Slowly but surely working my way through the last two episodes of this season of Who Do You Think You Are? Only one more after this! It's rewatching to catch details that gets me every time.
The opening voice-over for the Bill Paxton episode says that he would uncover a war hero — we hear Paxton saying the word "spy" — bloody battles, and the shocking truth about an ancestor. We then hear that he is a celebrated actor and director with an outstanding career spanning four decades, and that he has starred in some of the most celebrated films of all time. The only films they mention, however, are Apollo 13 and Titanic. (I haven't seen Apollo 13, but I have seen Titanic, and let's face it, it was not well known for the quality of its acting or script.) He also appeared in HBO's Big Love and a mini series, The Hatfields and the McCoys, for which he earned an Emmy nomination. I was surprised they didn't mention The Terminator, Aliens, or Predator 2, probably much better known movies, but the film I always think of first for Paxton is the vampire cult classic Near Dark, a favorite of a former housemate of mine.
Paxon and his wife, Louise, live in Southern California with their children, James and Lydia. We see Lydia in passing for a very short scene, and that's it for family member appearances.
Paxton says he was born in Fort Worth, Texas, and that his parents are Mary Lou Gray and John Paxton (who was in three movies with his son). Paxton had a close relationship with his father, who died three years before the episode was filmed. They shared many of the same interests: theater, books, movies, and history. Paxton credits his success to his father.
Because he was so close to his father, Paxton already knows quite a bit about that side of the family. He had a great-great-grandfather who was a Confederate general and a great-grandfather who was an attorney in Independence, Missouri. He's hoping to learn more about that side and maybe to gather strength from what he finds. He also hopes he discovers some "savory bits" (ah, don't we all).
For the third time in seven episodes, the celebrity begins by meeting a researcher at the downtown (main) branch of the Los Angeles Public Library. (Maybe the show sent out a casting call in the L.A. area?) Paxton connects with Ancestry.com employee Kyle Betit, who earlier this season worked with Josh Groban. Paxton has told Betit he wants to learn more about the roles his family played in history.
Betit has done some initial research and hands Paxton one of the famous "here's your family, already done" tree rolls. He insists that Paxton be the one to unroll it, though. He also says that he found the tree to be pretty impressive, but he's an Ancestry employee, so it's hard to tell if that's his real opinion. The tree goes back to at least one 5th-great-grandfather, but he's on the Paxton line, and we have no way of knowing how much of the information in the tree was already known to Paxton from his family's prior research.
Paxton starts reading the names in the Paxton line, starting with himself. His father, John, was born July 14, 1920 in Missouri and died November 17, 2011 in California. Paxton comments that "he passed, it'll be three years next month", so we know this was shot in October 2014. Next is grandfather Frank Paxton, born June 10, 1887 in Missouri, died May 16, 1951 in Missouri. Great-grandfather John Gallatin Paxton was born September 17, 1859 in Virginia and died September 24, 1928 in Missouri. He was the attorney in Independence. Second-great-grandfather Elisha Franklin Paxton, the Confederate general, was born 1828 in Virginia and died March 4, 1863 in Virginia (at the Battle of Chancellorsville). Third-great-grandfather Elisha Paxton was born about 1784 in Virginia and died November 24, 1867 in Virginia. Fourth-great-grandfather William Paxton was born about 1733 and died in 1795 in Virginia. The last name is John Paxton, Bill Paxton's fifth-great-grandfather, who was born about 1692 and died about 1746 in Pennsylvania. No women's names are shown as we travel up the Paxton line.
After revisiting the names of his ancestors, Paxton says that he knows he has a family connection to the Civil War but wants to find someone in the American Revolution. Three of his fourth-great-grandfathers were alive and of appropriate ages during 1775–1783, the years of the war: William Paxton; Frank Wyatt, born 1757, died 1824 in Kentucky; and Benjamin Sharp (who married Hannah Fulkerson, born 1769, died unknown), born 1762 in Pennsylvania, died unknown. The question is, did any of them serve? When they show these names on the family tree floating in the sky, we finally see more women's names. John Gallatin Paxton married Mary Neil Gentry, whose mother was Mary Neil Wyatt. Her father was John Wyatt; his father was Francis Wyatt (as opposed to Frank, as he is shown in the family tree scroll). John Wyatt was married to Attossa Pinkney Sharp, whose father was Benjamin Sharp.
In one of those rare occurrences on WDYTYA, the first computer site we visit is not Ancestry.com. Betit suggests Paxton use the Ancestor Search on the Daughters of the American Revolution site. Paxton appears to be familiar with the name of the organization and knows it is in Washington, D.C. He uses his spiffy iPad to look first for William Paxton and then Frank Wyatt, both of whom give results of "No ancestor records found." (This doesn't necessarily mean those men didn't serve in the Revolutionary War. It could simply mean that no one has applied for membership in DAR and proven service by either man. In fact, the Wikipedia page for Elisha Franklin Paxton says that William Paxton was an American Revolutionary War veteran but gives no further information.) When he enters Benjamin Sharp's name, however, he is successful and says service Virginia, rank private, and spy — and then we cut away to a commercial. When we return, the narrator says Paxton has "just discovered a record" about an ancestor, which is absolutely not correct. What Paxton found was an index entry with transcribed notes, nothing more. And when you find transcribed information, you should always look for the original document.
What they don't mention on the program is that a search for Benjamin Sharp actually gives two results. The second one is Paxton's ancestor. The first one includes a notice to treat as a new ancestor, which means he was used by someone in the past for membership in DAR, but since then there's some question about his service, and anyone wishing to claim him as her Revolutionary War ancestor must reprove his service before membership can be approved.
That said, now that he has found the entry, Paxton of course wants to track down more information. He notes that Sharp died in 1842 in Warren County, Missouri, where John Paxton was from, and asks Betit where he should go next. The surprise is that Betit tells him he needs to go, not to Missouri, but to the DAR library, where the people there should be able to help him find some more documents about Sharp's life and service. Yes, the average person would probably just write to DAR, but on TLC and Ancestry's budgets, it's easy to fly across the country.
In the interlude, Paxton says that he knew his father's side goes back to the late 17th century in this country and that he had family alive during the American Revolution, but didn't know anything about Sharp. Now he's wondering for whom Sharp was a spy.
As he drives around Washington, Paxton says he loves D.C. His first trip there was in 1968 with his father and he has good memories. As he arrives at the DAR library, he comments that it has one of the largest collections of genealogical documents relating to Revolutionary War patriots. He is going to meet historian Jake Ruddiman (of Wake Forest University in North Carolina), whom he has asked to find information on Benjamin Sharp. Ruddiman wastes no time in laying a folder on the table in front of Paxton. In it is what appears to be a letter (but we are told is a deposition) written by Benjamin Sharp. Dated May 7, 1833 in Montgomery County, Missouri, Sharp was making an official record of his military service during the war. He was about 71 years old at the time and a resident of Warren County.
