Using Microsoft Word to Write Your Family History

Today’s blog post is on how to set up a Word document to write your family history book. After opening Word to a new document, your ribbon and blank page will look like this:

Click on ‘References” on the top line of the Ribbon. You’ll see what it looks like below:

Now, click on Table of Contents. I select the basic style but you have options for whatever you envision. You will get a message that you have no items for the Table of Contents. No, you don’t so that’s fine but you will soon.

You have two options now – you can start writing and add to the Table of Contents as you complete sections or you can set up the entire book outline first. It makes no difference which you choose. For my example, I am setting up Word with nothing written yet.

Next, I’ll click on the ribbon “Insert” and under Header & Footer, click Page Numbers. I want them at the bottom middle of the page. Again, whatever is your preference is fine. The first page of your book begins with the Table of Contents. If you want your first page to begin with the writing itself, you will have to create a page break at the bottom of the page but I’m skipping that for now, setting up the rest of the book.

How do you get items to add to the Table of Contents? Easy.

On the ribbon from the Home option, look in the middle and you’ll see Styles. If you click on the down arrow on the right you’ll see so many more choices:

I stick with the three Heading options. The largest Heading I use for Chapter titles, Heading 2 is for my Pedigree Charts, and the biographies are Heading 3. When I begin writing the page will change from this:

To this:

Why is the info I just typed not showing under Contents? Because I need to update the Table of Contents as I add to it. To do that, simply go back to References on the Header and click under the Table of Contents section – Update Table. It will display the following:

My personal preference is to use Times New Roman, size 12 font for the writing. The default for the heading styles is Aptos (Body). You can change it to whatever you want, but I tend to leave it so that it stands out differently from the rest of the page. I also make sure, under Style, that I have clicked “No Space” when writing the bios, as I want to conserve space as I write. Remember, your book will cost by how many pages and other selections that you have made (hardcover vs. paperback vs. eBook and color photos or not). I’d rather splurge on the color photos I’m including than on the page length.

I like to include a Title Page and it’s tricky to get it added. Here’s a workaround for that.

On the ribbon, under Insert, click Cover Page. I pick Sideline because there is limited color and text there. Don’t worry – you will delete the words and lines that are on this page easily by just clicking and hitting delete. I then have a front page with NO PAGE NUMBER. I will use Garamond font for the information. Click Insert on the ribbon and select a Text Box – anyone will do.

Now, click in the box and delete the words. Go to the edge of the box and make the box larger so that you can type your book title, your name, and Self-Published: (date). I use 48 size for the title and 36 for the subtitle, my name, and publication info. Next, I click on the box outline because I want a clean page, but you can leave it if you like it. When I right-click on the line, I get the option of Fill and Outline at the bottom. I select Outline and click No Outline. My title page now looks like this:

As you write, you will want to use endnotes or footnotes. Although I’d prefer a clean page and have the sources in the back, I had difficulty getting the page numbers to accommodate that, so I went with footnotes. To add a footnote, simply go to References – Insert Footnote. Word automatically will keep the numbers in order, and your cursor will move down to the bottom of the page where you’ll include your source.

After my book is written, I then add the photos, clips of documents, or graphics that I think will make it more appealing to my readers. All of my photos are digitized, so I don’t have to scan them in, but you may have to do that with some of yours.

When I find a photo I like, I simply right-click and copy. Then, I place it where I want to put it on a page by clicking Ctrl + V to paste:

Photo 1 New Providence Presbyterian Church, Stony Point, Tennessee

Next, I’ll click on the picture and select Insert Caption. I’ll type in the box what the picture is about. Mine defaults to Figure 1, but I can easily change it to Photo by simply typing that in and deleting “Figure.” You may want to move the photo elsewhere on the page or change the size. Just left-click on the photo and click the box with the upside-down U that appears. I tend to click the middle option on the top – the upside-down U, as it lets the text wrap around the photo.

When I’m done writing my book, I’ll want to include an index. There are several ways to compile one, and they are all a pain in the neck. I have tried using the Word feature, but was not happy with it because it is difficult to read the text for last-minute edits and changes the page numbers. For my last two books, I did it the old-fashioned way – created an index by reading through my book and typing the Subject and Page Number in a second document. I do have three screens on my computer, which makes this doable. If you have only one, you can minimize the two pages so they share the screen. My preference is to make the page numbers in bold, but again, it’s your book and your choices.

