah Knowton (1745-1785) in 1771, and had two children, including my 4th great-grandmother, Abigail (Knowlton) Gates (1774-1855), who married Nathan Gates.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/treasure-chest-thursday-post-301-1750.html

Please comment on this post on the website by clicking the URL above and then the "Comments" link at the bottom of each post. Share it on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or Pinterest using the icons below. Or contact me by email at randy.seaver@gmail.com.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Research Fun at the Library Today

Wednesdays are usually a full genealogy day for me, including a visit to the Chula Vista Civic Center Branch Library where we have our Chula Vista Genealogical Society (CVGS) meetings. Today, was the CVGS Computer Group, where we meet in the Computer Lab and Shirley leads us through some online resources, but some of us wander off into our own search.

We had a visitor today who knew nothing about her family except her parents names and her own birth date and place and the name of her brother. She gave her name, and asked if anyone could find any online records about her - she said she tries to keep things private.

Several of us looked at different sites. I quickly found her in the U.S. Public Records collection on Ancestry residing here in Chula Vista, with a birth date and an address. She asked "How did they get that?" Well, it was probably in a city directory and/or a telephone book, and some other public database provided the birth date.

Since she was born before 1940, I also found her family in the 1940 U.S. Census. There she was in Queens, New York, aged 10 months, with her parents and her brother. I showed that record to her, and promised to send it to her if she emailed me asking for it. She wrote down my email address.

While I was explaining the detailed information - the street address, the birthplaces, the occupation, the employment information, I noted that her father in 1940 was a clerk, and his industry was a "whore house" and he made $1,248 in 1939 (see the yellow line below).

On closer look, it is probably "whare house" but this got a good laugh from the folks listening in to our discussion!

There were several "suggested records" for her father, including:

* California Death Index
* Find A Grave entry
* 1920, 1930, 1940 U.S. Census
* New York Guard Service Cards
* Florida Passenger List entry

From those, and with a bit more searching, I was able to take her paternal line back three more generations, including the maiden names of the wives. I have yet to find a public Ancestry Member Tree for her father, or her paternal grandparents. The FamilySearch Family Tree has her paternal grandparents, but not her father in the family. It does not have her great-grandparents.

I don't know about the rest of the class members, but I had fun and may have turned another person onto genealogy research.

NOTE: I kept our visitor's name private in this post because she doesn't want it all over the Internet. My view is that I can give somebody a little help - such as a census record, but then I want them to discover more information about their family history themselves. In other words, "lead them to the water, and hope that they imbibe."

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/research-fun-at-library-today.html

Is This The Ultimate Family History House?

An article in the LA Weekly online magazine, dated 8 February 2016, has a fascinating article titled "Why a House in Manhattan Beach Is Covered in a Family's Memories."

The story details how and why Gary Sweeney turned his childhood home in Manhattan Beach into a giant outdoor gallery of his father's photos.

Read the whole article. It's a great tribute to his father, and a great idea for family historians to think about, even if it's in a digital environment.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/is-this-ultimate-family-history-house.html

The Carringer-Smith-Dyar Families at the Beach -- Post 400 of (Not So) Wordless Wednesday

This is post number 400 of (Not So) Wordless Wednesday - a journey through my family photograph collections that I started almost eight years ago with the photograph below - in the post titled Family Photographs - Post #1 (posted 18 April 2008):

Fortunately, my great-grandmother, Della (Smith) Carringer wrote numbers on the bottom of the photograph and on the other side she wrote down the setting, the date, and who the people were.

This photograph was taken in February 1910 at Ocean Beach in the city of San Diego (Ocean Beach is on the ocean side of Point Loma, the peninsula that protects San Diego Bay from wind and waves). It appears to be taken on the sand looking east away from the water.

The people by number are (left to right):

1. Abigail (Vaux) Smith (in back), age 65, mother of Della, Matie and David.

2. Matie (Smith) Cramer (in back), age 43, sister of Della.

3. Maybelle Smith (in front), age 6, niece of Della, daughter of David and Amy (Ashdown) Smith.

4. Thomas Ashdown (in back), father of Amy (Ashdown) Smith, and father-in-law of David Smith.

5. Della (Smith) Carringer (shortest lady), age 48, my great-grandmother.

6. Beulah Dyar (in front), age 3, Della's first cousin once removed, daughter of Bert and Mary (Woodward) Dyar.

7. Amy (Ashdown) Smith (in back), age 43, wife of David Smith, daughter of Thomas Ashdown.

8. Cecil Dyar (in front), age 8, Della's first cousin once removed, son of Bert and Mary (Woodward) Dyar.

9. Mary (Woodward) Dyar (in back of Cecil), age 43, Della's first cousin (daughter of Mary Ann (Vaux) Woodward, sister of Abigail (Vaux) Smith).