Paxton reads excerpts from the document, which is shown in short shots on screen. In June or July of 1776 Sharp was living in Washington County, Virginia. He volunteered with Captain Andrew Colville at Black's Fort (now Abingdon, Virginia). He was about 14 years old.
Ruddiman interjects that Sharp was serving with a Virginia militia group, which would have consisted of family members and neighbors. Militia were local men tied to their town or county, who defended their homes and land when the war came to them. This was in contrast to the Continental Army, which was composed of men serving with George Washington who went to the British to fight against them. At times, militia might fight with the Continental Army, if the army came to their area.
Paxton continues to read the deposition. Sharp said he was a spy, and the deposition said "ranging." He was at Glade Hollows Fort. Ruddiman explains he was probably a scout and tracked enemy movements on the roads and trails. It was an important role, because if the British surprised the local people, they could die. Ruddiman adds that Sharp's position was important but dangerous, and that Sharp was expendable because he was young, unmarried, and had no children and no farm. It would be tragic for his family, but if he died, it would not have been very disruptive to the community.
In 1778 or 1779, Sharp wrote, his detachment took several Tories. This prompts a discussion about how the men knew who was a Tory. Ruddiman admits that it was by roughing people up, often at sword point.
Sharp wrote that in 1780, Colonel (Charles) McDowell of North Carolina was driven by British and Tories over the mountains. Sharp volunteered in early September and marched with other men to the Carolinas. They overtook the British and Tories in South Carolina at Kings Mountain.
The narrator says that Patriot militiamen began in Virginia (the map shows them leaving from Abingdon, which was still Black's Fort at the time) and marched more than 200 miles over two weeks, on foot and horseback, to Kings Mountain in South Carolina. The men, including Sharp, walked the last 24 hours in rain, arriving in October 1780.
Ruddiman explains that Kings Mountain was a pivotal battle of the Revolution in the South. Even though he just read it in the deposition, Paxton asks where Kings Mountain is and is told South Carolina. Ruddiman adds that the battle site has been preserved as a national military park and that Paxton needs to go there.
As he leaves, Paxton says he wishes his father were there because he would have enjoyed hearing about the history connected with the family. He is astounded at the first-hand account he's just read and really feels his ancestor talking to him across time. He hopes to find details about the battle and learn how it started and ended and how many casualties there were (all the gory details). Now he is off to Blacksburg, South Carolina, the location of Kings Mountain National Military Park.
As Paxton drives to Kings Mountain, he sees a welcome sign (not the one shown on the program) and apparently reads, "Enjoy your visit," which he follows with, "I will. I had a relative who was here!" At the park he is looking at one of the informational signs when Chris Revels, the Chief Park Ranger, walks up and asks if he can show Paxton the battlefield. Revels tells Paxton that at the time of the battle here the war had been going on for a few years, and this battle came at a brutal point.
The narrator returns, telling us that after having suffered several defeats in the north, the British had moved their efforts to the south, where they recruited Loyalists to fight with them. They then won significant victories and played havoc with the Continental Army. British Major Patrick Ferguson, leading a group of Southern Loyalists, threatened to attack frontier Patriots. Southern Patriots planned their own attack. The militiamen, including Sharp, confronted Ferguson and his men at Kings Mountain in a battle that changed the course of the war.
Revels calls the battle the first civil war in this country, with American versus American, about 1,000 men on each side. He confirms that Sharp marched about 220 miles to get here from Virginia. He points out that he and Paxton are standing on a ridge crest to the left of where Colonel (William) Campbell and Benjamin Sharp would have come up the ridge. Paxton, of course, decides that means they are standing on the exact spot the men came up the ridge. The Patriots (Revels says Americans, but since he's already told us that both sides were Americans, that doesn't help to identify which side he means, does it?) made three charges uphill, so it must have been a bloody battle. Then Revels says he has a first-hand account of the battle, if Paxton is interested in reading it. Coincidentally, it's by Sharp.
Sharp's account (click the "next result" link at the top) was first published in American Pioneer in February 1843; it was written when he was about 80 years old. He mentioned the low gap the men had come through, which is now the road up which Revels and Paxton walked to reach the crest. Sharp talked about how the Patriots surrounded the British and Loyalists, and Sharp's militia led the charge. Major Ferguson, when he realized his side would lose, essentially committed suicide by breaking his sword and charging into the midst of the Patriots. Shortly after that the British surrendered. The battle lasted about an hour. After the battle it was near sundown, and the men camped on the battlefield, among the dead and dying. Sharp's signature is at the end of the article.
Revels says that about 28 men died on the Patriot side and 225 on the British. Thomas Jefferson called the battle the turning point of success in the American Revolution.
Paxton wants to know what happened to Sharp after the battle. He was only 18 years old at the time, and he had a lot of life left. Revels says that Paxton can probably find some answers at the Library of Virginia, the home of the Virginia State Archives, and tells him that the archives are in Richmond. As the two men walk off in different directions, I noticed that Revels has the book in his hands. What, they couldn't afford a copy to give to Paxton?
It was somewhere around here that I got tired of hearing Paxton say "amazing." I counted: nine times in the episode. He needs to find a new word.
In this interlude, Paxton admits he's very emotional about what he has learned. He's proud of his ancestor and knows his father would have been also. He thinks about Sharp's experiences at the age of 18 and can't conceive of his own son, who is 20, doing similar things. Learning about his ancestor's experiences is really bringing the American Revolution alive for him (which is a great thing!). Now he wants to know what Sharp did with the rest of his life.
Maybe Paxton understands how the celebrities on this show are led around, because he says, "So you guessed it — I'm off to Richmond, Virginia," to introduce the next segment. The more he learns about Sharp, the more he wants to learn. He's convinced that Sharp's life continued to be remarkable.
At the Library of Virginia, Paxton meets Gregg Kimball, one of the library's historians. Kimball says that he found Sharp in southwestern Virginia and has a document from the executive papers of James Monroe (the one who became president) when he was Virginia's governor. Paxton finds Sharp's name among the 60 or so on the document, which is a list of commissioners appointed to oversee the 1800 presidential election. The candidates in the election were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Sharp was then about 38 years old (I guess they didn't have any interesting documents to show for the 20 years in between) and had a prestigious position. He was working on the state level in politics, and Monroe would probably have known who he was.
The next item Kimball brings out is an 1804–1805 attendance book for the Virginia General Assembly. He directs Paxton to look in Lee County, where Benjamin Sharp, Esq. is listed. He had moved up a little more in status and was then a member of the House of Delegates, the lower house in the Virginia state legislature. Kimball points out that Sharp probably was an independent landowner and a man of some means; all assembly members were substantial landowners.
