#The birth certificate and the baptism certificate are spelled differently

[nordleuchten]

ALL of La Fayette’s Grandchildren

(This post discusses the death and loss of children)

While four children are still pretty easy to keep track of, La Fayette’s abundance of grandchildren can be quite confusing. You often see the following graphic, published in Jules Germain Cloquet’s book:

Jules Germain Cloquet, Recollections of the Private Life of General Lafayette, Baldwin and Cradock, London, 1835, p. 227.

All fine and dandy, but I was looking for more detailed information and I wanted to include the children that had already died by the time Cloquet publishes his book – I therefor made a graphic of my own. :-)

I am tempted to make one for the great-grandchildren as well, since La Fayette was very exited to become a Great-Grandfather – but this one was already a wild ride and La Fayette had more great-grandchildren then grand-children, let me tell you.

Anyway, some names are written in italics, these are the names the individuals commonly went by. I find it funny to see that all of Virginie’s children went by their second name, just like Virginie herself mostly just used her second name. Anastasie’s second child has an Asterix to her name. I have only once seen the name spelled out, on the certificate of baptism. The twins were baptized in Vianen (modern day Netherlands) and the name on the document was the Germanic spelling “Maria Victorina” – I used what I assumed is the best French spelling of the name.

The dates in bold indicate that the corresponding documentation of the birth/marriage/death can be found in the archives.

Anastasie and Charles: Finding Célestine’s dead twin sister was actually a surprise for me since I have never before seen her being mentioned. Anastasie gave birth for the first time in a town near Utrecht in what today are the Netherlands. The achieves there still have the certificate of baptism (on February 30, was the clerk sloppy or did the region in 1799 adhere to a different calendar style where February could have more then 29 days?) and we can very clearly see that there were too children. By May 9, 1799, La Fayette wrote to George Washington and referred to only one grand-child:

My wife, my daughters, and Son in law, join in presenting their affectionate respects to Mrs Washington & to you my dear g[ener]al the former is recovered & sets out for france on monday next with Virginia—our little grand Daughter [Célestine] is well, will your charming one accept our tender regard?

“To George Washington from Lafayette, 9 May 1799,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/06-04-02-0041. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Retirement Series, vol. 4, 20 April 1799 – 13 December 1799, ed. W. W. Abbot. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 54–59.] (02/12/2024)

I suspect that Anastasie had a stillbirth around August/September of 1801. La Fayette mentioned in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 21, 1801:

Anastasia Will Before long Make me Once More a Grand Father

“To Thomas Jefferson from Lafayette, 21 June 1801,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-34-02-0318. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 34, 1 May–31 July 1801, ed. Barbara B. Oberg. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007, pp. 403–404.] (02/12/2024)

There is no mention of this child being born and both the achieves in Paris and Courpalay yield no information so that it is unlikely that the child was born and then died young. Georges’ daughter died very young and she still is in the archives. Given La Fayette’s wording we can assume that Anastasie’s pregnancy was already somewhat advanced and the term miscarriage is only used up until the 20th week of a pregnancy, after that it is considered a stillbirth.

Georges and Emilie: The couple lost at least one daughter, Léontine Emilie, young, aged just four weeks. La Fayette wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on February 20, 1807:

My family are pretty well and beg to be most affectionately respectfully and gratefully presented to you—We expected a Boy to be called after your name—But little Tommy has again proved to be a Girl [Léontine Emilie].

“To Thomas Jefferson from Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, 20 February 1807,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-5122. [This is an Early Access document from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. It is not an authoritative final version.] (02/12/2024)

La Fayette later wrote to James Madison on June 10, 1807:

We Have Had the Misfortune to Loose a female Child of His, four Weeks old [Léontine Emilie]. My Younger daughter Virginia Has Lately presented us With an other infant of the Same Sex [Marie Pauline]. My Wife’s Health is Not Worse at this Moment, But Ever too Bad.

To James Madison from Marie-Adrienne-Françoise de Noailles, marquise de Lafayette, 10 June 1807,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-01-02-1768. [This is an Early Access document from The Papers of James Madison. It is not an authoritative final version.] (02/12/2024)

As a sidenote because it confused me while searching for the letter; the archives list Adrienne as the author. I am certain that is wrong because a) Adrienne was not corresponding with James Madison, b) this is not her writing style but La Fayette’s, c) the letter does not have her typical signature and d) there is the passage about the authors wife’s health – this one at the least gives it away.