10. Lyle Carringer (in back in white suit and hat), age 18, son of Austin and Della (Smith) Carringer, my grandfather.

11. Austin Carringer (in back with hat), age 56, husband of Della (Smith) Carringer.

12. Bert Dyar (in back with hat), age 43, husband of Mary (Woodward) Dyar.

13. David D. Smith (in front with hat), age 46, brother of Della (Smith) Carringer, and husband of Amy (Ashdown) Smith.

The Bert Dyar family moved from Boone County, Nebraska to Los Angeles County, California before 1910. Information about this family can be found here.

I wonder who took this picture? Perhaps it was Austin's brother, Harvey Edgar Carringer, since he wasn't related by marriage to any of these people.

About 10 months after I posted this photograph in 2008, a reader commented "I'm related to those Dyars if they came from Nebraska. I'm from the branch that didn't move out to California." See, posting family photos works as cousin bait!

NOTE: The first 78 posts that I count in the (Not So) Wordless Wednesday series were titled "Family Photographs - Post nn." On Post 79, I switched to labeling them "(Not So) Wordless Wednesday - Post nn" posts.

===========================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/the-carringer-smith-dyar-families-at.html

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Have You Seen the Genea-Musings Static Pages?

One of the features I like about having my blogs on Blogger is the opportunity to also post static web pages. Have you seen mine?

Here is the home page on Genea-Musings. The static pages are under the red banner and above the most recent blog post:

The static pages include:

* Randy's Genealogy Links -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/randys-genealogy-links.html

* Randy's Genealogy -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/randys-genealogy.html

* Randy's Presentations -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/randys-presentations.html

* Presentation Schedule -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/randys-future-and-past-presentations.html

* Amanuensis Monday Posts -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/amanuensis-monday-posts.html

* Genea-Musings "Best" Posts -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/genea-musings-best-posts.html

* Ancestor Biographies -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/ancestor-biographies.html

* Sample Source Citations -- http://www.geneamusings.com/p/sample-source-citations.html

Some of these need to be updated! I will work on it!!

I have space in the header for at least two more static pages - what would you like to see added in those spaces?

================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/have-you-seen-genea-musings-static-pages.html

Copyright (c) 2016, Randall J. Seaver

My AncestryDNA Update - February 2016

I last reported about my AncestryDNA results in AncestryDNA Says I Have NADs (New Ancestor Discoveries) (posted 17 November 2015) and Updates to My AncestryDNA Results, and New Shared cM Feature (posted 7 November 2015).

Devoted readers of Genea-Musings probably recall that I disagree with my Ethnicity estimate on AncestryDNA, which says I am:

* 66% Europe West
* 18% Ireland
* 9% Great Britain
* 3% Scandinavian
* 1% Italy/Greece
* <1% Iberian Peninsula
* <1% Pacific Islander

It will be interesting to see if, and how, this changes when the DNA reference group sizes are increased from 3,000 to 9,000 in the coming year.

The DNA Matches summary says I have:

* 96 Shared Ancestor Hints (of which 11 have private trees)
* 165 4th cousins or closer (of which 12 have Ancestor Hints, 7 have private trees, and 30 have no trees)
* 113 pages of matches (so about 5,560 matches total)

I now have three New Ancestor Discoveries (NADs):

Unfortunately, I have no trace of these three persons (two of them are husband and wife) in my Ancestry or RootsMagic family tree.

I now have six DNA Circles:

Four of these DNA Circles have six members, and two of them have four members. Each of these are, I believe, correct. I am in correspondence with almost all of the DNA matches for these six persons.

When AncestryDNA gets more English testers, it is possible that there will be more members in the first four DNA circles, and more DNA circles may appear for my Richman and Rich ancestors from Wiltshire. I really don't understand why John Richman and Ann Marshman don't also appear in my DNA Circles, since all 6 of the persons in the first four DNA Circles also have them in their tree.