Paxton wants to know if the library has records of Sharp's personal property or land transactions (wanting to know just how much he owned?). Kimball says indeed they do, and the two move to a microfilm reader. First Kimball has Paxton scroll to the year 1804, the year Sharp was in the assembly. He then has Paxton note what the row labels are so that he'll be able to interpret the numbers later. The categories Paxton writes down are number of white males over 16, number of blacks over 12, number of blacks over 16, and number of horses/mares/mules. Paxton understands that blacks would refer to slaves but not why there's a differentiation between age 12 and 16; Kimball explains that they were taxed at different rates, children versus adults. Kimball does not have Paxton write down the categories of retail store license, ordinary license, stud horses, and rates of covering per season, so I figured Sharp wasn't going to have been taxed on any of those. But he did have him write down the two slave categories, so I knew what I was expecting to see.
And indeed, when Paxton finds Sharp's entry on the tax list, it includes 2 white males over 16, 1 black over 12, 4 blacks over 16, and 9 horses/mares/mules, though the animals are never discussed. When Kimball confirms that the five blacks listed were slaves, Paxton says, "Unbelievable." Kimball adds that Sharp could have owned more slaves — women and children younger than 12 — who wouldn't appear on the list because they weren't taxed. Paxton: "Well, that's unfortunate." From a modern perspective, this is horrible, and now this man whom he has considered to be so great doesn't seem quite as nice. But he then adds, "Good and bad, it's your history." At least he's honest about it and didn't ask the producers to take that part out, à la Ben Affleck.
Whether they talked more and it was edited out we don't know, but that was the extent of the slavery discussion in the segment. Paxton wonders where he should go from there and recalls that Sharp died at the age of 71 (from the information we have at this point, he was actually about 80) in Warren County, Missouri. Then was another one of those comments that makes me think he gets the joke: "So something tells me I'm going to Missouri now." Kimball concurs, and Paxton leaves.
This interlude is a little more somber. Paxton recalls how his father told him that all idols have feet of clay; everyone has foibles. Learning that Sharp owned slaves seems to have thrown him off, and he admits he hasn't had a chance to process the information yet. But in Missouri he figures he'll find out the rest of the story.
Paxton is happy to be in Missouri, the land of his father, and his father, and his father before him. He's heading to the town where Sharp spent the last part of his life. He's going to meet historian Gary Kremer, who has already let Paxton know that he found a significant document about Sharp.
Kremer greets Paxton at the Warren County Historical Society. Kremer starts out by saying that some of the great social history documents available to researchers are probate records. He then brings out Sharp's original will, dated June 19, 1845, not long before Sharp died (which means that the death date in the DAR database is off!). Paxton compliments the beautiful handwriting (which looked really similar to the writing in the 1833 affidavit we saw near the beginning of the episode, but it didn't generate any comments then) before beginning to read. Sharp wanted to have his estate divided equally among his children. He also wrote, "My faithful servants,
Bill and Judy,
shall not be separated,
but shall be left
in the possession
of all the livestock
that may belong to them." Servants in this instance is a euphemism for slaves.
Now we get some heavy-duty rationalization of Sharp's mores. Kremer admits that Sharp still believed in the institution of slavery but emphasizes that he obviously cared about Bill and Judy, because he wanted them to be taken care of. He wanted them to have land; he included a clause in the will stating that they were not to be sold against their will to strangers but should stay with Sharp's children. He asked his descendants who inherited his slaves to treat them with humanity. But guess what? He didn't say anything (or at least we sure didn't hear anything in the episode) about actually freeing them. So personally, I'm not buying the rationalization. I don't think Paxton did, either; his comment was, "[T]hat's a tough one there." Major understatement, Mr. Paxton.
To his credit, though, he again does not apologize for his ancestor. He finds it disturbing to learn that his ancestor owned other human beings. He does not understand how they could have been so blind. This segues into a broader discussion, led by Kremer, of how even "enlightened" men of the period — Jefferson, Washington — owned slaves and the conclusion that slavery would end up tearing the country apart.
Kremer has no more documents on Sharp, but he "suggests" to Paxton that maybe they should try to trace Bill and Judy. He says they can look at the 1850 census and "perhaps" find them and learn what their status is. Paxton quite reasonably says they don't know Bill and Judy's last names. Unfortunately, Kremer adds, "It's very likely —
not a certainty . . .
that they might have taken the Sharp name?" Well, no, Mr. Kremer, it isn't that likely in most circumstances. Shame on you for continuing to spread this misinformation, when modern scholarship has indicated that the majority of former slaves did not take their former owners' names. But TLC and Ancestry have to pretend that these records are just being discovered, when in fact the researchers behind the scenes found them months ago. And that means you have to give Paxton a reason to search on the names you already know they're listed under. Feh.
The only positive thing to say about this part is that the ubiquitous Ancestry.com search (I am convinced that a celebrity will not be approved if there's no document on the site) did not appear until 48 minutes into the hour. Kremer has Paxton search for William Sharp (why not Bill? oh, because that's not how he's listed) in Warren County. There are two results, both born in Virginia, one about 1780 and the other about 1811. Though either man is plausible, Kremer has Paxton choose the one born in 1780, saying that would be about the right age. We haven't heard anything prior to this about how old Bill was, however, or exactly when Sharp came to Missouri. Surprise, surprise, we see Bill and Judy, now William and Judith, listed in the census of free inhabitants; Bill is a farmer. We know they're the right people because they are mulattoes (the only people on the page who are not white, in fact). The fact that both of them were born in Virginia means they came as slaves with Sharp when he moved from Virginia to Missouri.
Kremer points out to Paxton the significance of Bill and Judy being enumerated on the census of free individuals. Kremer says that Sharp's sons were fulfilling his mandate by providing
protection and watching over Bill and Judy, but this is beyond Sharp's instructions. Not long after after Benjamin Sharp passed away, someone, most likely one of his descendants, took the extra, humane, step and actually freed Bill and Judy. Kudos to him. But couldn't the research team find the manumission document? I guess it wasn't Paxton's ancestor who did it, because then they surely would have shown it.
Paxton asks what else there is and accuses Kremer of holding out on him. Kremer admits that Sharp is buried about 20 miles from where they are at the moment. The grave is on private property, but the owner has given permission for Paxton to visit the gravesite. Naturally, he wants to see the grave, so that's where he'll head next.
Now Paxton does some rationalizing. He says how amazing it was to hold his ancestor's original last will and testament and adds that Sharp was a very fair man who was concerned about the people in his life. That's a big stretch. Seriously, if he were that concerned and that fair, he would have freed Bill and Judy himself. Paxton is looking forward to visiting Sharp's grave and standing on land that Sharp once owned.