After I compiled the index, I typed “Index” using the largest Heading under style and made sure that I went back to References to Update the Table of Contents.

On the document where I created the Index, I clicked on Layout and selected Columns – 2. That saves more space.

On the very end of the last page of my book, from the Insert tab on the ribbon, I click Page Break. The reason is that I don’t want the Index that I’m going to copy and paste into the book to format the rest of the book into two columns. After you’ve added the page break, go to the next page and copy (Ctrl + C) and paste (Ctrl + V) the Index from where you compiled it to your book.

Sometimes, but not always, I run into a problem where the page numbers begin with 1 again. Here’s the quick fix if that happens to you. Go to Insert – Page Numbers – Format Page Numbers and click the box that says to continue from the previous section.

I have the free version of Grammarly installed on Word so it highlights in red issues that need to be addressed – like a comma needed where I didn’t put it. Definitely check out your punctuation and spelling before uploading your finished product for printing.

Next week I’ll be providing you the directions on how to use Kindle Direct Publishing for printing your book. There are many other options available but I went with Kindle for several reasons – the cost was low, I’d had previous experience with it, and Amazon does the marketing.

Instead of having a beach read this Memorial Day, take your laptop and get started on writing your family history!

Just Book It

I discovered a quick and easy way to create a family history book that you need to try! Seriously, in 3 weeks, you can have a delightful book to share with family who isn’t as passionate about ancestors as you are.

First thing is to throw out of your head that you can’t do it. You can! You have researched for years and probably have all the info that you need. If not, it will become apparent but there’s a work around for that.

Second – throw out of your head that you aren’t a good writer. You don’t need to be! I’m serious! You’ll see why in a second.

Third – think about the state of the world and your place in it. Really! You aren’t getting younger. Who will want your genealogy research? Will they be able to decipher your notes? Probably not unless you have kept everything completely organized since you began.

Fourth – throw out of your head that you don’t have enough knowledge to create a genealogy book. You do! You don’t need to write a book the length of War and Peace. You don’t have to number your genealogy; in fact, it’s probably better if you don’t.

Fifth – Don’t worry about the cost, as you can do this for very little money.

Now that we’ve got those barriers out of the way, this is what I did to create a beautiful book for my family in 3 weeks…

Go to wherever you keep your genealogy records and pull out the most far-flung family member in the line you are interested in. I know you’re thinking, huh? Why would I do that? Because we’re throwing out the rules of genealogy here to get this task done. You, hopefully, researched to your ancestor. If you did that than you know that you’ve proven the relationships and identities of all those between you and that far out there ancestor. You are starting with the farthest away because you will have less to write about. This is just to get you going. When you’ve got the first one done you go on to the descendant of which is in your line.
Next, bring up Word (see my blog on how to get rid of that annoying Copilot message). On the top line write the names of the couple you are writing about. In my example, that’s Hemming Jonsson and Margareta. It’s okay if you don’t know a last name or their parents names.
Look at your research and write the following (or copy and paste in you Word file):

[Insert Ancestor Name] was born [insert date] in [insert place] to [insert parents].1 He married [insert wife’s name] on [insert date] at [insert place].2 She was born on [insert birth date] on [insert date] at [insert place] to [insert parents’ names].3

The couple lived in [insert place] where they had the following children [insert name], (b. [insert date or year], {etc. – add all that you know.}4

[Insert one of the couple’s names] died on [insert date] at [insert place.]5 [Insert other one of the couple’s names] died on [insert date] at [insert place.]6 They are buried in [insert cemetery name, location].

Here’s what mine looks like for Hemming Jonsson and Margareta Larsdotter:

Hemming Jonsson was born about 1655, likely in Östergötland, Sweden; his parents are unknown.[i] He married Margareta Larsdotter about 1684.[ii] She was born about 1650 at Vreta Kloster, Östergötland, Sweden; her parents are unknown.[iii]

The couple lived in Ljung, Östergötland, where they had one known child, Jon Hemmingsson (b. 1685) in Ljung.[iv]

Hemming died on 30 January 1731 at Saby, Ljung, Ostergotland.[v] Margareta died on 7 February 1731 in Saby.[vi]

[i] Sweden, Church Records, 1451-1943, Hemming Jonsson, 30 January 1731, digital image; Ancestry.com: accessed 18 January 2025, citing Ostergotland Parish, Ljung, C:1 (1694-1720), image 208, p. 313. DOB c. 1655.