================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/my-ancestrydna-update.html

Copyright (c) 2016, Randall J. Seaver

What About My Life and Family Stories?

For the past three years, the RootsTech Conference in Salt Lake City has put a major emphasis on telling stories - in text, audio, video, in person, etc. Most of the Keynote talks have been about stories, and the Expo Hall has been filled with small and large companies focusing on telling stories.

1) There are, seemingly, hundreds of companies with this focus, and some have even disappeared already. There are websites and mobile apps for writing your priceless prose, recording your wonderful audio, and even your fascinating video. One, called, Forever, says that they will guarantee that your work will be available for 100 years. For a price, of course. They had a big display at the RootsTech Expo Hall.

2) I know that I want to tell my family stories so that my children, grandchildren and future generations can read my words, hear my voice and see my image. However, I don't want to do it many times - I want to do it once and do it well.

Which platform to use? Heretofore, I've used my Genea-Musings to tell my stories in a blog post - often as part of an ongoing theme - Wordless Wednesday, Saturday Night Genealogy Fun, a Carnival of Genealogy post, etc. "They" say that the younger generations don't have the patience to read online, and really want to see and hear the person telling the stories.

3) There are some genealogy companies that provide story-telling platforms already - FamilySearch and MyHeritage mobile apps provide audio recording capability already, and Ancestry.com will soon provide it in their mobile app. It is not a stretch to think that they will also provide video capability in the near future.

Then there are the stand-alone apps - the ones like Forever, Saving Family Stories, StoryCorps, StoryWorth, etc. It is probable that the genealogy companies will take over or partner with one or more of these platforms as time goes on, essentially picking winners.

4) I have questions:

* How can I adjust to what the younger generation wants? The obvious answer right now is on mobile devices. I probably want a website and app that will display text, audio and video (and perhaps holograms in the future?) on mobile devices.

* How will they know where to find my august visage and timeless words? Or those of my ancestors? I need to tell them, I guess, and hope that they remember to tell their children and grandchildren.

* How long will whatever I do last? Which company(ies) will last into my great-grandchildren's lifetimes? What happens to my stories when MyStoryCo.com goes belly up? What happens to my blogs when I die and nobody pays the domain fees?

* Will they even care? Will they want to hear the befuddled musings of their aged, bearded, balding, funny-looking great-grandfather with mid-20th century values and experiences?

5) So what will I try to do? I think I want a platform that is free to use for everyone. It would be useful if the platform was tied to an online family tree with photos. It would be useful if the platform permits text, audio and video that is tied to a specific person profile. The platform needs to have a mobile app that can add text, audio and video to those person profiles.

One website and app that meets all of my criteria above is FamilySearch - it is free, has the Family Tree, has text, photos and audio uploads, and a free mobile app called Memories that can be used to add text, photos and audio. I think that this website will be available for a very long time. I doubt that it will be purchased or go out of business.

Here is my "Photos" page of the FamilySearch Memories app:

Those are photos of my ancestors. They each have a story too. I am probably the only one that can tell their stories at this point in time, except for my parents and grandparents, who my brothers can recall. The beauty of FamilySearch Family Tree as a collaborative tree is that my brothers or cousins could add content to their profile, whether text, photos, audio or video.

My only problem I have with this is: If I tell stories about my life, and put them on my profile for myself, then no one will be able to hear or see them until after I die and my profile becomes public on the FamilySearch Family Tree. I want my grandchildren to be able to read, hear and see them now while they are young and impressionable. Maybe FamilySearch has some way to make that happen.

6) What are you doing to transmit family stories about you and your family and your ancestors for your descendants and relatives? Have you chosen a platform to do this? Why did you choose what you chose?

================================

The URL for this post is:

Copyright (c) 2016, Randall J. Seaver

Monday, February 15, 2016

Hmmm. There are Still No Standards for Names in Family Trees

I wrote Are there standards for names in family trees? on 29 July 2009, and FamilySearch Family Tree Rules for Entering Names on 31 August 2015 in an attempt to standardize by names in my RootsMagic family tree database.

1) Over the years, I have collected articles and links to proposals for standardizing names, including:

* Gary Mokotoff, "A Proposed Standard for Names, Dates and Places in a Genealogical Database," Avotaynu, Volume XXIV, Number 3 (Fall 2008), available online at http://iijg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/AVOTAYNU_XXIV_3.pdf.