We see Paxton driving on an unidentified highway, with no signs to indicate where he's headed. I'm sure if you're from the area you could probably recognize some landmarks, but for the rest of us, the location of Benjamin Sharp's grave will never be known. I guess they couldn't commandeer the highway they do repositories; at one point a car passed by him going in the other direction. Next we see Paxton driving down some sort of side road. Then he is suddenly walking through trees trying to find the gravestones. He even comments, "Wow, it really is in the woods." Obviously, the cameramen know where the graves are (did they have to cut a path for the equipment?), but either Paxton wanted to try to find them himself or they were told to let him do so, because he wanders around a little before getting there. Unlike the new, replaced stones that Tony Goldwyn found, these stones really look to be more than 150 years old. The text on them is barely readable. Paxton traces his fingers over the letters: Benjamin Sharp, died January 1, 1846, and Hannah, whose stone is next to Sharp's. Paxton has brought some stones from Kings Mountain and places them on Sharp's tombstone, saying, "You are not forgotten." I found that very touching.
In the outro, Paxton talks about how the journey he has taken during the past week has given him a lot of food for thought, and he becomes philosophical. Seeing the Sharps' gravestones has brought everything home to him in a different way. He will make sure his children know the stories of how their ancestors blazed a trail before them and learn that history. He says his father taught him that prejudice is based on fear and ignorance, a lesson he also wants his children to know, and he wants them to know more about their family history. People tend to want to hide the less pleasant parts of their history, but it's important to look at those parts also to understand who you are. It isn't what your ancestors did that defines you, however, but what you do yourself. Are you going to leave the world a better place than how you found it?
One final note: Sometimes I find transcripts of television shows online, often generated by closed captioning systems. A transcript of this episode is here, complete with hmms and ahs.
Genealogy is like a jigsaw puzzle, but you don't have the box top, so you don't know what the picture is supposed to look like. As you start putting the puzzle together, you realize some pieces are missing, and eventually you figure out that some of the pieces you started with don't actually belong to this puzzle. I'll help you discover the right pieces for your puzzle and assemble them into a picture of your family.
Showing posts with label Loyalists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loyalists. Show all posts
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
"Who Do You Think You Are?" - McAdams Sisters
The third episode from this season of TLC's Who Do You Think You Are? featured the McAdams sisters, Rachel and Kayleen. Rachel is an actress originally known for her work in Mean Girls; her breakthrough role is considered to be The Notebook. We're told that she is now a sought-after lead actress (I've still never heard of her). Kayleen is a "talented and trusted" make-up artist. (Was their mother a stage mom?)
The teaser said that Rachel and Kayleen will be following their mother's roots through England and Canada. Some phrases made me think from the beginning that the family might have been Loyalists: "relatives uprooted by the brutalities of war", "painful choice they had to make", and "harrowing circumstances behind their Canadian roots."
We learn that the McAdams girls grew up in Ontario, where Rachel still lives. They meet in New York City, apparently where Kayleen lives, but that is not stated. Rachel is the older sister, and they have a younger brother. Rachel says that Kayleen is the detective (a good trait for a genealogist!), while Kayleen says that Rachel is a romantic.
Lance Frederick McAdams, their father, was born in Canada, one of ten children. The girls are close to his side of the family and know a fair amount about them. They don't know that much about their mother's side. Sandra Kay Gale's parents both died in their early 30's, so apparently Rachel and Kayleen never knew them. (I know from personal experience how much that can affect family knowledge. Both my Sellers great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather died young, and many myths were attached to that family line until I spent several years uncovering the facts.)
Sandra's parents were Harold Gowan Gale and Eileen Bell. The sisters know Gale was in the Air Force and had something to do with planes during World War II. One thinks he was a pilot, and the other thinks he was a mechanic. They want to research this part of their family so they can learn about their roots and how they ended up in Canada. They also want to find the information to share with their mother.
We never see Mom on screen, but they call her on the phone and tell her they received the package she sent, saying they "can't wait to open it" (yeah, they put it aside and waited until they called her before they looked inside, even though that's the information that starts the research for the show; how dumb do they think the viewing audience is?). So they "open" it on air, and inside is a family tree with a scant amount of information. Their mother tells them that her father was a mechanic, not a pilot. She says that a photo of an older couple is of her father's parents (the girls' great-grandparents), William and Maud Gale. They were from Polpero, England, but originally from Plymouth. William was in the Royal Navy. Mom's father was born in Plymouth. And that's all Mom knows. The girls ask her where they should look for more information, and she suggests going to Plymouth, England. (Now that's a huge leap! How about trying to do even a minimal amount of research in Canadian census and vital records first?)
Rachel talks about how she feels incomplete because they can't go that far back on their family line (a lot of people can't relate four generations before they do some research, so she isn't particularly special). She thinks it's empowering to learn information about her family and feels it's that much richer because she's doing it with her sister. (Unfortunately, the scripting and the sisters' delivery remain this lame throughout the episode.)
So off they go to Plymouth. In the Plymouth Central Library they meet professional genealogist Paul Blake, whom they have previously asked to research their family. Now they ask him whether he has found anything about their great-grandfather's parents. He tells them he has found a marriage for their great-grandparents. William Gale married Beatrice Maude Sedgrove on November 16, 1910. His occupation was listed as engine room artificer, which means he was a mechanic in the Royal Navy. His father was William Henry Greber Gale (deceased), a captain in the Royal Navy. Beatrice's father was Arthur Edward Sedgrove (and nothing more is said of him).
They ask if he has found anything else, and we leap straight to the January 2, 1850 birth certificate for William Henry Creber Gale. His parents were William Gale and Elizabeth Creber. The father's occupation is listed as servant. One of the sisters asks what kind of servant. (Almost all the questions the girls ask during the program sound forced and very scripted, this one being no exception.) Blake suggests they look on Ancestry, and one of them responds, "Ancestry.com?" (Gee, they must watch TV commercials.) Blake directs them to search in the 1851 England census for William Gale with a keyword of "servant." (It was nice to learn one can search that way.) They find Gale working as a footman in Bovysand House in Wembury, a household with many servants. Even though his son was born only a year earlier, his family is not living with him. Blake tells them that the house still stands and that they can learn more by going there.
Bovisand (current spelling) House and all the servants make the sisters think of Downton Abbey and they actually have an idea of what a footman is. (Yes, they do watch television.) They're excited that the house is still standing and want to learn about their ancestor's life as a servant. They wonder why his wife and child aren't with him, though.
At the entrance to Bovisand House (now part of a tourist experience as Bovisand Lodge Estate) they are met by Dr. Pamela Cox, a social historian at the University of Essex. She explains that the footman would not only have answered the door but would have managed the front of the house. The girls admire the view from the many windows. Dr. Cox points out that on the census the footman is the top male servant and the next person listed after the governess, an indication of his status. He would have been in charge of other servants and things such as the china, glassware, and silver. He also would have been at the constant call of his employers. The narrator mentions that the footman would have been the physical representative of the house, and therefore height and looks were important factors in who was chosen for the coveted position, which had good wages and was well respected.