Identifying Léontine Emilie was actually quite a bit of luck as well. I found the letter to Madison by accident and that letter is the only source that mentions her that I know of. I have never seen her in any other letters, documentation, contemporary or secondary books. The letter helped to narrow her birthday and her date of death down and with that information I searches the archives in Paris and Courpalay in the hopes of finding the child – and I was lucky. While I of course understand the order of things, it still saddens me to see that you can be born into such a prominent family – your father was a Marquis, your grand-father was the Marquis, and still, not even your families biographers care to even mention you.

Virginie und Louis: For all I know, and I again have to say that I have not nearly as much data/correspondence as I would like with regard to these topics, Virginie never lost a child. There is always the question what La Fayette would feel comfortable telling and to whom. There is also the question if La Fayette himself was always aware of everything. For example, in the case of a miscarriage very early on in the pregnancy he might have not included it in his correspondence or in fact maybe not even known himself.

As much as would wish a happy family life for Virginie, stillbirths, infant deaths and especially miscarriages were and still are not uncommon.

I have put excerpts from a few more letters by La Fayette to his American friends under the cut that help identify his grandchildren.

La Fayette to Thomas Jefferson, June 4, 1803:

I am Here, with my Wife, Son, daughter in law, and New Born little grand daughter [Natalie Renée Émilie] taking Care of my Wounds, and Stretching My Rusted Articulations untill I can Return to my Beloved Rural Abode at La Grange.

“To Thomas Jefferson from Lafayette, 4 June 1803,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0361. [Original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 40, 4 March–10 July 1803, ed. Barbara B. Oberg. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013, pp. 485–486.] (02/12/2024)

La Fayette to Thomas Jefferson, April 20, 1805:

Here I am with my son and daughter in law who is going to increase our family [Charlotte Mathilde]. Her father is to stand god father to the child and if He is a Boy we intend taking the liberty to give Him Your Name.

“To Thomas Jefferson from Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, 20 April 1805,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-1556. [This is an Early Access document from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. It is not an authoritative final version.] (02/12/2024)

La Fayette to Thomas Jefferson, April 8, 1809:

(…) My Children are in Good Health. Two of them, My daughter in Law [Clémentine Adrienne], and Virginia [Françoise Mélanie] are Going to increase the family.

“To Thomas Jefferson from Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, 14 December 1822,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3215. [This is an Early Access document from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series. It is not an authoritative final version.] (02/12/2024)

[starwarmth]

I’m not sure if I’ve been “misspelling” my middle name for years…I think that my birth certificate states my middle name as “Cecelia” but I always spell it “Cecilia” and don’t intend to stop now.

[entwinedmoon]

Torrington Update: Burgess Babies, Middle Names, and Other Odds and Ends

Hello again! I meant to write up this summary of various little things I’d found when continuing my Torrington research back in January, but I got sidetracked by moving. It was a stressful couple of months, so much so that I even put my genealogy work on hold, which is mostly just me playing around on Ancestry until I stumble across something important. But I had figured that I would get back to things in late March.

Then came COVID-19.

Like many people, I hunkered down at home in an attempt at flattening the curve. I was actually sent home early from work on Monday, March 16 (my birthday—yay?), but luckily I was able to telecommute…for a time. I live in the United States, and let’s just say that things here have not been handled in an ideal way. I had to resign from my job because I was being forced back into the office when I didn’t think things were safe to go back. So while moving seemed stressful back in January and February, it’s got nothing on a pandemic. Everything has changed, and while I had hoped that I might be able to visit some archives in person this year, traveling anywhere further than my living room probably won’t be happening any time soon.

But above all, I hope everyone out there is staying safe and healthy as best as they can.

Even though the world looks quite different from when I was working on my Torrington research before, I would still like to share some odds and ends that I’ve found. I don’t have anything groundbreaking to share with you today, but there are some interesting tidbits and a couple follow-ups to my previous posts that I’d like to discuss.

