"Who Do You Think You Are?" - Courteney Cox

 

Is it here again already?  I'm not ready!!

Surprisingly, even though it has been several months since the last episode of Who Do You Think You Are? aired on TLC (in May 2016), I really was unprepared for this new season.  The first episode was broadcast the day before I went out of town for a week, so I was unable to rewatch it until this past weekend.  And that, of course, has put me behind already, because the second episode has aired before I could write up my commentary on the first.  I hope I can catch up soon.

That said, I'm a little more optimistic about this season than the past couple, as I recognize the names of more than half of the celebrities featured.  Progress!

The season began with Courteney Cox.  The teaser at the beginning said that she would unveil a web of mystery and intrigue on her mother's family line.  She would learn about scheming ancestors with big ambitions.  One ancestor paid a grisly price ("drawn and hanged?"), while another was a big name in history.

The opening shots show Cox walking on a beach but do not identify where she is.  It was California; my best guesses for the specific location are Malibu or Santa Monica.  She says she is excited about the journey she will be taking and doesn't know what is ahead.  Something "a little naughty" might be ok.  She jokes about Buckingham Palace and then says that isn't possible, because her family would have been shouting it from the rooftops.  (Naw, no foreshadowing here, none at all, right?)

Cox didn't really expect to become an actress, because she is originally from Alabama, not known for having produced many well known actors.  After moving to New York to pursue her dream, her big break came when she appeared in Bruce Springsteen's "Dancing in the Dark" video (1984).  Highlights of her career mentioned are Family Ties (1987–1989), Friends (1994–2000, and from which I recognize her), the Scream series of movies (1996–2000), and Cougar Town (2009–2015).  She directed ten episodes of Cougar Town and two feature films.  (I don't now why everyone always wants to direct.  Directing is not all it's cracked up to be.  I much prefer working audio.)

Cox says she is thankful for her career and her family.  She is the youngest of four children.  Her father, Richard Lewis Cox (who died in 2001), was the youngest of five.  Sundays were spent at family gatherings with her father's relatives, and family history was talked about.  It was very different with her mother's side of the family, as her maternal grandfather died when her mother was only six weeks old.  Cox knows his name — Bruce Bass — and that she is supposed to have English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh ancestry, but that's about it.  Now that she's getting a little older (one day younger than my sister!), she wants to know more about that side of the family.  She hopes her ancestors made some kind of a mark but that they didn't murder anyone (more oh-so-subtle foreshadowing).

Her "journey" begins in her own home with the ever-popular Joseph Shumway, who on this episode is credited simply as "Genealogist" (thereby downplaying his position as an Ancestry.com employee).  The first thing he does is open his laptop and jump onto Ancestry, which apparently has decided that subtlety is for fools.  He tells Cox he has built a family tree using vital records and other documents and shows her the online tree he has created.  No photos are shown for Cox or her parents (Richard Lewis Cox, 1931–2001, and Courteney B. Bass, living), but there is one for her grandfather Samuel Bruce Bass, Jr.  Cox has never seen the photo before and asks where it came from; Shumway says it is from the family member she suggested as a contact.  So even though we never see or hear from any family members during the entire episode, at least one person was involved in some way.

According to the tree, Samuel Bruce Bass, Jr. was born July 18, 1907 in Richmond, Virginia and died November 3, 1934 in Richmond.  He was married to Dorothy Godwin, who was born in 1911 in Calera, Shelby County, Alabama and died in 1986.  Cox comments that Dorothy would have moved to Virginia to be with Bruce Bass after they married.  The photo of Bass has a handwritten inscription:  "To Dot, with all my love, Bruce."

From Cox's grandparents Shumway slides quickly up the tree (too quickly for me to read most of the names) to her 4x-great-grandparents, Thomas Bass (1752–1832) and Mary Moseley.  I did manage to see that Cox's 3x-great-grandparents on the Bass line were Richard Bass and Martha E. Gates.  We hear that Mary Moseley's parents were Richard Moseley (1724–1781) and Mary Bass (1737–1791), which confuses Cox quite a bit.  Shumway says that she has deep Virginia roots and that Thomas Bass and Mary Moseley were related, which garners a "That's terrible!" from Cox.  Shumway tries to soften the news by explaining that they were only half-cousins and adds that in those days there was a smaller population and therefore people did not have as many options available for whom to marry (Virginia tidewater genealogy, a notoriously endogamous group).

After absorbing and accepting this piece of information, Cox cuts to the chase:  When did her family come to Virginia?  Shumway tells her that ancestor is interesting.  Thomas Ligon was born about 1623 in Warwickshire, England (and died March 16, 1675 or 1676 in Henrico County, Virginia).  He married Mary Harris (1625–1703) and came to North America in the 1640's.  The next question, of course, is, "Why?"

Shumway then gives one of those mini history lessons that is normally provided by the narrator.  The period during which Ligon came was known as the Great Migration.  It began with the Pilgrims in 1620 and went through the 1640's.  Ligon would have been one of many young men looking for economic opportunity.  The Puritans and others going to New England were seeking religious freedom, but the tens of thousands of people, mainly young men, going to Virginia were looking to make their fortunes in land and tobacco.

And with that tiny piece of information (keep in mind that we saw absolutely no documents, not even online), Shumway tells Cox that to learn more she will need to go to England.  (I"m sure there are absolutely no records in Virginia or elsewhere in the United States that could tell her anything more about Ligon.)

Ligon sounds like a posh English surname to Cox, and she loves English architecture.  That's it before she heads off to England.

A map shown on screen indicates that Cox is in Gloucestershire, but nothing more specific is said.  The building she enters looks like a library but had no identification that was shown on camera.  Inside, she is met by Nick Barratt, credited as a genealogist and professor of public history.  He tells her he has found more information about her ancestor.  He begins to explain that the Ligon family had lots of land in the agricultural heart of England, when we discover Cox and Barratt are two people separated by a common language.  Barratt pronounces the name "lie-GONE", while Cox (and Shumway) has been saying "LI-ghin."  Cox concedes the point and starts saying it the other way.