The sisters ask where he lived. Cox explains he lived in Bovisand House, upstairs in the servants' quarters. The next question is where his wife was. She wasn't listed in the census at the house with him, but that was normal for the time. They search for Elizabeth and young William and find them living in a village about 25 miles away. Gale would probably have seen his family about once a month maximum. The village was a long way from the house, and Gale didn't have any days off on a regular basis. He worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He wasn't involved in his son's life, because his duty was to his employer, not his family.
Next the girls want to know how the couple met. Cox shows them the 1841 census with William and Elizabeth, both 20 years old, working for the same Nowland family (but not yet at Bovisand House). Elizabeth was also a servant. So after spending every day together for several years while they were working, after they married, they had to live separately. Kayleen asks about William in the 1861 census (how in the world could she have come up with that question on her own?), and Cox tells them William didn't live that long. She shows them his death certificate, dated May 27, 1860; he was only 40 years old when he died. The cause of death was delirium tremens. Cox explains that was not an uncommon occurrence at the time, as alcohol was readily available to the servants. The sisters ask what happened to Elizabeth, but Cox says that is all she can tell them. (The researchers totally lost track of the woman after 1851?? I found her in 1861 and 1871 with almost no effort.) They thank her and leave the house.
Now the sisters have more answers, but those answers have led to more questions. They stroll on the grounds around the house and think about how William Gale might have walked on the same path, and that maybe William and Elizabeth walked there while they were courting. They talk about how William had a tough life and made sacrifices for his family, but I think they were looking at his life from a very modern perspective; he probably wouldn't have considered living apart from his wife and baby to be a sacrifice, because it was the accepted thing to do at the time. William had a short life but made his family proud and provided a better life for them. But they still don't know how their family ended up in Canada. So what's the next step? Go to Ottawa! (Even though they're from Ontario ....)
In Ottawa they say that they have more names but need stories to go with them. They meet with Joseph Shumway (apparently Ancestry.com's most flexible genealogist-for-hire) in an unidentified location that looks like a modernist office building. (Rent-a-desk?) He has a fancy printed family tree (no calligraphy this time) taking their family back six generations from them (following three women's lines, no less): Eileen Maude Bell's parents were Andrew Bell and Ethel Josephine Foote; Ethel's parents were William Foote and Carmina Maude McDonald; Carmina's parents were Joseph Blackman McDonald and Emma Peters; and Joseph's parents were Alexander McDonald and Charlotte Gray (the sisters' 4th-great-grandparents). (So we've totally abandoned the Gale family at this point.) Shumway points out that the birthdates of the oldest generation are approximate to the period of the American Revolutionary War.
Up to that oldest generation, everyone was born in Ontario, but birthplaces aren't listed for Alexander McDonald and Charlotte Gray. So the sisters want to know where they were from. Instead of answering directly, Shumway says he has a document from 1824 and that the girls have to wear white gloves to handle it. (Why in the world would they use an original document like that outside of an archive?!) It is a petition for a land grant filed by Charlotte (Gray) McDonald in July 1824. She filed the petition based on her status as the daughter of James Gray (whom the girls immediately note would be their 5th-great-grandfather) of the Johnstown District of UE Loyalists. Shumway says that UE stands for United Empire and that the Loyalists were those colonists who sided with the crown during the Revolutionary War. The girls ask what made someone a Loyalist, and Shumway explains that it was someone who fought for or provided service, shelter, or food to the crown during the war.
So after the war, Loyalists in Canada petitioned for land grants as compensation for their service. Obviously, children of Loyalists were allowed to have land grants, as Charlotte filed a petition. But what happened to James Gray? Shumway tells the sisters to go to the City of Ottawa Archives, which has a large collection of Loyalist materials.
As they leave the odd little building, the sisters say how proud they are of their Loyalist connection. Canada struggles with its identity and is sometimes viewed as the United States' little brother. They have strong roots with the crown. (But Kayleen lives in New York ....)
At the James Bartleman Centre of the City of Ottawa Archives, Rachel and Kayleen meet Dr. Alan Taylor, a historian of Colonial America from the University of Virginia. The sisters tell Taylor that they know their ancestor James Gray was a Loyalist but don't know "how his life unfolded" (they really talk this way?). Taylor tells them that the first appearance of Gray in a historical record is in a "List of Families Calling Themselves Loyalists", who were quartered at St. Jean in 1778. St. Jean was a fort and refugee encampment. The list is similar to an early census and shows the family consisted of one male adult, one female adult, and two children and that they came from Lake Champlain. Taylor points out that Lake Champlain lies primarily in the U.S., on the New York–Vermont border.
The girls ask what life would have been like in the colonies for the Grays. Taylor explains they were probably farmers and recent settlers, likely in a settlement less than ten years old. They would have had the experience of turning a forest into farmland with only hand tools and maybe some oxen. The war breaking out meant they had to decide which side to support. That problem became more urgent when the British army lost to the colonists at Saratoga. Loyalists feared they would become the targets of Patriot mobs, so many took their families to refugee camps in Canada. Taylor produces a 1777 map of the British colonies in North America and shows how close Lake Champlain is to St. Jean and the Canadian border. One of the sisters asks about the pressures Loyalists would be facing in their day-to-day lives, and Taylor shows another list, "Return of Loyalists Receiving Provisions" from 1779. This shows Mrs. Gray and two boys, but not James Gray. The second page says that James Gray had enlisted in Petter's Corps as a private, so we repeat the earlier theme of a family being separated.
Suddenly, Taylor says that they best thing for the girls to do is go to the site of one of the former refugee camps (total non sequitur). Apparently there is still something in St. Jean, so that's where they'll go. It was interesting to note that Rachel drove and Taylor sat in the back seat of the car.
At Ville de Saint-Jean sur Richelieu Taylor directs Rachel to turn left off the road, and they arrive at an empty field (it looks like an agricultural area). One of the sisters asks if the whole area would have been the camp, and Taylor responds, "In this vicinity," meaning that the field where they're standing is actually meaningless. Taylor goes on to explain that four refugee camps were in the valley with more than 1,000 people, more than 600 of whom were children. Women were busy caring for the children and had a rough time of it. Their shelters would have been rudimentary, consisting of tents, boards, and possibly dugouts. Apparently the housing was next to latrines, but I think there was some poor editing, because what we ended up with was the comment, "And they're living right next to these latrines," with no lead-in. But living next to latrines created an environment ripe for disease.
When asked how long the Gray family was at the camp, Taylor produces another document, "Return of Distressed, Unincorporated Loyalists" from March 24, 1783. Mrs. Gray is still listed, but the two children with her are now a boy over 6 and a girl under 6. Between 1779 and 1783 it appears that Mrs. Gray (I guess they never figured out her name?) had a baby girl but one of the boys died, possibly of disease. Taylor points out that more people died in the camps than on the battlefields. It's possible that the girl in the 1783 list was Charlotte.