Burgeoning Burgesses

First of all, in my post Family Ties, I had found another possible child of Torrington’s sister, Esther—a son named Henry, born in 1850, before any of her other children that I had found at the time. I had only just come across the record on Ancestry when I was writing that post, and I hadn’t had enough time to evaluate it properly, so I left things up in the air. The problem was I couldn’t find a full baptism record for Henry, so I couldn’t verify if it was Esther’s son or not. It didn’t help that there happened to be another Esther Burgess living in the area at the same time as Torrington’s sister. Since Ancestry didn’t have what I needed, I turned to the UK’s General Register Office (GRO) to see if I could find Henry. Unfortunately, you have to pay to see the GRO’s records, but you can search by the mother’s maiden name and see the record stub for free. My initial search showed there was no Henry Burgess born that year to a woman with the maiden name of Torrington.

But then I expanded my search to include any child with the last name of Burgess and a mother with the maiden name of Torrington born in that year. The search results showed a record for a Thomas Burgess Burgess—a rather strange name. Why repeat Burgess like that? I ordered a copy of the record, and when it arrived a week later I discovered that the name for the child had been cut off in the record somehow, and the search must have gotten the child’s first name by grabbing info from the next field—the full name of the child’s father, Thomas Burgess. Matching the birth certificate from the GRO with the limited baptism information I’d found on Ancestry proved that this child, Henry Burgess, born January 4, 1850, was indeed the son of Esther Burgess, née Torrington.

Then I found his death certificate.

Like many children during the Victorian Era, poor Henry did not make it to his first birthday. He died November 17, 1850, from a combination of measles and pneumonia. This would be why I didn’t find Henry in the 1851 census, a census which listed Esther and her husband Thomas as having no children. I had already found Sarah Ann, who had also died in infancy, which means that the eight-year stretch between Esther and Thomas’s wedding and the birth of Eliza, the first of their children to survive to adulthood, was filled with more than one loss for these young parents. But this made me think, if I’d missed Henry during my research, could I have missed other children?

I searched again on both Ancestry and the GRO, trying to be as thorough as possible to see if there were any more Burgess babies out there. Eventually, I found one.

William Harrison Burgess was born July 12, 1846. Like his brother Henry, he did not live long, dying on March 15, 1847. He died of “dentition” (teething) and convulsions, which may have been caused by treatments given to him to relieve the pain of teething.

There are a couple of interesting things about William. For one, there’s his name. William was Esther’s father’s name, so it would make sense to name her first son after her father. But he wasn’t just a William, he was a William Harrison. And there was another William Harrison Burgess born the same year to a different couple. Why was this such a popular name combination? Was it because of US president William Henry Harrison, who died in 1841 after only a month in office? That would be a bit odd, particularly for a British family. Or maybe the name came from novelist William Harrison Ainsworth? I haven’t been able to find any explanation for the popularity of that name combination, but I would think Ainsworth may be the more likely inspiration than the short-lived president.

Another thing of note about William is his date of birth—July 12, 1846. Esther married Thomas Burgess on May 20, 1846, less than two months before. Esther would have been very pregnant when she got married. Was that the reason for the marriage? We’ll probably never know, and I won’t speculate further on such intimate details. But this does give more insight into the timeline of when Esther met Thomas. At the very least she’d known him for seven months before getting married, making the latest possible date of their first meeting somewhere around October/November 1845. If they had courted for a longer time before the pregnancy, then it’s possible that Thomas Burgess met his future brother-in-law prior to John setting sail for the Arctic in May.

The sad fact about finding William Harrison Burgess, though, is that this means Esther had (at least) eight children, but the first three all died in infancy:

William Harrison – Born July 12, 1846 (died March 15, 1847)

Henry – Born January 4, 1850 (died November 17, 1850)

Sarah Ann – Born July 24, 1852 (died; buried February 13, 1853)

Eliza – Born February 14, 1854

Sarah – Born May 27, 1856

Mary Jane – Born June 26, 1859

Thomas – Born June 7, 1862

Ann (sometimes spelled Anne) – Born September 15, 1865

Esther had a child about every two to three years, with the largest gap being between her first and second child (three and a half years). This was unfortunately common in the Victorian Era, as was a high infant mortality rate.