* Judith Schaefer Phelps, "Getting It Right: Data Entry Standards for Genealogists," Columbine Genealogical and Historical Society, Centennial, Colorado, 2010,(http://www.columbinegenealogy.com/pdfs/Getting%20It%20Right.pdf).

* FamilySearch Knowledge Article: "Entering Names in Family Tree" - see https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Entering-names-on-Family-Tree&lang=en

* FamilySearch Reading List: "Rules for Entering Names" - see http://broadcast.lds.org/elearning/fhd/Community/en/FamilyTreeCurriculum/level01/Adding%20Information/Rules%20Entering%20Names.pdf.

I'm sure that there are more articles like these, and some information in genealogical reference books also. If you know of any more articles, please make a comment with a link if possible.

2) In my 2009 article Are there standards for names in family trees?, I had a list of names used by submitters of RootsWeb WorldConnect family trees when they had no given name or no surname. I updated that list today and added some other alternatives:

* 114,548 entries for surname: LNU

* 19.160 entries for surname: MNU

* 109,333 entries for first name: FNU

* 123,976 entries for surname: Unk

* 5,895,335 entries for surname: Unknown

* 244,951 entries for surname: (Unknown)

* 99,920 entries for surname: NN

* 11 entries for surname: NNNNN

* 7,170 entries for surname: XXX

* 7,697 entries for surname: XXXXX

* 25,852 entries for surname: --?--

* 52,069 entries for surname: (--?--)

* 138,478 entries for surname: [--?--]

* 37,147 entries for surname: -----

* 9,549 entries for surname: _ (1 underscore)

* 10,170 entries for surname: __ (2 underscores)

* 13,609 entries for surname: ___ (3 underscores)

* 35,770 entries for surname: ____ (4 underscores)

* 164,969 entries for surname: _____ (5 underscores)

* 25,926 entries for surname: ______ (6 underscores)

* 1,477,387 entries for surname: ?

* 8,174 entries for surname: ?????

* 79 entries for surname: Whoknows

* 70 entries for surname: Dontknow

* 44 entries with surname: Mystery

* 1,534 entries for surname: Who

* 40 entries for surname: Who?

I also did the same list for Ancestry Member Trees (using Exact Search):

* 453,540 entries for surname: LNU
* 297,901 entries for surname: MNU
* 232,837 entries for first name: FNU
* 300,595 entries for surname: Unk
* 204,803 for given name: Unk
* 4,347,478 entries for surname: Unknown
* 2,586,736 entries for first name: Unknown

* 188,974 entries for surname: NN

* 16 entries for surname: NNNNN

* 31,296 entries for surname: XXX
* 10,619 entries for surname: XXXXX
* 7,735 entries for given name: XXXXX
* 0 entries for surname: --?--
* 0 entries for surname: (--?--)
* 0 entries for surname: [--?--]
* 0 entries for surname:-----
* 0 entries for surname: _ (1 underscore)
* 0 entries for surname: __ (2 underscores)
* 0 entries for surname: ___ (3 underscores)
* 0 entries for surname: ____ (4 underscores)
* 0 entries for surname: _____ (5 underscores)
* 0 entries for surname: ______ (6 underscores)
* 0 entries for surname: ?
* 0 entries for surname: ?????
* 62 entries for surname: Whoknows
* 205 entries for surname: Dontknow
* 13 entry for surname: IDontknow
* 135 entries with surname: Mystery
* 4,512 entries for surname: Who

I did the same search for entries in the FamilySearch Family Tree:

* 2,348 entries for surname: LNU

* 2,057 entries for surname: MNU

* 1,300 entries for first name: FNU

* >2,500 entries for surname: Unk

* >2,500 entries for surname: Unknown

* >2,500 entries for surname: (Unknown)

* >2,500 entries for surname: NN

* 4 entries for surname: NNNNN

* 1,250 entries for surname: XXX
* 171 entries for surname: XXXXX
* 0 entries for given name: XXXXX

* 0 entries for surname: --?--

* 0 entries for surname: (--?--)

* 0 entries for surname: [--?--]

* 0 entries for surname: -----

* 0 entries for surname: _ (1 underscore)

* 0 entries for surname: __ (2 underscores)

* 0 entries for surname: ___ (3 underscores)

* 0 entries for surname: ____ (4 underscores)

* 0 entries for surname: _____ (5 underscores)

* 0 entries for surname: ______ (6 underscores)

* 0 entries for surname: ?