At the time the list was created, the war was winding down, and a month later word reached Canada that a preliminary peace treaty had been signed, recognizing the indepedence of the United States of America. This would have been demoralizing for Loyalists, who not only were on the losing side of the battle but had to give up any hope that they could return to their former homes. One of the girls asks what happened to the Gray family next, because they obviously wouldn't want to stay in the refugee camp. Taylor says the best answers will be at the Archives of Ontario, so that's where they should go.
As they leave the sisters talk about how previously they wouldn't have noticed the field but now know that there are a lot of stories there (but not really!). They're glad to have learned the stories but know their family went through a lot of pain and hard times. They say the Gray family was ostracized (eh, not really, at least based on what we saw on air) and were pioneers with strength and conviction. They couldn't return to where they had lived so needed a new homestead somewhere. As the car drives away, Taylor is not with them, so I guess he rode back with the production crew.
The next stop is Toronto, where the archives are located. Going in, the sisters say they hope they find out what happened to James Gray and his family after the war. They know that Charlotte applied for land in Ontario, and that's about it. In the archives Jane Errington, a historian of British North America (and Dean of Arts) from the Royal Military College of Canada (not the University of Ontario, as the on-screen credit says), is waiting to meet them. The girls tell her that they know Mrs. Gray and the two children were in the camp and that James Gray was a Loyalist Ranger, and they want to know what happened to James. Errington says she has discovered some documents that will help answer that.
The first document is "Disbanded Troops & Loyalists" who were mustered out October 12, 1784, after the war had ended. James Gray is near the top of the list as a Loyal Ranger. One woman, one boy under 10, and one girl under 10 were included with him. So he had reunited with his family, but then what happened to them? Errington explains that Loyalists had earned a reward by remaining true to the British crown and quickly went to the government and asked it to pay up.
Before bringing out the next document, Errington says the sisters will have to put on purple gloves (these are vinyl; the gloves in the scene with Shumway were cotton). She then brings out a large survey map of the district of Johnstown and Elizabethtown in Upper Canada (now southern Ontario). The map lists land grants made to Loyalists in 1784 (before or after the mustering out?). Errington has the girls hunt for Gray's name, which Kayleen (the detective!) finds first. Gray received two grants of 200 acres each, so he finally had a place of his own (again). And not only were his son (nameless, like Gray's wife) and Charlotte eligible to apply for grants of 200 acres, their children also could petition for land grants. They would have land, but they also had pride, because they were the founding mothers and fathers of Upper Canada.
Kayleen says she had not expected to learn that their family had such deep roots in Canada. Now they know that their ancestors were Loyalists and early settlers. She appreciates their loyalty and pride. Rachel comments on how William Gale and James Gray had to spend time away from their families and how it's important to remember the sacrifices they made. Now the sisters want to keep the memories of their ancestors alive and share them with their mother. They seem to be thinking ahead to the future, also, because Rachel says they have that much more to give to their own children.
Obviously, I was underwhelmed by the McAdams sisters in this episode. I did find the stories interesting, but I was surprised at the large gaps that remained — losing track of Elizabeth Creber Gale so quickly; no first name for Mrs. James Gray. Those are the types of things I wish they would address more directly in the show, to talk more about the research process. But I have to keep telling myself that Who Do You Think You Are? is not really about genealogy, it's just entertainment, and as far as Ancestry.com is concerned, one of its main purposes is to generate more subscriptions.
The teaser said that Rachel and Kayleen will be following their mother's roots through England and Canada. Some phrases made me think from the beginning that the family might have been Loyalists: "relatives uprooted by the brutalities of war", "painful choice they had to make", and "harrowing circumstances behind their Canadian roots."
We learn that the McAdams girls grew up in Ontario, where Rachel still lives. They meet in New York City, apparently where Kayleen lives, but that is not stated. Rachel is the older sister, and they have a younger brother. Rachel says that Kayleen is the detective (a good trait for a genealogist!), while Kayleen says that Rachel is a romantic.
Lance Frederick McAdams, their father, was born in Canada, one of ten children. The girls are close to his side of the family and know a fair amount about them. They don't know that much about their mother's side. Sandra Kay Gale's parents both died in their early 30's, so apparently Rachel and Kayleen never knew them. (I know from personal experience how much that can affect family knowledge. Both my Sellers great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather died young, and many myths were attached to that family line until I spent several years uncovering the facts.)
Sandra's parents were Harold Gowan Gale and Eileen Bell. The sisters know Gale was in the Air Force and had something to do with planes during World War II. One thinks he was a pilot, and the other thinks he was a mechanic. They want to research this part of their family so they can learn about their roots and how they ended up in Canada. They also want to find the information to share with their mother.
We never see Mom on screen, but they call her on the phone and tell her they received the package she sent, saying they "can't wait to open it" (yeah, they put it aside and waited until they called her before they looked inside, even though that's the information that starts the research for the show; how dumb do they think the viewing audience is?). So they "open" it on air, and inside is a family tree with a scant amount of information. Their mother tells them that her father was a mechanic, not a pilot. She says that a photo of an older couple is of her father's parents (the girls' great-grandparents), William and Maud Gale. They were from Polpero, England, but originally from Plymouth. William was in the Royal Navy. Mom's father was born in Plymouth. And that's all Mom knows. The girls ask her where they should look for more information, and she suggests going to Plymouth, England. (Now that's a huge leap! How about trying to do even a minimal amount of research in Canadian census and vital records first?)
Rachel talks about how she feels incomplete because they can't go that far back on their family line (a lot of people can't relate four generations before they do some research, so she isn't particularly special). She thinks it's empowering to learn information about her family and feels it's that much richer because she's doing it with her sister. (Unfortunately, the scripting and the sisters' delivery remain this lame throughout the episode.)
So off they go to Plymouth. In the Plymouth Central Library they meet professional genealogist Paul Blake, whom they have previously asked to research their family. Now they ask him whether he has found anything about their great-grandfather's parents. He tells them he has found a marriage for their great-grandparents. William Gale married Beatrice Maude Sedgrove on November 16, 1910. His occupation was listed as engine room artificer, which means he was a mechanic in the Royal Navy. His father was William Henry Greber Gale (deceased), a captain in the Royal Navy. Beatrice's father was Arthur Edward Sedgrove (and nothing more is said of him).
They ask if he has found anything else, and we leap straight to the January 2, 1850 birth certificate for William Henry Creber Gale. His parents were William Gale and Elizabeth Creber. The father's occupation is listed as servant. One of the sisters asks what kind of servant. (Almost all the questions the girls ask during the program sound forced and very scripted, this one being no exception.) Blake suggests they look on Ancestry, and one of them responds, "Ancestry.com?" (Gee, they must watch TV commercials.) Blake directs them to search in the 1851 England census for William Gale with a keyword of "servant." (It was nice to learn one can search that way.) They find Gale working as a footman in Bovysand House in Wembury, a household with many servants. Even though his son was born only a year earlier, his family is not living with him. Blake tells them that the house still stands and that they can learn more by going there.