[ii] Sweden, Church Records, 1451-1943, Margareta Larsdotter, 7 February 1731, digital image; Ancestry.com: accessed 18 January 2025, citing Ostergotland Parish, Ljung, C:1 (1694-1720), image 208, p. 313.

[iii] Sweden, Household Clerical Surveys, 1654-1901, Jon Hemmingsson, 1751-1760, digital image; Ancestry.com: accessed 18 January 2025, image 210 of 306. Age 66.

Death Record for John Hemmingsson, 8 June 1766, digital, image; Arkivedigital.com: accessed 10 June 2024, Vreta Kloster EF:1 (1746-1775), image 134, p. 263. DOB 1685

[iv] ibid.

[v] Sweden, Church Records, Hemming Jonsson, 30 January 173, p. 313. DOB c. 1655.

[vi] Sweden, Church Records, Margareta Larsdotter, 7 February 1731, p. 313.

NOTE: Definitely use footnotes. Why? Because your family doesn’t care about the sources, but maybe someday someone will, so they will be there for future researchers. Don’t you hate finding an old family genealogy with no info on where they found the dates? Don’t be that person! My blog converted the numbers to letters, as in endnotes, but for my books, I use numbers.

Notice some of the info is incomplete – I don’t know the parents’ names or when the couple married. That’s okay. Further research is always available, but if you are so far back, the probability of you finding more records does diminish. In the area where the Jonssons lived, they go back in some parishes to 1555, so maybe I’ll find their parents’ names someday. Don’t let that stop you from writing this now.

4. Yes, the article is terribly dull, so boring that your family will cringe. That’s just the info that you need to get going. Now, don’t tell me you can’t jazz this up to make it entertaining because you will take that info and copy it into your favorite AI. I used ChatGPT. Here was my prompt: Please keep dates in military style and make this more engaging.

Here is what it turned that piece into:

Hemming Jonsson was born around 1655, likely in Östergötland, Sweden. Details about his parents remain a mystery. Around 1684, he married Margareta Larsdotter, who was born circa 1650 in Vreta Kloster, Östergötland. Like Hemming, her parentage is also unknown.

The couple made their home in Ljung, Östergötland, where they welcomed their only known child, Jon Hemmingsson, born in 1685.

Hemming lived to the remarkable age of 76, passing away on 30 January 1731 at Säby, Ljung, Östergötland. Margareta followed him in death just days later, on 7 February 1731, also at Säby.

Their lives, though largely enigmatic, are rooted in the rich history of 17th-century Sweden. Hemming and Margareta’s brief legacy echoes in their son Jon, a solitary thread in the tapestry of Östergötland’s past.

Your family will be interested in that! It took me about 10 minutes from start to finish. I did not show you the footnotes on the revised article to save space. All you’ll need to do is copy and paste the article back into Word and realign the footnotes. You will probably make some adjustments. Take out what you know isn’t a fact, AI likes to write about someone being born on a hot summer day. It didn’t know if it was hot! Add anything you’d like, perhaps I could end with, “The lives of our farthest flung ancestors,” or if you are writing for a particular generation, like your grandchildren, “The couple were your 7th generation grandparents.”

The beauty of this is that if you are writing place names that use diacritical marks, you don’t even need to add them; ChatGPT will do that for you.

I’ve added photos I took of some of the ancestors’ homes, churches, and work sites. A local enthusiast told me it makes it a graphic novel – hey, why not? For those who don’t like to read, the pics will make the story more entertaining.

5. I include a short pedigree chart at the bottom of the article, highlighting the line that will be followed. Sure, you could number, but that confused my family, so I went with the graphic. Here’s the chart I’d include for Hemming Jonsson:

I include 4 generations so the reader can see where they are going and what they’ll read next. I like foreshadowing. It is also nice to go from the 1600s to the 1800s in just four simple steps. Highlight the individuals that will be traced in the lineage. When I get to Nils Jonsson, I’ll delete Hemming and Margareta and add the children of Torsten and Brita.