Either way, the Ligon family is a wealthy one from Warwickshire, and families with status leave lots of records.  Because of that, Barratt has been able to put together a tree for Cox, and he unrolls one of the lovely calligraphed lineages we are accustomed to seeing on this program.  It begins on the bottom with Thomas Ligon and Mary Harris and immediately proceeds back nine more generations, with a stunning lack of detail.

The scroll is titled "Ligon to Berkeley."  Thomas Ligon, born 1623 or 1624 in Warwickshire, died 1675 or 1676 in Henrico County, Virignia, married Mary Harris, born about 1625, died before 1703.  Ligon's parents were Thomas Ligon and Elizabeth Pratt (I could not see the birth and death info for either).  This Thomas Ligon's parents were Thomas Lygon, born 1545 in Worcestershire, died 1603 (I think) in Gloucestershire; and Frances Dennis, born unknown, died 1623 in Warwickshire.  Thomas Lygon's parents were Eleanor Dennis, born unknown, died 1535 or 1536 in Gloucestershire; and William Lygon, born about 1512 in Worcestershire, died 1567 in Worcestershire (another cousin marriage?).  Eleanor's parents were Anne Berkeley, born and died unknown; and William Dennis, born about 1470, died 1533 in Gloucestershire.  Anne's parents were Maurice Berkeley, born about 1435, died 1506; and Isabel Mead, born 1444 in Gloucestershire, died 1514 in Warwickshire.  Maurice's parents were James Berkeley, born in Monmouthshire (I couldn't read the year), died 1483 in Gloucestershire; and Isabel Mowbray, born unknown, died 1431 in Worcestershire.  James' parents were James de Berkeley, born 1354, died 1405; and Elizabeth Bluet, born and died unknown.  This James' parents were Maurice de Berkeley, born 1333, died 1368 in Gloucestershire; and Elizabeth de Spencer, born unknown, died 1389.  Maurice's parents were Thomas de Berkeley and Margaret Mortimer, at the top of the page.

Barratt says that one of the names jumps out at him.  He latches onto Anne Berkeley (she of the unknown birth and death dates) as a particularly important name.  (If she's so important, you'd think they could have narrowed her birth and death dates down somewhat; at least her Wikipedia page makes an effort.)  They have another discussion about pronunciation:  Cox immediately says "BER-klee", while Barratt says "BAR-klee", and Cox again concedes.  He then jumps to the top of the page and points out Thomas de Berkeley, who married Margaret Mortimer; they lived in the late 1200's and early 1300's.  They were Cox's 18x-great-grandparents.

Thomas de Berkeley's arms*

Thomas de Berkeley was a baron, which was the highest rank of aristocrat, just below the king.  He would have been the top assistant to the king.  It's as important of a position as a nonroyal could have.  Cox asks whether being an aristocrat was related to politics or money, and Barratt says both.

The narrator steps in to give more of an explanation.  High-ranking British aristocrats were wealthy landowners.  Some were also political advisors to the king.  They helped enforce the law, collect taxes, and build armies.  They were essential to the king's ability to rule.

(This is a total aside.  I'm a voice geek — my mother taught me to recognize voices on TV and in movies.  When I heard this narrator's voice, I thought it sounded different from the previous seasons.  It's similar, but not quite the same.  It took a little effort to find the names, but the narrator this season is Ken Rogers, while the one in previous seasons appears to have been Mocean Melvin.)

Barratt says that someone in Berkeley's position would have had to attend court.  He had to be around the king, whether good or bad things were going on.  Nothing would have escaped the attention of the Berkeleys.  From this Barratt segues to a copy of a 1327 document written in Latin.  It has many details about the Berkeley household — financial items, errands, costs, etc.  One particular item mentioned on the page is important, and he hands a translation to Cox.

Receiver's Account, A4/2/7 [SR 39], face lines 61–66

. . . Gourne going to Nottingham to tell the king and queen of the death of the father of the king with letters of the lord . . .

The lord mentioned in this item is Thomas de Berkeley.  He is sending a message to the king (Edward III) to let him know that the king's father has died.  Cox wants to know why Berkeley was the first person to know that the king's father had died.  Was Berkeley close to the old king?

Barratt shows Cox a map with "Barkley" marked on it.  That is the location of Castle Berkeley, a real castle with moats and everything, and it is still around.  It has records from when this happened, which will have answers to Cox's questions.

Berkeley Castle is indeed the next stop on Cox's British tour.  In the car on the way there, she says she is going to meet a Medieval historian.  (She did not drive at all in England but was chauffeured around.)  She is excited and wants to find out why Berkeley knew about the death of the king's father.

the Berkeley Arch**

Chris Given-Wilson, a professor of Medieval history at the University of St. Andrews, greets Cox when she arrives at the castle.  He tells her that the castle was built mostly by her ancestor, Thomas de Berkeley.  They walk through the "Berkeley arch" and into what appears to be the castle's archive room.  Given-Wilson has documents at hand that he says will reveal the events of 700 years ago.  Unlike the copy Cox viewed earlier, these are originals on parchment; they are also written in Latin.

Given-Wilson unrolls a parchment, points to a location on it, and then hands Cox a translation of the Latin text:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Reeve's Account, A1/24/126 [GAR 118, Manor of Ham]

. . . For the lord's expenses in Berkeley Castle for 22 weeks from the day after All Saints until the 5th of April which was Palm Sunday this year, on which day the father of the King came at dinner time . . .

