OK, not a surprise, other than it ONLY took Ancestry 9 days to figure out that if Jake, Maggie’s brother, was my 9th cousin, once removed, then more than likely, so was she. There was a two month gap between the notification that Donnie Osmond was also my 9th cousin from the time they told me Marie was. So, maybe the computer is speeding up? Anyway, same issues on the pedigree — that has not changed.
e e cummings is reported to be my 6th cousin, twice removed, through our mrca, mary white (1675-1740). mary white is supposed to be my 7 times great grandmother. to date, i have evidence to confirm to my 4 times great grandmother, esther clark, in that line. so, three generations need to be investigated and documented. on the up side, “cousin e e” has a straight line pedigree reported without any of the usual pesky private entries.
Brett Favre as my 9th cousin, once removed is a possibility, with a lot of research to complete verification on the pedigree chart Ancestry is proposing from the point of my 4 times great grandmother, Esther Clark to the MRCA, Joseph Dyer (1653-1704) which encompasses 4 generations. At least the one PRIVATE in that string, Ancestry did not think was so secret in an early announcement and filled in the name of their proposal for my 9th great grandmother, Elizabeth Dyer (1680-1747). Why they flipped to PRIVATE this time is a wonder. This one goes on the TO DO list.
Ancestry assigned President Woodrow Wilson as my 9th cousin, three times (thrice?) removed. In the middle of my pedigree they sneaked in a PRIVATE which I knew as 6th great grandmother, Hannah Prindle (1700-1783). This left me with two unproven generations to our MRCA, Elizabeth Pringle (1574-1666) who would be my 10th great grandmother. So, two points to prove are better than the 14 Points President Wilson had to get passed. So, maybe. His line is clean all the way up!
Michelle Pfeiffer is supposed to be my 10th cousin through our MRCA, Luke Hitchcock (1615-1659), our 9th great grandfather. In my line, Ancestry has the last two level prior to Luke as PRIVATE. I know that the lower of the two is Nathaniel Hitchcock (1677-1761). I have not tracked down his father’s identity, so I do not have his grandfather’s either. “Cousin Michelle” also has the last two levels prior to Luke marked as PRIVATE. Again, #ancestry.com PRIVATE designation for someone who lived in the 17th century? Really? So, even if I were to fill in my missing blank, I could not claim Mrs. Kelley without a lot of work on her pedigree. And that would take a lot of “damn fine cherry pie” (Homage to Mr. Kelley).
Ancestry proposes that Mickey Mantle is my 9th cousin, twice removed through our MRCA, PRIVATE (XXXX-XXXX)! In my line, they have PRIVATE’s daughter, PRIVATE as the next generation and in “cousin Mickey’s” line they have PRIVATE as the next generation as the connectors. Not a line of pedigree to follow here! All of the PRIVATE entries were from the 1600s — conclusion is that they are the result of someone’s guess, not research. So, no claim to The Mick!
Halle Berry is supposed to be my 10th cousin. Our MRCA is reported to be Elizabeth Walton (1629-1674). The closest I can get is my 5th great grandmother, Thankful Isham (1752-1834) who is 4 generations removed. On a side note, I really like her name, Thankful. They just don’t make names like that any more. Then there is that not pesky Ancestry PRIVATE MALE that the put in as the link from Cousin Halle’s line to 9 times great grandmother, Elizabeth Walton. Now this person was born in the 1600s! What is so private about his information? Leads me to doubt the validity of the rest. Too bad…
In another of Ancestry trying to make things fit, they presented my pedigree with the top two levels set at PRIVATE. This makes no sense since the line is extremely well documented by the Botsford Family History Association. PRIVATE – 1, my 8 times great grandmother, the mother of Samuel Botsford (1670-1745) was Hannah Baldwin (1644-1691). PRIVATE-2, my 9 times great grandfather, and Hannah Baldwin’s father, was Timothy Baldwin (1616-1664). This fits with the next level in Reese’s line that has Sarah Baldwin as the daughter of PRIVATE-2. So far, all looks good. The problem is that they decided that Sarah Baldwin (1653-1717) was the daughter of Timothy Baldwin (if that is the true identity of PRIVATE-2, and our link), had a son William Bartlett (1693-1762). Sarah (1645-1706), the daughter of Timothy, was married only once, to Samuel Buckingham. The reality is that it looks like there are multiple Sarah Baldwin entries and the use of PRIVATE has connected where there is solely a name match with no real evidence. So, sadly, I will have to claim this is a NO MATCH.
In this installment of We’re Related, Meryl Streep is defined as my 10th Cousin through my 9th great grandmother, Alice ___________ Smith (1604-1681). For whatever reason, Ancestry decided to make a secret of my 7th great grandfather’s identity and call him PRIVATE and designate him as the father of Jacob Smith (1706-1797) and the son of Edward Smith (1636-1693). OK, #Ancestry.com that means PRIVATE = Joseph Smith (1680-1734). It is not a secret, but well documented. With this quirk, my pedigree, as presented, is accurate. So, Cousin Meryl, family tickets to your next premier?
So, Cousin Jacob and I have a MRCA in Ferdinando Thayer (1625-1713), which I have not authenticated on my line as of yet. In fact, I am five generations from that point. But, interesting that this same MRCA is also shared by Ty Cobb. So one bit of research produces two cousin lines! I have better make sure this gets in the To Do pile.
 | Derek on Brad Paisley – 10th Cous… |
 | Pat Shaul on Done, Done, and Done |
 | Stacie Baumgartner on Done, Done, and Done |
| Pat Shaul on Done, Done, and Done |
| Stacie Churches Baum… on Done, Done, and Done |
| Derek on Brad Paisley – 10th Cous… |
| Pat Shaul on Done, Done, and Done |
| Stacie Baumgartner on Done, Done, and Done |
| Pat Shaul on Done, Done, and Done |
| Stacie Churches Baum… on Done, Done, and Done |
A Tree Grew in Oakland 