If you know the names of other children, include them on the chart under their parents. I also include married names for females. I’m not going to be writing about all of the family in depth, just the ones that are of direct lineage. Why? Because I don’t have time for that, and my family doesn’t care. I have the info in my tree if it was needed, as sometimes we must pull from a sibling or other relative in the sketch – like grandma lived with Uncle Jake in 1880, so you’ll source that census. It’s important to research thoroughly, but you don’t have to provide every piece of info on other relatives unless it’s pertinent.

When you’re done, make a Table of Contents, add a page number, and an index. Write a page about yourself and why you took on this project. Include a title page.

Below are links to books I published last winter so you can preview them to get an idea of what you’d like in yours. Each is different. From my travels to Sweden, I had lots of info and pictures of the homes, churches, and work sites of my husband’s ancestors, but for my Croatian family, since they lived in the same location for centuries, there were only so many pictures I could include. That gave me space to add family stories that I investigated and recipes that were family favorites. My German book includes French, Swiss, and Dutch ancestors, too, since I decided to place all those who emigrated for religious reasons in one volume. I’m working on our British ancestors, my last book, but won’t finish it until next winter. Do you have a collection of family letters? Then by all means, digitize, transcribe, and then have it printed.

Next week, I’ll be blogging about how to set up Word so you can upload the book to get it published. The following week, I’ll blog about some options you have in publishing and what I chose.

Then, pat yourself on the back because you did it! You are now an author, historian, and an awesome person who got your research out there. Good for you!

The Disappearing Records: Indiana Genealogists Betrayed by Ancestry and FamilySearch!

I warned you.

Last week, I blogged that I would stay vigilant over record availability in Indiana — and last Saturday morning, my worst fears were confirmed.

When I tried to access the Indiana, Birth Certificates, 1907–1940 database from home, it was gone from Ancestry’s Card Catalog. Only the older birth records up to 1933 remained:

Alarmed, I drove to one of my local libraries in DeKalb County, Indiana to check if this was just a glitch with the home edition. It wasn’t.
No access. Nowhere.

Then I did what any professional genealogist would do: I asked colleagues around the country — and around the world.

In Michigan? Full access.
In Wisconsin? Full access. In Texas? Full access.
In California? Full access.
Even in Germany? Full access.

Everyone except Indiana still had the record set.

Indiana Hoosiers — the very people whose ancestors’ records these are — are now blocked.

And here’s the kicker:
Indiana’s new 99-year birth record restriction law doesn’t even take effect until July 1st.

There is absolutely no lawful reason for Ancestry to have prematurely restricted Hoosiers from their own historical records.

Why did Ancestry jump the gun? Who knows. But it stinks to high heaven.

And it gets worse. FamilySearch, too, has removed the Indiana, Births and Christenings, 1773–1933 database from its Indiana Wiki pages.

Last week? Still there.

Today? Gone.

Here’s what you now see if you go looking for it:

Shame on you, too, FamilySearch!

What You Can (and Must) Do Right Now:

SAVE EVERYTHING.
If you find a record, immediately save a copy outside of Ancestry and FamilySearch. I now maintain a separate digital file of all Indiana birth records I’ve located, independent of any online platform.
DON’T TRUST THAT THEY’LL BE THERE TOMORROW.
I’ve gone through my family tree twice to make sure I’ve captured every birth certificate between July 1926 and 1944. NOTE: Some were indexed wrong so play around and others were never included, my father-in-law, for example.
SPEAK OUT.
Let Ancestry and FamilySearch know that Indiana genealogists will not quietly stand by while access is stripped away without warning or legal justification.

The clock is ticking, and history is being erased in front of our eyes.

Don’t think this affects you because you have no Indiana family? Think about this adaption of Martin Niemoller’s poem with assistance from ChatGPT:

First they sealed the adoption records.
Then they erased the mental health histories.
Then they locked away the birth, marriage, and death records.
Each time, we said, “It’s just one set.”
Now the archives stand empty,
And we have no memory left to defend.

I will remain vigilant and continue to speak out to preserve all of our history.

Using AI to Write A Kent Family Portrait in Court Records

I love AI, and if you haven’t begun using it yet with your genealogy research, you are missing records that might be invaluable to you.