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

A conundrum has occurred to Cox:  Why isn't the father of the king the king, if he is still alive?  Rather than answer the question directly, Given-Wilson says he has another item.  He shows her a second parchment, this one from 1327, and again provides a translation:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Receiver's Account A4/2/7 [SR 39] face lines 24–[could not read on TV screen]

. . . For bolts, rods, bars, and other ironwork bought for the . . . chamber . . . of the father of the king, 14s 12d

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

(Given-Wilson did not mention this, but if you look at the archival reference for this and compare it to that for the message about the king's father's death we saw with Barratt, they appear to be from the same record.  This item, for the hardware, is about 40 lines earlier than the death announcement.)

It's pretty clear from the items that were purchased that the king's father was a prisoner.  Given-Wilson clarifies that he was being held prisoner by Berkeley, not by his son, the current king.

This blows Cox's mind.  Her 18x-great-grandfather Thomas Lord Berkeley (we weren't shown when she was told about this format for his name, which makes it a rather large non sequitur) was holding the king's father as a prisoner.  Just what was going on?  Why was the king's father imprisoned?

Given-Wilson begins his explanation by stating that the king's father, Edward II, had been a "remarkably bad king."  A few months before he was installed at Berkeley Castle, he had been forced to abdicate the throne.

Isabella of France

The narrator provides more details.  Edward II ascended the throne in 1307.  He married Isabella of France, and for ten years things were going well.  Eventually, however, Isabella grew to hate Edward because of his losses at war and his lack of leadership.  He picked battles with the nobility by having favorites.  The nobles were united in their hatred of one particular favorite, Hugh Despenser the Younger.  Despenser used his influence with the king to gain land and wealth.

Returning to Given-Wilson, he says that the reason Despenser was a favorite of Edward was because he was very good with finances, and he managed Edward's money well.  Isabella hated Despenser, however, to the point that one chronicler wrote she "loathed Hugh Despenser with a more than perfect hatred."  (Now that's pretty extreme.)

The narrator comes in again to tell us that the hostility toward Edward and Hugh eventually led to war in 1321.  Queen Isabella sided against the king and joined with Roger Mortimer, who was rumored to be her lover.  In 1327 Isabella and Mortimer's forces overthrew the king.

Given-Wilson explains that Mortimer took power for himself after the coup.  Cox recalls that the name Mortimer appeared in her family tree.  Given-Wilson, who has his own copy of the ten-generation scroll (because Cox didn't bring it with her), unrolls it to show that yes, indeed, there is a Mortimer in the tree:  Thomas de Berkeley's wife was Margaret Mortimer.  And Margaret was the daughter of none other than Roger Mortimer.  So by holding Edward II prisoner, Berkeley was helping his father-in-law.

Cox's mind is blown again.  Her 19x-great-grandfather, Roger Mortimer, helped overthrow the king.  Her 18x-great-grandfather, Thomas de Berkeley, then assisted after the fact.  Mortimer obviously trusted Berkeley.

But why was Mortimer the one ruling?  The new king, Edward III, was still only a boy.  This means that his mother, Isabella, was officially ruling (probably as regent).  Since she was colluding with Mortimer, he was able to do what he wanted.

Isabella of France with
Roger Mortimer (15th century)

Cox asks about Hugh Despenser:  Didn't he try to get Edward II out?  Given-Wilson answers that no, he wasn't able to, because he had been executed during the war.  He brings out a copy of a painting that shows Isabella and Mortimer standing together in front of an army.  In the background, on what looks like a pyre with fire behind it, Despenser is being emasculated.  Given-Wilson says that parts of Despenser's body that were cut off or cut out were thrown into the fire.

After assimilating this new piece of information, Cox asks how Edward II died.  Given-Wilson asks if she would like to look at his cell.  The two walk into the castle courtyard, and Given-Wilson points to a particular window on an upper story, saying that was where Edward was imprisoned.  After asking Cox if she would like to go up and look at the room — of course she says yes — they walk toward that wing.

Edward II's room/cell

Once inside, they discuss the fact that Edward II was a prisoner in the room for five and a half months.  He also is supposed to have died there.  Cox wants to know how.  Given-Wilson says that there were many rumors about his death.  Isabella and Mortimer maintained that he had died a natural death, of course.  Authors of the historical chronicles (a specialty of Given-Wilson) thought they knew.  Much of the information in the chronicles is accurate, but rumors and unproven claims appear also.  Some of the chronicles say Edward died a natural death, while others say he was suffocated.  One chronicle, conveniently ready on a table in the room, has another version, which Given-Wilson has Cox read.  (I have to admit, I was impressed by how fluidly she read the Middle English.  I don't know if she was coached ahead of time or what was going on.  Maybe she was reading from a transcription?)

What was aired skipped around from one spot to another; I've transcribed the entire passage below.  Sorry for the lack of original spelling from the document.  It took me long enough to transliterate it into modern English.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Bradley de la More
—bla E2
— fol : 127

The said late king was shut up in a close chamber, where with the –– of dead rats[?] laid in a cellar under him, he was miserably tormented many days together and nigh suffocated therewith, the pain being almost intolerable unto him; but that not sufficing to hasten his death, which was desired and covertly commanded by the Queen and her fautores[?] [supporters], the said John Maltravers and Thomas de Burnay and their accomplices, rushed in the night time into his chamber, and with great and heavy featherbeds smothered him, thrusting a hollow instrument like the end of a trumpet or glisterpipe into his fundament, and through it a red hot iron up into his bowels, whereby he ended his life, with a lamentable loud –– heard by many both in town and castle ——

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

According to Given-Wilson, the methods described by this chronicler would have left no visible marks on the outside of Edward's body.  It's a lurid description, but it was commonly believed at the time to be true.  Given-Wilson's personal opinion is that Edward was suffocated.

Why was this done?  In early 1327 Mortimer heard of a plot to free Edward from his prison.  It appeared that Mortimer and Isabella had Edward killed to prevent an escape.

Cox wonders how big of a deal it was to have the king in your home.  Obviously, it was a huge deal.  And if the king was killed while he was in your home, yes, you would fall under suspicion.  It was the highest treason to be involved in the death of a king in this manner.  The king was anointed by God, so an act against him was an act against God and the kingdom.