Bovisand (current spelling) House and all the servants make the sisters think of Downton Abbey and they actually have an idea of what a footman is. (Yes, they do watch television.) They're excited that the house is still standing and want to learn about their ancestor's life as a servant. They wonder why his wife and child aren't with him, though.
At the entrance to Bovisand House (now part of a tourist experience as Bovisand Lodge Estate) they are met by Dr. Pamela Cox, a social historian at the University of Essex. She explains that the footman would not only have answered the door but would have managed the front of the house. The girls admire the view from the many windows. Dr. Cox points out that on the census the footman is the top male servant and the next person listed after the governess, an indication of his status. He would have been in charge of other servants and things such as the china, glassware, and silver. He also would have been at the constant call of his employers. The narrator mentions that the footman would have been the physical representative of the house, and therefore height and looks were important factors in who was chosen for the coveted position, which had good wages and was well respected.
The sisters ask where he lived. Cox explains he lived in Bovisand House, upstairs in the servants' quarters. The next question is where his wife was. She wasn't listed in the census at the house with him, but that was normal for the time. They search for Elizabeth and young William and find them living in a village about 25 miles away. Gale would probably have seen his family about once a month maximum. The village was a long way from the house, and Gale didn't have any days off on a regular basis. He worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He wasn't involved in his son's life, because his duty was to his employer, not his family.
Next the girls want to know how the couple met. Cox shows them the 1841 census with William and Elizabeth, both 20 years old, working for the same Nowland family (but not yet at Bovisand House). Elizabeth was also a servant. So after spending every day together for several years while they were working, after they married, they had to live separately. Kayleen asks about William in the 1861 census (how in the world could she have come up with that question on her own?), and Cox tells them William didn't live that long. She shows them his death certificate, dated May 27, 1860; he was only 40 years old when he died. The cause of death was delirium tremens. Cox explains that was not an uncommon occurrence at the time, as alcohol was readily available to the servants. The sisters ask what happened to Elizabeth, but Cox says that is all she can tell them. (The researchers totally lost track of the woman after 1851?? I found her in 1861 and 1871 with almost no effort.) They thank her and leave the house.
Now the sisters have more answers, but those answers have led to more questions. They stroll on the grounds around the house and think about how William Gale might have walked on the same path, and that maybe William and Elizabeth walked there while they were courting. They talk about how William had a tough life and made sacrifices for his family, but I think they were looking at his life from a very modern perspective; he probably wouldn't have considered living apart from his wife and baby to be a sacrifice, because it was the accepted thing to do at the time. William had a short life but made his family proud and provided a better life for them. But they still don't know how their family ended up in Canada. So what's the next step? Go to Ottawa! (Even though they're from Ontario ....)
In Ottawa they say that they have more names but need stories to go with them. They meet with Joseph Shumway (apparently Ancestry.com's most flexible genealogist-for-hire) in an unidentified location that looks like a modernist office building. (Rent-a-desk?) He has a fancy printed family tree (no calligraphy this time) taking their family back six generations from them (following three women's lines, no less): Eileen Maude Bell's parents were Andrew Bell and Ethel Josephine Foote; Ethel's parents were William Foote and Carmina Maude McDonald; Carmina's parents were Joseph Blackman McDonald and Emma Peters; and Joseph's parents were Alexander McDonald and Charlotte Gray (the sisters' 4th-great-grandparents). (So we've totally abandoned the Gale family at this point.) Shumway points out that the birthdates of the oldest generation are approximate to the period of the American Revolutionary War.
Up to that oldest generation, everyone was born in Ontario, but birthplaces aren't listed for Alexander McDonald and Charlotte Gray. So the sisters want to know where they were from. Instead of answering directly, Shumway says he has a document from 1824 and that the girls have to wear white gloves to handle it. (Why in the world would they use an original document like that outside of an archive?!) It is a petition for a land grant filed by Charlotte (Gray) McDonald in July 1824. She filed the petition based on her status as the daughter of James Gray (whom the girls immediately note would be their 5th-great-grandfather) of the Johnstown District of UE Loyalists. Shumway says that UE stands for United Empire and that the Loyalists were those colonists who sided with the crown during the Revolutionary War. The girls ask what made someone a Loyalist, and Shumway explains that it was someone who fought for or provided service, shelter, or food to the crown during the war.
So after the war, Loyalists in Canada petitioned for land grants as compensation for their service. Obviously, children of Loyalists were allowed to have land grants, as Charlotte filed a petition. But what happened to James Gray? Shumway tells the sisters to go to the City of Ottawa Archives, which has a large collection of Loyalist materials.
As they leave the odd little building, the sisters say how proud they are of their Loyalist connection. Canada struggles with its identity and is sometimes viewed as the United States' little brother. They have strong roots with the crown. (But Kayleen lives in New York ....)
At the James Bartleman Centre of the City of Ottawa Archives, Rachel and Kayleen meet Dr. Alan Taylor, a historian of Colonial America from the University of Virginia. The sisters tell Taylor that they know their ancestor James Gray was a Loyalist but don't know "how his life unfolded" (they really talk this way?). Taylor tells them that the first appearance of Gray in a historical record is in a "List of Families Calling Themselves Loyalists", who were quartered at St. Jean in 1778. St. Jean was a fort and refugee encampment. The list is similar to an early census and shows the family consisted of one male adult, one female adult, and two children and that they came from Lake Champlain. Taylor points out that Lake Champlain lies primarily in the U.S., on the New York–Vermont border.
The girls ask what life would have been like in the colonies for the Grays. Taylor explains they were probably farmers and recent settlers, likely in a settlement less than ten years old. They would have had the experience of turning a forest into farmland with only hand tools and maybe some oxen. The war breaking out meant they had to decide which side to support. That problem became more urgent when the British army lost to the colonists at Saratoga. Loyalists feared they would become the targets of Patriot mobs, so many took their families to refugee camps in Canada. Taylor produces a 1777 map of the British colonies in North America and shows how close Lake Champlain is to St. Jean and the Canadian border. One of the sisters asks about the pressures Loyalists would be facing in their day-to-day lives, and Taylor shows another list, "Return of Loyalists Receiving Provisions" from 1779. This shows Mrs. Gray and two boys, but not James Gray. The second page says that James Gray had enlisted in Petter's Corps as a private, so we repeat the earlier theme of a family being separated.
Suddenly, Taylor says that they best thing for the girls to do is go to the site of one of the former refugee camps (total non sequitur). Apparently there is still something in St. Jean, so that's where they'll go. It was interesting to note that Rachel drove and Taylor sat in the back seat of the car.