I can’t imagine what it must have been like for Esther to lose three children, one after the other. She faced a lot of loss in her life, outliving three children, her brother, her husband, her father, and both her mother and stepmother. But her surviving children were there for her when she herself passed on, as evidenced by the fact that her son-in-law signed as witness on her death certificate. And some of them would have children of their own, continuing her legacy through the years.

What’s in a (middle) name?

Ever since discovering the services the GRO provides, I have spent more money than I probably should have buying birth and death records for members of Esther’s family. These records have information that you can’t find on Ancestry, such as cause of death or the exact day of death—but there’s also plenty of non-death related information as well.

One particular thing of interest that I found was that a couple of birth certificates for Esther’s children list Esther’s full name as Esther Mary Burgess. The GRO doesn’t have records from before 1837, so unfortunately I can’t order Esther’s own birth certificate to verify this piece of information, but both Mary Jane’s and Thomas’s birth records include Esther’s middle name as Mary.

Esther’s baptism record did not include the middle name Mary, but baptism records often didn’t include middle names. Instead, her baptism record listed her as Esther Shaw Torrington. Her brother was also listed as a Shaw Torrington. I wasn’t sure if this was a shared middle name or a secondary surname—I say “secondary” because it’s not hyphenated and John and Esther seemed to treat it as optional since it is missing from the majority of records referring to them. However, if Esther had a middle name of Mary, then I imagine Shaw really was meant as a surname, making her full name Esther Mary Shaw Torrington.

Of course, now I wonder what John’s middle name was…

The completely unimportant mystery of the word “larter” SOLVED!

In my post about Torrington’s family, I mentioned the many occupations that Esther’s husband, Thomas, had throughout his lifetime, but there was one in particular that I couldn’t puzzle out. In the baptism records for two of his children, Thomas was listed as what appeared to be a “Larter.”

I wondered if this was meant to say “Carter,” because he had been a carter previously, but that first letter really really looks like an L. Larter, however, is not an occupation from what I can tell. It’s a last name—searching for it on Google brings up actress Ali Larter as the top result—and while last names are sometimes derived from occupations, there’s no consensus on what Larter originally meant. I started looking through books on old occupations to see if there was something, anything, that could have been at least close to Larter, and while there were a few job titles that were a letter or two off, there was nothing close enough to the spelling to justify it being written that way in two different records years apart.

I ordered the birth records for Ann and Thomas from the GRO, (it was their baptism records that contained this mystery word), hoping that might shed some light on this. But it takes a week or so for the records to be emailed out, so I had to wait. That was when I went back to the original records for another glance, comparing the writing to see if there were other Ls or Cs that looked like this. Just below Thomas’s occupation listing on Ann’s baptism record was the occupation for one William Mort. He was also a Larter.

How could two men have the same occupation that didn’t seem to exist? Clearly this wasn’t just some misprint or misunderstanding. I looked up William Mort in the census records, hoping there might be an answer there. Ann and Thomas were born in the 1860s, so I checked out both the 1861 and 1871 census in case Mort had a job change between years. In both census years, William Mort had the occupation of “Carter.”

When the birth records from the GRO finally arrived, Thomas’s occupation was listed as something that looks far more like “Carter” than on the baptism records.

“Carter” is an occupation that exists—“Larter” is not—so despite those baptism records that made the first letter look like an L, it must actually have been a C. Maybe the recordkeeper had a unique way of curving his Cs, or perhaps his hand was cramping after a day full of baptisms and a few letters came out funny, I don’t know. Whatever the reason, I think it’s safe to say that Thomas Burgess was a Carter not a Larter. The most pointless mystery ever has been solved!

John Torrington’s wife?

On Ancestry.com, there’s a great feature where you can build a family tree. I haven’t had much luck, though, in finding family trees containing Torrington. There are a few but rarely are they comprehensive, and some are private and therefore not publicly viewable. One tree did help me learn more about his stepmother’s family, but it didn’t include much about Torrington’s own family. Also, the validity of some trees is certainly questionable. I once saw a couple family trees that listed John Franklin, the leader of the Franklin Expedition, as Torrington’s father. There are also a couple trees that make a rather surprising claim—that Torrington had a wife named Elizabeth Browning.