Cox realizes that someone in her family, whether Mortimer or Berkeley, had the King of England killed.  It wasn't looking good for either man.

Given-Wilson points out to Cox that people did not like Mortimer, who was a bully.  By the fall of 1330, Edward III was 17 years old and tired of listening to Mortimer.  He had Mortimer arrested and launched a parliamentary investigation into Edward II's death.  The investigation included both Mortimer and Berkeley.  Isabella was removed from power and placed under house arrest but was not investigated.  To find out what happened, Cox will have to go to Westminster, the home of parliament.

As she leaves, Cox says that she had hoped her story would not be run-of-the-mill or boring, and obviously this isn't.  With her 19x- and 18x-great-grandfathers suspected of killing Edward II, probably one of them actually did it.

Cox's guide at Westminster Palace is Anthony Musson, a Medieval historian at the University of Exeter.  He tells her that Westminster is an 11th-century building and oldest surviving part of the Medieval palace.  The king would have held court at the far end of the hall they are standing in; he would have been flanked by his senior advisors and administrative council.

After Cox gives a recap of her story to this point, Musson says that Roger Mortimer was bound and gagged, and then brought in.  For the crime of which he was accused, the death penalty would be the sentence.  Cox wants to know if he had a fair trial.  Musson has copies of the trial proceedings for her to look at.

Mortimer was tried first.  The original document with information about his trial must be in poor condition, as the copy was dark, blotchy, and almost impossible to read.  Musson points out that the document was written in Medieval French, French being the language of government.  He reiterates that Mortimer was bound and gagged.  He was accused of taking power and of murder; these accusations would have been read aloud in the hall.  As he was gagged, he couldn't answer, so Cox concludes it wasn't fair, and Musson agrees it wasn't a "proper" trial.  He indicates one area on the page but then offers a typed translation:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

. . . render just and lawful judgment on the said Roger as is appropriate for such a person to have who is truly guilty of all the above noted crimes, as he understands . . . and particularly the article touching the death of the lord Edward, the father of our present lord the king. . . . awarded and adjudged that the said Roger be drawn and hanged as a traitor and an enemy of the king and of the realm. . . . which execution was done and carried out on Thursday following the first day of parliament, which was 29 November.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

(More of this translation, and a citation for it, can be read in this thesis on pages 240–241.)

It's clear that Mortimer was gone.  What happened to Berkeley?

Berkeley was tried the same day as Mortimer.  Musson brings out another copy, but this one is much more legible.  Berkeley had a more proper trial, and he was judged not guilty.  Musson also has another typed translation for Cox and asks her to read just the first paragraph, but she reads from the entire thing anyway.

(I was unable to get the entire text, because the full page was shown quickly and not fully in focus.  This version is not the translation used on the program, but it can be read in its entirety and allows you to see what was omitted for the program.)

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Against Thomas of Berkeley

Thomas of Berkeley, knight, come before the king and his full aforesaid parliament. . . . safekeeping of Thomas . . . to be kept in the castle of Gloucester, and was murdered and killed in the same . . . .

He wishes to acquit himself of the death of the same king, and says that he was never an accomplice [six missing words] in his death, nor did he ever know of his murder until this present parliament.

And on this it was asked of him, that since he is lord of the aforesaid castle, and the same lord king was delivered into the keeping of Thomas . . . to be kept safely . . . that he should be answerable for the death of the king.   And the aforesaid Thomas says . . . that at the time when it is said the lord king was murdered and killed he was detained with such and so great an illness outside the aforesaid castle at Bradley that he remembers nothing of this.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Both Cox and Musson agree that Lord Berkeley "doth protest too much."  But what did parliament think of his protestations?  The jurors apparently gave him the benefit of the doubt and decided he was not guilty:

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

[. . .] therefore the jurors came thereupon before the lord king in his parliament at Westminster . . . who say on their oath that the aforesaid Thomas of Berkeley is not guilty of the death of the aforesaid lord king Edward . . . And because the aforesaid Thomas placed keepers and officials under him, namely Thomas de Burney and William Ogle [Ockley], to carry out the keeping of the lord king, by whom the same lord king was murdered and killed, a day was given to him before the present king in the next parliament to hear his judgment etc.

-- >< -- >< -- >< -- >< --

Musson points out to Cox that if Berkeley had been found guilty, she wouldn't be here.  (We saw earlier that Cox's ancestor, Maurice de Berkeley, was born in 1333, and the trial took place in 1330.)  She seems startled to realize this.

Musson then tells Cox that the story is not finished.  Thomas' son Maurice married Elizabeth de Spenser (which we saw previously) — and she was the daughter of Hugh Despenser the Younger, making Hugh another of Cox's 18x-great-grandfathers.  But wait a minute — wasn't Despenser executed by Isabella and Mortimer, and therefore on the side against Berkeley?  Why would Berkeley's son marry the daughter of his enemy?  Musson tells her she must find the answer to that question at the College of Arms.

And so Cox travels to the College of Arms, where she meets Peter O'Donoghue, credited here as the York Herald (whereas on the Valerie Bertinelli episode his credit read Herald of Arms, and his Wikipedia entry says York Herald of Arms).  The first thing Cox asks O'Donoghue is why Maurice de Berkeley would marry Hugh Despenser's daughter.  The answer, not unexpectedly, is politics.  Berkeley wanted power, and the Despensers were still well placed.  The marriage would actually have helped both sides.

Edward I effigy

O'Donoghue shows Cox a family tree that includes the Despensers.  Even though right at the top it has "Edward the 1st King of England" in large writing, the camera pans down, and Cox has to pretend not to notice it yet (or maybe she really didn't see it; either way, this could have been edited better).  O'Donoghue starts with the marriage of Maurice Lord Berkeley to Elizabeth de Spenser and goes back one generation to Elizabeth's parents.  They were Hugh De Spenser junior, Lord Despenser, beheaded 1326, and Eleanor, daughter and coheir, died 1337.  He mentions that the marriage was arranged by Eleanor's grandfather and then traces a line to that man as shown on the chart (skipping over Eleanor's parents, Clare Earl of Hertfod, died at Monmouth December 1296, and Joan of Acre [Edward II's sister]):  Edward I.