* 0 entries for surname: ?????

* 1 entries for surname: Whoknows

* 18 entries for surname: Dontknow

* 1 entry for surname: IDontknow

* 2 entries with surname: Mystery

* 266 entries for surname: Who

I'm not sure what all of that tells me, except that there are a number of methods of adding names for persons whose names are unknown. It does appear that Ancestry and FamilySearch require alphabetical characters for their name fields.

=============================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/hmmm-there-are-still-no-standards-for.html

New or Updated Record Collections at FamilySearch.org - February 7 to 13, 2016

I'm trying to keep up with the new and updated record collections at FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/list).

As of 13 February 2016, there were 2,062 record collections on FamilySearch (an increase of 1 from last week):

The new or updated collections are:

* Ukraine, Kyiv Orthodox Consistory Church Book Duplicates, 1734-1920; 1,837,807 indexed records with record images, Updated 12 Feb 2016

* North Dakota Manifests of Immigrant Arrivals, 1910-1952; 11,631 indexed records with record images, Updated 11 Feb 2016

* Kansas Marriages, 1840-1935; 87,932 indexed records without record images, Updated 11 Feb 2016

* Kansas Deaths and Burials, 1885-1930; 27,944 indexed records without record images, Updated 11 Feb 2016

* Kansas Births and Christenings, 1818-1936; 39,527 indexed records without record images, Updated 11 Feb 2016

* Portugal, Portalegre, Catholic Church Records, 1859-1911; 7,012 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Pennsylvania Civil Marriages, 1677-1950; 241,745 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Maryland County Marriages, 1658-1940; 53,762 indexed records without record images, ADDED 10 Feb 2016

* Liberia, Marriage Records, 1941-1974; 24,625 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Missouri, County Marriage, Naturalization, and Court Records, 1800-1991; 573,023 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* California, San Francisco Airplane Arrival Card Index, 1936-1949; 22,858 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Mississippi, Tippah County Marriages, 1858-1979; 19,583 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Kansas County Marriages, 1855-1911; 311,857 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Louisiana, Parish Marriages, 1837-1957; 1,107,552 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Minnesota, County Marriages, 1860-1949; 975,092 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979; 1,840,781 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* England, Durham Diocese, Marriage Bonds & Allegations, 1692-1900; 35,079 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* New York, County Marriages, 1847-1848; 1908-1936; 1,363,318 indexed records with record images, Updated 10 Feb 2016

* Pennsylvania, Crew Lists arriving at Erie, 1952-1957; 44,119 indexed records with record images, Updated 08 Feb 2016

* Florida, Knights Keys Passenger Lists, 1908-1912; 5,399 indexed records with record images, Updated 08 Feb 2016

The asterisk used by FamilySearch is for "Recently added or updated." I am particularly interested in new collections, for the obvious reasons. FamilySearch does provide a listing of which collections are new or updated several days after my post.

My friend, Marshall, has come up with a way to determine which collections are ADDED or UPDATED, in addition to which collections were removed. My thanks to Marshall for helping me out here!

In order to select a specific collection, go to https://familysearch.org/search/collection/list and use the "Filter by collection name" feature in the upper left-hand corner.

Each one of the collections listed above has a Research Wiki page (use the "Learn more" link). It would be very useful if the Wiki page for each collection listed the dates for when the collection was added as a new collection and the dates for major updates also.

=============================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/new-or-updated-record-collections-at_15.html

Amanuensis Monday - Post #307: 1809 Inventory of Sarah Sever (1736-1809) Estate

Genea-blogger John Newmark (who writes the excellent TransylvanianDutch blog) started a Monday blog theme years ago called "Amanuensis Monday." John offers this definition for "amanuensis:"

"A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another."

The subject today is the 1809 Inventory of the estate of Sarah Sever (1736-1809) in Westminster, Worcester County, Massachusetts:

[image 7]

The transcription of this Inventory and accompanying legal notices is:

Inventory of the Estate of the widow Sarah Sever late of

Westminster decesd we do aprise as follows Viz.