Neither of these trees include any documentation to support that Torrington was married to Browning, and I have yet to find any information to suggest that Torrington was married at all. If he’d been married, wouldn’t he have allotted his pay to his wife rather than his stepmother? I suppose there could be a reason why he allotted his pay to Mary instead of his wife, but I have yet to find any marriage records for him, and certainly not any for him and a woman named Elizabeth Browning. And the particular Ms. Browning included in these family trees happened to have been born in 1818, seven years before Torrington, and she seems to have lived her entire life in the United States, so it would be very difficult for the two of them to have even met.

I Googled Torrington’s name along with Elizabeth Browning, and the only results were for Ancestry (looping back around to those family trees), a version of Wikipedia in Catalan that had Browning listed as his spouse but with no reference attached (I have since removed this because there’s no resource to back it up, and the beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it), and a cached summary of Torrington’s Find a Grave memorial page, which had Browning listed as a Calculated Relationship, but after going to the memorial page itself I couldn’t find this information anywhere, as if it’s already been removed. (Please note, I did this search earlier this year, and some of these links/results may no longer exist.)

Where this rumor that Torrington was married came from I have no idea, but it’s not the first time I’ve seen someone on the internet claim he had a wife. I once read a YouTube comment that mentioned his “young marriage.” Of course, YouTube comments aren’t exactly reliable, ranking somewhere below the wall of a public bathroom stall, but since I first heard that Torrington had a sister via a blog comment—and that turned out to be true—I wasn’t sure what to believe. In fact, it was because I kept learning new things about Torrington from random—and sometimes unreliable—places on the internet, that I decided to write my series of posts about him, to collect all known and verifiable information currently available about him in one place.

But why are there so many people saying Torrington was married if there’s no current information to support this? It’s possible he was married and that the record for this is lost somewhere, but how did these people find it if other people (e.g., me) can’t? A few months ago, I reached out to the owners of the two family trees on Ancestry to find out what inspired Browning’s inclusion, but I never heard back. Do they have access to some information that no one else does? Or is this just someone playing around on Ancestry? I think the answer is most likely the later, but unfortunately, I have yet to find out.

The Apprentice

When searching for anything and everything that mentions Torrington, I looked on Newspapers.com for any article that may have referred to him when he was alive. Like with most things regarding Torrington, there wasn’t much that fit the right description. There was, however, an article from November 16, 1844, in the Bristol Mercury that mentioned a young apprentice named John Torrington, who had suffered abuse at the hands of his master, a shoemaker named Perdue. I haven’t been able to find any information about Torrington having an apprenticeship, but I wondered briefly if perhaps this could have been him. After reading the article more closely, though, I realized that there were several facts that didn’t add up, indicating to me that this John Torrington most likely wasn’t THE John Torrington. However, I did think it was interesting. You can read the article below:

The reasons I don’t think this is the right Torrington are many. For one thing, in 1844, Torrington would have been 18 going on 19, and this article seems to be describing someone much younger than that. Apprentices usually started in their early teens, and it sounds like this boy is in the early years of his apprenticeship. Also, he’s living in Bristol, not Manchester. While it’s quite possible that Torrington left Manchester at some point to live, train, or work elsewhere, we know from the Allotment books that his family still lived in Manchester when he joined the Franklin Expedition. It would have been easier—and cheaper—for him to stay at home, even if he only called it home between jobs, such as if he worked on merchant ships. This article also mentions that he’d lived in the Bedminster workhouse prior to starting his apprenticeship, and Mr. Ring, the man who was helping him break free from his abusive master, said that he considered himself as legal guardian for the boy. This suggests that the Torrington in the article may no longer have parents. Our Torrington still had a father and a stepmother, and while it’s possible that if he left home he may have ended up in a workhouse for lack of money, this is sounding less and less like it fits.

Then there’s the whole shoemaker thing. In order to have been appointed to the job of leading stoker on HMS Terror, Torrington most likely had previous experience working in a position similar to a stoker. If he had been an apprentice to a shoemaker only half a year before joining the expedition, then he probably didn’t have the right experience to be a stoker, unless he started the apprenticeship after having worked as a stoker (or he just straight up lied and the Navy didn’t call him on it). Although, if the Torrington who sailed with Franklin had apprenticed as a shoemaker, that would mean he and John Hartnell have something else in common besides a first name and being buried on Beechey Island—Hartnell had been a shoemaker prior to joining the Navy.