This is another mind-blower for Cox.  Her 20x-great-grandfather was the king of England!  She is going to call the family about this!  O'Donoghue points out (as he did on the Bertinelli episode, because that's the same king to whom he traced her ancestry) that Edward I was one of the very best Medieval kings:  charismatic, exciting, and an all-around great guy (except for that bad habit of expelling Jews, of course).

William the
Conqueror

Unlike Bertinelli's lineage, where O'Donoghue stopped with Edward I, he tells Cox that there's another manuscript for her to look at.  This one follows the ancestry of Edward I.  We skip past a few generations and go to Henry I, who was Cox's 25x-great-grandfather.  Going back one more generation, O'Donoghue points out a circle on the manuscript, but Cox has trouble reading all of it.  It says "William Bastard Son of Robert Conqueror of England", who was Cox's 26x-great-grandfather.  She seems taken aback because she actually remembers learning in school about the year 1066 and the conquest of England.

In the wrap-up, Cox comments that everyone will pay more attention to history after this.  She is amazed to have learned that her 19x-great-grandfather killed Edward II.  She's much more interested in Medieval times now.  History is a living thing:  If even one thing had occurred differently, she might not be here.

She's still coming to terms with the fact that William the Conquerer was her 26x-great-grandfather.  She remembers the year 1066 from school and was sure she couldn't be descended from royalty.  She's really looking forward to telling her family about what she has learned.

This episode was a great illustration of how many descendants royal monarchs can have.  I'm sure it has been several generations since anyone in Cox's family had any idea William the Conqueror was their ancestor.  The flip side of that, however, is that once you have the first important name, the rest of the information is all over the Web.  It took some effort to drag out the revelations and fill the episode, although seeing the original documents is still cool, at least to me.

The episode also demonstrated one problem that WDYTYA is running into:  bigger and better hooks for stories.  We have already seen Valerie Bertinelli get excited about learning her ancestor was King Edward I, so how does the show top that?  Ok, this time they take it back a few more generations to William the Conqueror.  Obviously, O'Donoghue knows that anyone descended from Edward I is also descended from William the Conqueror, but that was not shown on the Bertinelli episode.  I suspect he told her but that it wasn't included in what was aired just so that they could show it in a future episode with another descendant.  Maybe this will encourage them to showcase more celebrities with ancestors not from England?  Or for the next descendant of Edward I and William the Conqueror, we'll go back to their Norman roots?

It's always been amusing how often the celebrities on this program just "happen" to mention at the beginning something that turns up later in the episodes, yet the show insists that they are not told ahead of time what the information is.  I don't know why I've been so dense about how they are doing this or why it finally dawned on me with this episode.  I suspect that the featured celebrity is asked several different questions in the intro, and the only ones shown in the final edit are those that match the storyline.

*Tomasz Steifer (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC BY 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons
**David Stowell [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons 

Newspapers, Newspapers, Newspapers!

I have been meaning to post another update of what has been added to the Wikipedia newspaper archives page for a while now, but I've been distracted by a lot of other projects.  I didn't realize it had been seven months since I last posted!  I'm trying to catch up, though, so here are some of the most recent additions.  One new country, Lithuania, and new state, Kansas, have been added to the list.  Several of the new archives are being created by one of two companies, Advantage Preservation (which does them with free access) or Newspapers.com (which makes them available for a subscription fee).

• Australia:  Honi Soit, the student newspaper of the University of Sydney (New South Wales), has been digitized for 1929–1990.

• British Columbia, Canada:  The Prince George Public Library has eight newspapers, including the student newspaper for the College of New Caledonia, on its site, ranging from 1909–1965.

• British Columbia, Canada:  Simon Fraser University has a collection of digitized newspapers online, including the student newspaper The Peak and one group called simply "More Newspapers."

• British Columbia, Canada:  The Thompson-Nicola Regional District library is digitizing newspapers from the Kamloops area and has a selection available covering 1882–2014.

• Cuba:  Diario de la Marina is available through the University of Florida's newspaper collection. Years covered range between 1844 and 1961, but coverage is not continuous.

• England:  The Church Times, an Anglican newspaper, has an online archive dating back to its first issue in 1863 and including more than 8,000 issues.

• France:  Two collections of images from Excelsior, a weekly publication that published 20+ photographs in every issue during World War I, are available.

• Italy:  Nine months of the 1885 issues of Il Secolo, published in Milan, are on the Florida State University digital archives site.  The press release I read suggested that more issues will be coming at some point in the future.

• Lithuania:  A new country!  Someone has digitized the Vilna Provincial Gazette and posted it on the Internet Archive.  The years covered are 1838–1917, with a few years missing.  This was published while Lithuania was under the control of the Russian Empire.

• Mexico, Arizona, California, and Texas (under Worldwide category):  The Historic Mexican & Mexican American Press collection includes newspapers from Tucson, Arizona; Los Angeles and San Francisco, California; El Paso, Texas; and Sonora, Mexico.  The archive goes from the mid-1800's to the 1970's.

• New Zealand:  The Southern Regional News Index covers the Dunedin and Otago area for 1851 to the present.

• United Kingdom:  The Gazette has created an instructional video on how to search and use the online Gazette archives.

• California:  The GLBT Historical Society of Northern California has an online searchable database of obituaries (not just an index) for the Bay Area Reporter, a weekly newspaper covering the GLBT community primarily in the San Francisco Bay area, for the years 1972 to the present.  The Bay Area Reporter itself has an online archive that begins with 2005 and is working on digitizing its issues going back to 1971.

• California:  The St. Helena Public Library has the St. Helena Star from 1874–2014 available for free.