Real Estate 30 acres land at $15 per acre	$ 450: 0
Personal 1 bibel $1 best gound $1.75 one ditto ct. 25	3: 0
1 quilted pettecot ct.25 one black Scirt ct.67 one yellow scirt ct.50	1:42
1 wollen clock ct.67 one Silk Ditto ct.58 one wollen scirt ct.33	1:58
1 Bunett ct.40 one black kerchif $1.25 one white ditto ct.20	1:85
4 old kerchifs ct.16 three Shifts $1.50 two best aprons $1.20	2:86
2 wollen aprons ct.66 two Short gounds ct.60 four pair Stockings ct.80	4: 6
1 pair Shoes ct.66 three pair piller Cases $1.25 one best Sheat $2	3:94
1 Second best Sheat $1.25 third Sheat ct.66 forth Sheat ct.25	2:16
1 peacetoo Cloth ct.12 one Lace gound ct.16 five yeards wollen Cloth $2.50	2:78
3-1/2 yeards dieper cloth $1.33 one Curtin Valance ct.20 one Churn ct.33	1:86
1 dieper towell ct.25 one Chiste draws $1.50 one washtub ct.25	2: 0
2 pails ct.20 two small tubs ct.20 two wheels ct.60 one Long tabel ct.20	1:20
1 Small tabel ct.33 one side Sadel ct.20 best puter plate ct.90	1:43
2 small puter platers ct.99 Six puter plats $1.50 one puter bason ct.28	2:77
2 spoons ct.6 one flat Iron ct.25 one milk pan ct.17 one glass botle ct.12	:60
1 Large Erthen pot ct.16 one small ditto ct.70 one Candelstick ct.12	:35
½ Set Knife & fork ct.20 one dish Cittel $1 one Crain ct.56	1:76
1 fireslice & tongs ct.75 one Civerlead $3 one bead quilt $1	4:75
1 fether bead bolster& piller $3 one Cow & Calf $22	25: 0
	$ 513.34

Westminster April the 17 1809 Wm Penniman

Daniel Howe

Heman Ray

Worcester Ss Probate Court at Lancaster Nov'r 21^st 1809

Personally appeared Mr. Benjamin Sever and

made Oath that the above is a true Inventory

of said Sarah Severs Estate that has come to

his knowledge and that if any thing further

shall appear he will account for the same in

the Probate office.

Nath. Paine JProb.

The source citation for this Inventory in the probate packet is:

Worcester County, Massachusetts, Probate case files, Case file 52924, Sarah Sever, 1809 inventory (image 7 of 7); "Worcester County, MA: Probate File Papers, 1731-1881," digital images, New England Historic Genealogical Society, American Ancestors (http://www.AmericanAncestors.org: accessed 2 January 2016); citing original records from Worcester County (Mass.) Probate Court.

Sarah (Read) Sever (1736-1809) was the wife of Norman Sever (1734-1787) of Westminster, Worcester County, Massachusetts. Norman Sever died intestate, and in the settlement of his estate (see Amanuensis Monday - Post #305: 1792 Appraisal and Division of Estate of Norman Sever (1734-1787) of Westminster, Mass.), Sarah received one third of the real estate (about 27.5 acres) and of the personal estate. Their eldest son, Benjamin Sever, received the other two thirds of the estate, and paid each of his siblings an equal share of his two thirds share the value of the real estate.

The present probate packet does not provide any clue as to how Sarah Sever's estate was divided. It may be that Benjamin received all of the real estate (the 30 acres in the inventory) and may or may not have paid each of his siblings their equal share of the estate.

Note the "unique" spelling of almost every article in the inventory - it is phonetic. The "cts.xx" in the inventory means "cents .xx." I think that "puter" is, of course, pewter; "gound" is a gown; a "cittel" is a kettle; and a "piller" is a pillow. I have no clue what a "peacetoo cloth" or a "Crain" is. Note that there is a "bibel" - I wonder if that survived down to the present time. Probably not. Too bad.

UPDATE: Reader Geolover knows all about fabrics and clothing, and offered: "peacetoo" is a piece of tow cloth; "crain" a crane for the fireplace; "civerlead" is a coverlet. Thank you!

Norman and Sarah (Read) Seaver are my 5th great-grandparents through their son Benjamin Seaver (1757-1816), who married Martha Whitney (1764-1832).

================================

The URL for this post is: http://www.geneamusings.com/2016/02/amanuensis-monday-post-307-1809.html

Copyright (c) 2016, Randall J. Seaver