At Ville de Saint-Jean sur Richelieu Taylor directs Rachel to turn left off the road, and they arrive at an empty field (it looks like an agricultural area). One of the sisters asks if the whole area would have been the camp, and Taylor responds, "In this vicinity," meaning that the field where they're standing is actually meaningless. Taylor goes on to explain that four refugee camps were in the valley with more than 1,000 people, more than 600 of whom were children. Women were busy caring for the children and had a rough time of it. Their shelters would have been rudimentary, consisting of tents, boards, and possibly dugouts. Apparently the housing was next to latrines, but I think there was some poor editing, because what we ended up with was the comment, "And they're living right next to these latrines," with no lead-in. But living next to latrines created an environment ripe for disease.
When asked how long the Gray family was at the camp, Taylor produces another document, "Return of Distressed, Unincorporated Loyalists" from March 24, 1783. Mrs. Gray is still listed, but the two children with her are now a boy over 6 and a girl under 6. Between 1779 and 1783 it appears that Mrs. Gray (I guess they never figured out her name?) had a baby girl but one of the boys died, possibly of disease. Taylor points out that more people died in the camps than on the battlefields. It's possible that the girl in the 1783 list was Charlotte.
At the time the list was created, the war was winding down, and a month later word reached Canada that a preliminary peace treaty had been signed, recognizing the indepedence of the United States of America. This would have been demoralizing for Loyalists, who not only were on the losing side of the battle but had to give up any hope that they could return to their former homes. One of the girls asks what happened to the Gray family next, because they obviously wouldn't want to stay in the refugee camp. Taylor says the best answers will be at the Archives of Ontario, so that's where they should go.
As they leave the sisters talk about how previously they wouldn't have noticed the field but now know that there are a lot of stories there (but not really!). They're glad to have learned the stories but know their family went through a lot of pain and hard times. They say the Gray family was ostracized (eh, not really, at least based on what we saw on air) and were pioneers with strength and conviction. They couldn't return to where they had lived so needed a new homestead somewhere. As the car drives away, Taylor is not with them, so I guess he rode back with the production crew.
The next stop is Toronto, where the archives are located. Going in, the sisters say they hope they find out what happened to James Gray and his family after the war. They know that Charlotte applied for land in Ontario, and that's about it. In the archives Jane Errington, a historian of British North America (and Dean of Arts) from the Royal Military College of Canada (not the University of Ontario, as the on-screen credit says), is waiting to meet them. The girls tell her that they know Mrs. Gray and the two children were in the camp and that James Gray was a Loyalist Ranger, and they want to know what happened to James. Errington says she has discovered some documents that will help answer that.
The first document is "Disbanded Troops & Loyalists" who were mustered out October 12, 1784, after the war had ended. James Gray is near the top of the list as a Loyal Ranger. One woman, one boy under 10, and one girl under 10 were included with him. So he had reunited with his family, but then what happened to them? Errington explains that Loyalists had earned a reward by remaining true to the British crown and quickly went to the government and asked it to pay up.
Before bringing out the next document, Errington says the sisters will have to put on purple gloves (these are vinyl; the gloves in the scene with Shumway were cotton). She then brings out a large survey map of the district of Johnstown and Elizabethtown in Upper Canada (now southern Ontario). The map lists land grants made to Loyalists in 1784 (before or after the mustering out?). Errington has the girls hunt for Gray's name, which Kayleen (the detective!) finds first. Gray received two grants of 200 acres each, so he finally had a place of his own (again). And not only were his son (nameless, like Gray's wife) and Charlotte eligible to apply for grants of 200 acres, their children also could petition for land grants. They would have land, but they also had pride, because they were the founding mothers and fathers of Upper Canada.
Kayleen says she had not expected to learn that their family had such deep roots in Canada. Now they know that their ancestors were Loyalists and early settlers. She appreciates their loyalty and pride. Rachel comments on how William Gale and James Gray had to spend time away from their families and how it's important to remember the sacrifices they made. Now the sisters want to keep the memories of their ancestors alive and share them with their mother. They seem to be thinking ahead to the future, also, because Rachel says they have that much more to give to their own children.
Obviously, I was underwhelmed by the McAdams sisters in this episode. I did find the stories interesting, but I was surprised at the large gaps that remained — losing track of Elizabeth Creber Gale so quickly; no first name for Mrs. James Gray. Those are the types of things I wish they would address more directly in the show, to talk more about the research process. But I have to keep telling myself that Who Do You Think You Are? is not really about genealogy, it's just entertainment, and as far as Ancestry.com is concerned, one of its main purposes is to generate more subscriptions.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
More Opportunities to Help
I posted recently about several projects that were looking for input and/or help from other people. Maybe it's something about summer? But here are more requests for family-history-related projects. You might have information that can help.
You probably have heard of Maureen Taylor's The Last Muster, the first book of photographs of Americans who lived during the American Revolutionary War. (Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure my Revolutionary War ancestor never had his photograph taken.) Volume 2 of The Last Muster is due to be released soon, and a movie is being planned also. But Maureen is now searching for images of Loyalists -- those individuals living in the American colonies who sided with the British and went to Canada. If you have a photo of an ancestor who moved to Canada as a Loyalist, contact Maureen at mtaylor@taylorandstrong.com. If you're not sure whether your ancestors were Loyalists, checking this list of Loyalist settlements in Canada might help.
The Belzec Memorial Museum is gathering information about people who were killed in the death camp at Belzec. It is part of the "Every Victim Has a Name" project and of the museum's cooperation with international institutions that conduct research into the Holocaust. The victims of Belzec were not anonymous, as the Nazis wished them to be. The project will help restore the victims' names, and the stories of their lives will become part of the museum's educational activities. If you can help by contributing names and/or stories, please contact Ewa Koper at e.koper@belzec.eu or mydrohobyczboryslaw@gmail.com, and put "Every Victim Has a Name" as the subject.
The Mt. Washington (New Hampshire) Auto Road is trying to identify the stage coach drivers in a photograph they believe dates to before 1900. If you have an ancestor who drove stage coaches in New Hampshire, they are hoping you will recognize one of the men in the photo. You can read some of what is known about the photo here; contact information for Mt. Washington Auto Road is included in the story.
![]() |
| Loyalist civil coronet |
-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --
The Belzec Memorial Museum is gathering information about people who were killed in the death camp at Belzec. It is part of the "Every Victim Has a Name" project and of the museum's cooperation with international institutions that conduct research into the Holocaust. The victims of Belzec were not anonymous, as the Nazis wished them to be. The project will help restore the victims' names, and the stories of their lives will become part of the museum's educational activities. If you can help by contributing names and/or stories, please contact Ewa Koper at e.koper@belzec.eu or mydrohobyczboryslaw@gmail.com, and put "Every Victim Has a Name" as the subject.
-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --
The Mt. Washington (New Hampshire) Auto Road is trying to identify the stage coach drivers in a photograph they believe dates to before 1900. If you have an ancestor who drove stage coaches in New Hampshire, they are hoping you will recognize one of the men in the photo. You can read some of what is known about the photo here; contact information for Mt. Washington Auto Road is included in the story.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)