• California:  The now defunct San Fernando Valley Genealogical Society posted a collection of vital records abstracts on RootsWeb for Valley newspapers covering 1911–1945.

• Connecticut:  The Shelton Library has two collections of newspaper clippings.  The "Library Scrapbook" has clippings from multiple newspapers from 1923–1930 relating to the Plumb Memorial Library.  The "Servicemen's Scrapbook of Shelton Men & Women Serving in World War" has clippings from the Evening Sentinel from 1943–1945, so apparently those servicemen were serving in World War II.

• District of Columbia:  The Capital is online for 1871–1880 and is said to be a great source for research in the Reconstruction period.

• District of Columbia:  Quicksilver Times (1973–1985) and Unicorn Times (1969–1972) are available from the Washington, DC Public Library.

• Georgia:  The Macon Daily Telegraph for 1860–1865 is in the American Civil War Newspapers database at Virginia Tech.

• Illinois:  The Lake Forester for 1899–1940 is on the Lake Forest Library site.

• Indiana:  The AIM Media Indiana archive, which has eleven newspapers, is a pay site created via a Newspapers.com partnership.

• Iowa:  Central College in Pella has ten collections of student newspapers and yearbooks covering 1876–2006, but there are some gaps in coverage.

• Iowa:  West Branch newspapers the Local Record and Times, from 1866–1934, are on the West Branch Public Library.

• Kansas:  A new state!  There is an obituary index for Rush County at the Barnard Library site.  It covers 1878–1951.  Copies of the obituaries can be ordered from the library.

• Kentucky:  The Lawrence County Public Library has an online obituary index for the Big Sandy News that covers 1885 to the present.

• Louisiana: The New Orleans Christian Advocate, a Methodist newspaper, is only for 1850–1946.

• Louisiana:  Scanned ads from former slaves looking for family members and friends lost during slavery which were published in the New Orleans Southwestern Christian Advocate (1879–1885) — which does not appear to be related to the previously mentioned paper — are available for free online.

• Maine:  Digital Maine has the Old Orchard Mirror, a newspaper published only during the summer, for the years 1900, 1901, 1903, 1904, and 1914.

• Maryland:  The Annapolis Capital has been digitized and placed online by NewspaperArchive.com on a pay site.  The collection nominally goes from 1887–2016, but it goes straight from 1887 to 1918–1919 and then to 1929.  It looked continuous from then on.

• Massachusetts:  The Memorial Hall Library in Andover has three newspapers covering 1853–1925.

• Massachusetts:  The Newburyport Public Library has ten digitized newspapers available for free on its site, courtesy of Advantage Preservation.

• Massachusetts:  The Portuguese-American Digital Newspaper Collections, housed at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, includes Portuguese-language newspapers from California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.

• Massachusetts:  The (Mattapoisett) Wanderer, which also serves Marion and Rochester in southeastern Massachusetts, has an online archive for its entire publication history, 1992–2016, housed at the Internet Archive.

• Minnesota:  Two union newspapers, the Minneapolis Labor Review (1907–current) and St. Paul Union Advocate (unsure of years covered), are now online.

• Missouri:  The Houston Herald has been digitized and placed online courtesy of Newspapers.com for 1881–present and is a pay site.

• Missouri:  There are online indices for death notices appearing in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat and the Post-Dispatch, along with instructions on how to order copies.

• Montana:  The Montana Newspapers project has some dupblication with the Montana Memory Project but includes many more newspapers.  The years range from 1885 to 2015.

• New Jersey:  The Belmar Historical Society has the Coast Echo and Coast Advertiser for 1881–1974 in PDF and searchable.

• New Jersey:  The New Jersey Hills Media Group has partnered with Newspapers.com to present three newspapers on a pay site.

• New Jersey:  The Woodbridge Public Library has digitized eleven local newspapers ranging from 1876–1970.

• New Mexico:  The White Sands Missile Range published its own newspapers, which cover 1950–1990.  There is a list of the issues that are missing, so if you have an old issue, maybe you can help!

• New York:  A new collection of four Staten Island newspapers has been made available, with plans for more to come.

• North Carolina:  The Nubian Message (1992–2005), the black student newspaper of North Carolina State University, has been digitized and placed online.

• Ohio:  The Stark County District Library has digitized eight newspapers in partnership with Advantage Preservation.

• Ohio:  The WestLife Observer (2013–2015) and the Westlake Bay Village Observer (2006–2015) are online at Westlake Library site.

• Oklahoma:  The Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College student newspaper, The Norse Wind, is online for 1948–2007.

• Virginia:  The Library of Virginia has the Charlottesville Daily Progress available for 1893–1964.

• Virginia:  The Prince William County Library System has a local newspaper index for 1993–present for three newspapers that have no other index available.

• Virginia:  The Pulaski County Library newspaper archive has five newspapers that range from 1893 to 2015.

• Virginia:  The Handley Regional Library System has an obituary index for the Winchester Star for 1896–1914.  This is a work in progress, and more information is being added to it.

• Wisconsin:  The Lake Geneva Public Library has searchable indices for obituaries, birth announcements, and local people in the news.  The site does not state which newspapers or years are covered, but an announcement from NEHGS said the obituaries were taken from the Lake Geneva Regional News and Lake Geneva Herald.  The local people in the news database iincludes the code LGNT, which I believe stands for Lake Geneva News Tribune.

• Multistate:  The Swedish American Newspapers collection, hosted at the Minnesota Historical Society, includes 28 newspapers from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.  Total years covered in the database are 1859–2007.

Earlier this year, the National Endowment for the Humanities, one of the funders for the Chronicling America digitization project, announced that the years which can be funded are expanding from 1836–1922 to 1690–1963.  This means that eventually we should see a much broader range of historical newspapers on the Chronicling America site.  You can read the press release here.