But if this isn’t our JT, could it be that other John Torrington, the one from the 1841 census? I think not. JT1, as I called him in an earlier post, was born before the Franklin Expedition Torrington (JT2), and if the boy in this article sounds too young to be JT2, then this boy is definitely too young to be JT1. While John Torrington wasn’t an especially common name, clearly it wasn’t limited to just JT1 and JT2. This other other Torrington I have started to refer to as JT3, and it will be interesting to see if he pops up again to skew my research.

In some ways, though, I am a little disappointed that this probably isn’t the right Torrington. I don’t wish the abuse on him, but it sure would be nice to have some definitive answers as to what his life was like before joining the expedition. Knowing he was an apprentice to someone would fill in the huge gap between his baptism and him joining the expedition—you know, his entire life. Also, the article describes him as “a delicate, but intelligent-looking young fellow,” a description I’m quite enamored with for some reason. I feel that this may have applied to the Franklin Expedition Torrington as well. Torrington was small—a fact I might be a little too fond of because learning it turned my childhood boogeyman into an adorable little pocket person—and after wasting away from illness he did look rather delicate, but there’s something in his face that suggests he was more than that. I like the idea that he may have had an intelligence above his station, that he may have been more than just a grunt shoveling coal and trying to make ends meet. If this article were about him, it would have given more information as to who he was as a person than any other record I’ve found, and yet it’s unlikely that this is him. It’s a shame, but hopefully he led a better life than the one described here, and that he had a good home waiting for him when he set sail, with happy memories to keep him warm as the world grew cold and dark around him.

That’s it for now. Stay safe everyone!

Torrington Series Masterlist 

[stromcuzewon]

was chatting with my manager about misspelled names and she told me that apparently if you have one spelling on a birth certificate and a different one on a baptism certificate, the baptism one is considered the real spelling of your name because Certified by God(tm) is considered better than Certified by the Actual Government

[doriefogarty-blog]

The Cherokee Belived In Yahweh (The Lord From The Hebew).

Below is Nameberry's backstage look at our 100 most popular child names of 2015, the top secret recognition listing of the titles acquiring the most in perspectives on the web site. Last, but certainly not the minimum, Shirish also counts among the leading herbal treatments for allergy symptom This cannabis is actually recognized to possess harmonizing impact on Kapha dosha and as a result is especially reliable with all sort of respiratory allergies. Consisting of details regarding what your organisation performs in your service label additionally creates that simpler for possible clients to discover your organisation in phonebook and also directories on and offline. The story of Proof Sinclair Vincent transforming his name as Vin Diesel-powered stemmed from the moment when he was actually a baby bouncer that regularly utilized a phony title at a night club from New york city Metropolitan Area. My hunch is that a person listened to a name like Anielka, as well as determined to offer their kid a label that appeared identical, but that was original (like, Darielka). There are numerous wonderful popular felines that I am actually doing this in four teams, and afterwards I'll do a last around with the best pussy-cats from those groups.

I show a Sixth named frasier (that will be his name in english), and that feels like whenever i view him compose this, he decides on a various spelling. Either that or even they could've taken a married couple has, exercise a great guitar component.

pop over to this website locate somebody through first name simply, you'll need to compile everything you've learn more about this person. Our Free Internet Search Engine Rank Device offers you important information about just what terms your internet site actually places for.Enter your domain listed below to determine high quantity key words that you may quickly increase to webpage one! When figuring out a name for your business, think like proud moms and dads to become. All pregnant moms and dads realize that the name that they will place in their child's birth certificate will certainly be brought with their little one all throughout his significant lifetime. Although in some cases they locate that none of the titles they have been actually considering match and that they need to opt for a brand-new name that suits the individual of their brand-new birthed. Trimmed Boeing (BA) off 10% of the portfolio to 9.6%. Great Provider yet you need to be actually transformed. My personal Write-up Directory site Best List tracking a minimum of programs market varieties for some web sites that sufficed to participate in and also position the code on their websites. The version is really easy as well as is composed of three factors specifically Power, Education and learning and also Venture Attempt, consequently the name 3-E. Wangeci is a different label for Waithira, the initiator from the 'Aitherandu' clan. Depending upon the publisher's article-submission needs, you could not have the capacity to make use of an active web link or domain in the article body. When you have a dream player ranking then you can check out a glimpse just how, in an around, a certain NFL gamer will be actually composed.