The 2016 Civil War Teacher Institute in Richmond, Virginia

 

I've just returned from a great educational opportunity.  The annual Civil War Teacher Institute is an event run by the Civil War Trust, and they really respect and appreciate educators.  Attendance is actually free — when you register you pay a deposit of $100, but it's refunded after you attend.  They just want to make sure you're serious.

The institute is targeted primarily at K–12 teachers and museum professionals, but educators and historians of all types are welcome.  When I told people that I taught family hyistory, that seemed to fit right in.  And even though the approach for the workshops and tours was from big-H history, it was not difficult to see family history aspects of almost everything I learned.

The 2016 institute was held in Richmond, Virginia.  Things started Thursday night with a reception and buffet dinner.  One of the speakers was Reggie Harris, a performer who has created dialogs and songs to educate people about the Underground Railroad and other aspects of the historical conditions of black people in this country, particularly around the time of the Civil War.

We had Friday morning to ourselves (breakfast that day being the only meal not provided).  Instead of sightseeing, I headed over to the Library of Virginia for some on-site research (and I am now the proud owner of a Library of Virginia library card!).  Then everyone met at the host hotel for a buffet lunch, where the speaker was author and former teacher Kevin Levin.  He subject was that, no matter what people say, the Confederate flag is and always has been a symbol of racism and white supremacy.  By extension, notwithstanding high-minded speeches about states' rights and sovereignty, from the Southern perspective the Civil War was about maintaining the institution of slavery, pure and simple.  He made his points passionately, giving several excellent examples to illustrate them.  (It was a shame that the keynote speaker for the Saturday night banquet resorted to the jaded claim of "Federalism versus states' rights" as the cause of the war, but some people will always cling to their rationalizations.)  Levin is currently working on a book about the black "body servants" (i.e., slaves) that many Confederate officers brought with them to battles and the persistent myth (many, many times disproved) that these men "fought" as armed soldiers.

In the afternoon six different workshops were offered in three tracks.  I passed on "Richmond in the Civil War" and "Using Art to Teach the American Revolution."  I first chose "Teaching Civil War Military History by Accident", which ended up being about using simplified miniatures rules to get students interested in studying military history.  The instructor, John Michael "Mike" Priest, uses 54 mm figures becaue they're easier for small hands to maneuver, and cards because they're a little easier than dice and less of a swallowing hazard.  (I participated in the demo later in the day and led the winning side.)  The same person taught the second session I went to, "Locating and Evaluating Civil War Primary Sources for the Classroom", on online sites for historical primary sources.  He listed several sites I am familiar with, such as Fold3.com and Chronicling America, but some on the list were new to me, such as War Papers of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS) and Pennsylvania Volunteers of the Civil War.

For the third session I seriously considered going to the talk about "Civil War Navies:  Brown and Blue Water Warfare" (I'm a sucker for a Navy man), but fortuitously I chose instead to go to Jesse Aucoin's presentation on "Journey through Hallowed Ground."  This is a project to plant a tree within a designated National Heritage Area for each of the more than 620,000 soldiers, Union and Confederate, whose deaths were caused by the Civil War.  (Men who died after the war due to injuries or illness from the war are eligible.)  As part of the project, research done on each man is added to his public page on the Fold3 "Honor Wall."  Currently the organization has been reaching out to schools and having students research soldiers as class projects, but I thought this looked like something a lot of genealogists would be interested in.  I'm going to be talking with Jesse about modifying her presentation to target genealogists, and I hope to start speaking about the project in the Bay Area next year.

Battery 5 of the Dimmock Line

On Saturday, after a lovely breakfast buffet, we had our first day of field trips.  The choices were "The Bloody Battles for Richmond", "400 Years of History on the Peninsula", and "In the Trenches at Petersburg", which is what I opted for.  The first half of the day was spent at Petersburg National Battlefield, where at our first stop National Park Service Ranger Grant Gates demonstrated how General Ulysses S. Grant cut off General Robert E. Lee's supply lines to Petersburg by creating a human map on the grounds.  He asked for volunteers and designated them as Grant, Lee, the cities of Richmond and Petersburg, and the five railroad lines coming out of Petersburg.  The rail lines were represented by strings held on one end by each of the rail heads and on the other by Petersburg.  Gates had Grant and Lee bounce off each other in a circle around Richmond, with Lee between Grant and Richmond, to show how Lee was able to block Grant from his original goal of taking that city.  Then Grant walked about the perimeter of Petersburg, stopping at each rail line and cutting the string.  (I was Boydton Plank Road and South Side Railroad.)  It was a clear illustration of how Grant stretched out Lee's men and slowly cut off his supply lines.

photo courtesy of 
Jean-Marie Bronson

This location has some surviving earthworks and interpretive displays, including one board explaining that earthworks were created with slave labor.  This area was owned by the Josiah Jordan family.  Their house was destroyed, and a small depression in the earth is what remains to mark the spot.  A small family cemetery is fenced off from the main grounds; the rangers don't include it in their talks.

The next stop was "The Crater."  I had never heard of the Battle of the Crater, but now I know it was where, in July 1864, Union forces dug a tunnel underneath and blew up a Confederate battery, Elliott's Salient, leaving a sizable hole in the ground.  It was where USCT soldier Decatur Dorsey earned a Medal of Honor through his actions as the color bearer of the 39th Regiment.  Unfortunately, it was also where about 200 USCT soldiers were massacred, most by Confederates but some by their own Union comrades.  The Union lost this engagement, and Lieutenant General A. P. Hill paraded the intermixed black and white prisoners of war through the streets of Petersburg to horrify the populace.  We were told this was the first time Southern troops had actually faced black soldiers in combat.

William Mahone, the Confederate general in command at the Crater, surprised everyone during Reconstruction by creating a mixed black and white political party, the Readjusters.  While it appears he did so for purely pragmatic reasons, not because his opinion of black people had actually changed, it forever tainted Virginians' views of him.

The latter part of the day was spent at Pamplin Historical Park/Museum of the Civil War Soldier.  This is an educational complex with two museums; reconstructed models of a plantation big house and slave quarters; reconstructions of Civil War era earthworks, so visitors can get an idea of what it was like to behind a bunker; antebellum homes; even a soldiers' camp.  The large plot of land was donated by Robert B. Pamplin, Sr. and Dr. Robert B. Pamplin, Jr., descendants of the slave-owning family that owned the original plantation on whose grounds the complex now stands.  It looks like the family came out pretty well after the war.

After a buffet lunch in the museum dining room, we had an hour in the main building, the Museum of the Civil War Soldier.  This has a unique audio set-up.  You choose one of thirteen historical soldiers, and a docent programs your choice into your audio player.  On entering each room in the museum, the audio kicks in automatically and gives you a two- to three-minute overview of the subject, e.g., camp life, hospitals, etc.  In each room are several numbered cards for different subjects.  You punch in a number, and you hear a short piece about your soldier, in his own words.  At the end you find out if your soldier lived through the war.  I chose Alexander Heritage Newton, the only USCT soldier on the list (there were no Jewish soldiers available).  He survived the war, became a minister, and wrote an autobiography which included information about his USCT unit.  One of the choices is a young drummer boy, intended for use by school children (he also survived the war).

After this museum, we went outside to the big house and slave quarters area, where the foundation is now growing a garden similar to what the slaves would have had.  Then we headed to the soldiers' camp, where a reenactor described some of the daily life of a Confederate or Union soldier.  After a short rifle demonstration, he rounded up some volunteers and marched them around in the sunny 95/95 weather (95 degrees and 95 percent humidity) while the rest of us watched from the shade.

At the Saturday evening banquet, former University of Georgia football coach Vince Dooley was one of the speakers.  Dooley earned a Master's degree in history and apparently has maintained an interest in the subject.

Sunday we had another lovely buffet breakfast (did you notice that all meals but one were included as part of the program?) before the last field trips.  This time the options were "Lincoln in Richmond" and "Hollywood Cemetery."  I'm a genealogist, so of course I chose the cemetery.  I shouldn't have.  The program gave no warning about the amount of walking up and down hills that would be required, and I couldn't keep up.  Before I gave up and headed back to the cemetery entrance to wait for everyone else, I did see some of the cemetery's sights:
• Confederate graves as far as the eye can see, many of which had faded flags next to them, probably still there from Memorial Day
• A massive memorial pyramid, built in 1869, dedicated to the more than 18,000 Confederate enlisted dead buried in the cemetery
• The famous iron "black dog", a guardian over the grave of a little girl
• A large memorial to Jewish Confederate soldiers
• A monument to George Pickett, of Pickett's Charge

The description of Pickett reminded me a lot of George Armstrong Custer.  Pickett was the last in his class at West Point, had a huge ego, was very proud of his shoulder-length hair, and was extraordinarily devoted to his wife.  In addition, after he died, his wife wrote glowing, heavily exaggerated stories about him.  He was the Confederacy's version of Custer!

This was a wonderful program, and I am very happy I was able to attend.  If you teach history, if you are fascinated by the Civil War, I encourage you to consider going next year.  At the Saturday night banquet, it was confirmed that the 2017 institute will be in Memphis, Tennessee, though the dates are not yet posted.

My Summer Speaking Trifecta

I am so excited!  I'll be attending three genealogy conferences this summer, because I've been fortunate enough to have talks accepted at each of them.

In June I'll be at the Southern California Genealogical Society Jamboree in beautiful downtown Burbank, California (anyone else remember Laugh In?).  The conference begins on Thursday, June 2, with an all-day Genetic Genealogy event.  The Genealogy Jamboree proper will run from Friday, June 3, through Sunday, June 5.  My talk on finding religious records is scheduled for Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m.

Come August I'll be in Seattle, Washington at the 36th IAJGS International Conference on Jewish Genealogy.  The conference begins on Sunday, August 7, and continues through Friday, August 12.  This presentation will be about the research I've done to learn about my cousins who immigrated to Cuba from Eastern Europe.  The program schedule hasn't been released yet, so I don't yet know when this talk will be, not even which day.

One month later, I'll be at the International Black Genealogy Summit (IBGS) in Arlington, Virginia.  That conference will take place Thursday–Saturday, September 1–3.  The first day is registration and an opening reception, with the programming on Friday and Saturday.  I'll be talking about online historical black newspapers in the first workshop session, bright and early Friday morning at 9:15.

This is the first time I'll be speaking at Jamboree and IBGS, and my first time attending IBGS.  I'm really looking forward to these educational opportunities and the chance to get together with so many other genealogists.  I'm going to have a lot of fun this summer!

Wordless Wednesday

Slaves Listed in 1839 Virginia Will

My cousin recently told me she had discovered that one of her ancestors had bequeathed several slaves in his will.  She has allowed me to recover their names and list them here, and I am adding them to the Slave Name Roll Project.  I hope that sharing these names may help someone find an ancestor.

"I Benjamin Wood of the County of Harrison and State of Virginia do hereby make my last will and Testament . . .

"I give my daughter Sarah Rogers and her hur [sic] Heirs forever the following Slaves to wit
Caroline & Patsey

"and I give to my daughter Amelia Wood and her Heirs forever Slaves
Martin
Jack
Nancy and her child now at the breast and
Catherine and their future increase

"and I give to my daughter Ann Bogges and her heirs forever the following Slaves to wit
Louisa
Ame
Lucinda and
Gabriel and their future increase forever . . .

"I further will and desire that the following Slaves be sold by my Executor at publick or private sale as he may think best to wit
Willis and
Ally
and out of the proceeds of the sale that my Executor pay to the surviving children of my Daughter Elizabeth Robinson Deceased six hundred dollars . . .

"in witness thereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 5th day of January in the year of our Lord 1839"

"Who Do You Think You Are?" - Bill Paxton

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.