Type a title of your organisation that functions throughout its own inauguration up until its own development. Whether you have an interest in German canine names.Return to the Leading from the Pet Names Web Page. The only relevant information you will definitely manage to obtain on an individual's contact number will be possibly the title as well as deal with, but that will be all. Engraved Image Frame - Supplies an excellent technique to feature a preferred picture of the baby in their baptism or christening outfit on their special day. To make sure that you steer clear of the lawful effects of utilization a title that is actually the intellectual property of an additional company you must perform a comprehensive label search.

[jennzer]

Week 15: “How Do You Spell That?”

In the photo above, I have captured two times that my last name has been spelled incorrectly (hint: it starts with a W, not a B).  And those were minor errors compared to some of the Starbucks misspellings I’ve seen.  There are many reasons that a person’s name gets misspelled, and my ancestors weren’t immune to it.  So here are four of the most frustrating spelling issues I’ve encountered in my research.

Anna Maria Feldhaus (August 3, 1819 - June 24, 1900)

At a time when most people were poorly educated or completely illiterate, Anna probably didn’t worry too much about how to spell her last name.  In his marriage record, Anna’s father Johann Bernard is listed with the surname Feltes.  Anna’s baptismal entry spells her name Feldhues while the register for her own marriage records Anna's name as Feldhouse. Only the passenger list from her arrival to Baltimore lists her name with the spelling Feldhaus (the version I have arbitrarily chosen to prefer).  In Anna’s case, spelling variations reflect an emphasis on spoken pronunciation over written accuracy.  When other people needed to record her name, they probably used phonetics to help them capture it as precisely as possible without much concern for “correctness."  For the most part, Anna’s perpetually “misspelled" name has not impeded my genealogy research because the soundex code for her surname is always F-432.

John Earp (1680 - 1744)

In the case of the Earp family surname, phonetic spelling “mistakes" have actually made the research a little more difficult.  Earp historians note that the name had many different spelling variations over time.  Because John Earp’s father was a recent immigrant from Ireland, he probably spoke with a heavy accent.  If someone spelled the name phonetically based on John’s own accented pronunciation, it most likely would have been recorded as Harp or Arp (listen for yourself!).  In fact, in the 1701 Maryland Early Census, John’s last name was indeed recorded as Harp.  On both his birth record and his gravestone, however, he is identified as John Earp.  Other spellings found throughout the history of the Earp family tree include Erp, Urp, Erpe, Yrp, Earpe, Aerp, Arpe, Harpe, Yarp, and Erps.  All of which translate into many different soundex codes and complicate the process of finding records.

Brandenburg

I truly think that the biggest challenge when it comes to my Brandenburg ancestors is the length of their Germanic surname.  Most records I have studied spell out the entire surname, although occasionally I have seen a shortened Brand. or Brand'berg.  In general, I assume that the longer the name, the more likely it is misspelled.  Many records add an “h”, “er”, “e” or even “s” to my Brandenburg ancestors’ surname resulting in Brandenburge, Brandensburg, Brandenberger, and Brandenburgh to name a few.  It appears that they all generally come from the same origin and simply represent different (mostly unintentional) variations.  Once again, it helps that all the variations have the same soundex code (B-653).

Clara Rothert (January 4, 1834 - February 1, 1916)

Clara’s surname and all of its variations represent the mixed influence of phonetics, accents, mistakes, and anglicization.  The first record I have with Clara’s name is the passenger list showing her arrival at the port of Baltimore in October of 1848 with her father, Frederick Rothert, mother, and two brothers.  On the 1860 census, Clara is married to Edward Plümer and they are living and working on the farm of Frederick Road, her father.  When Clara’s eldest son, Frederick dies, his death certificate lists his mother’s maiden name as Rhode, and by the time I inherit my family’s family tree information, it has been changed to Roday.  I still don’t know which variation is the “right” one, but I’m partial to the name written on her immigration passenger list.

What misspellings do you have in your family tree?

Resources: 

Learn more about the Soundex Coding system for genealogy

My family tree with blog subjects highlighted