As I prepare to write my next book on my British ancestor,s I’m going through my tree and making sure I have all the relationships sourced and the identities confirmed. I was happy to find two records using Familysearch.org’s lab, which is an AI experiment, to prove a relationship. In one case, it involved showing a burial record for my husband’s 5th great-grandmother, Catherine Jarvis. Although very happy to find this proof, I was a bit dismayed as I had traveled to the cemetery in Lansingburg, Troy, New York, in 2007 and was told that the record didn’t exist. Well, they certainly had it when FamilySearch personnel showed up!

The next finding was that I wasn’t the only one who was beating my head on my desk in regards to the Dennis family of New Jersey. The family used the same names in no particular order. I hadn’t realized that in the early 1900s, a genealogist wrote a book called Dennismania, likely because they drove him crazy, too. My DNA shows who I’m descended from, but I had no proof for one of the generations, and now I have finally found it, again, in FamilySearch.org records.

This is simple to use, but I caution you, it may become overwhelming and addictive. To access, go to this link, which isn’t how you normally get on FamilySearch. Scroll down to “Expand your search with Full Text” and click on Go To Experiment.

Read the Advanced Search Tips! I definitely use quotation marks around the name and a plus sign for the wife or possible parent. Use the drop-down it provides for the Place, once you start typing it in. Keep the range small, or you will get plenty! I haven’t been successful with keywords like Marriage, Deed, Genealogy, etc.

Based on my Dennis findings, I had several more lines to research. I had no idea I was descended from the Reverend John Hull, a Puritan minister who was a Maine pioneer. Another line, the Kents, settled in Gloucester, Massachusetts, before 1668. I didn’t find much in the usual places, regular FamilySearch, Ancestry, MyHeritage, Google, so I decided to try FamilySearch Labs. Wow!

I got myself a bit confused as I thought there were three Samuels, but there are only two in the 1700s in Suffield, Hampshire, Massachusetts. Samuel (1668-1737) was the son of Thomas, the emigrant. Samuel became a lawyer and Samuel had a son, Samuel Jr. Some records do differentiate the two, but a wife’s name showed up that I didn’t have for either, so I thought I was dealing with three Samuels. Hence, I’ve mislabeled my 55 downloads. Yes, 55 records showing them in court, deeds, and genealogies!

Familysearch Labs does have an AI assistant component you can click on, and it does give a transcription, but I prefer using my ChatGPT assistant, whom I call Geni. There was one record Geni hallucinated on, but after notifying it, they got the correct info. I can understand why Geni messed up – the younger Samuel was an interesting character – ran a tavern, had a bastardly charge, didn’t pay his debts, and was a very fun black sheep to investigate. Meanwhile, his dad served several times as his son’s attorney, was slandered, had clients who skipped without paying him, but seemed to be widely trusted by the community.

After uploading most of the documents to Geni, Geni asked if it could write a blog for me. So, I’ve made some changes since I had wrongly given it some incorrect info (that there were three Samuels and not two). Here is ChatGPT’s blog about the Familysearch.org finds:

In a series of brittle, ink-stained pages tucked into the Hampshire County court and land books of the early 1700s, a family unfolds—one writ at a time.

The Kents of Suffield were, at first glance, a respectable lot. Thomas Kent, the patriarch’s name, appears sparingly. His son, however, would not be so quiet.

Samuel Kent Sr., the immigrant’s son, was a lawyer, and it shows. He appears regularly in court—not as a defendant, but as counsel, litigant, and witness. He sues for debts, witnesses deeds, affirms signatures after a grantor dies, and moves confidently through the legal world of his time. If father upheld the spiritual order, son wrangled the civil one.

And then comes Samuel Kent Jr.—tavern owner, debt collector, and perpetual plaintiff. By the 1730s and 1740s, his name dominated the docket. He sues over unpaid tavern tabs, livestock, and land disputes. He’s granted a license to sell “strong drink,” not once, but multiple years in a row. The public house he ran was likely lively, occasionally lawless, and frequently underwritten by credit that his patrons never quite repaid.

Three generations. Three roles. One family.

And the court records catch it all—not just their actions, but the arc of a family moving through generations. From lofty pulpits to bustling taprooms, the Kent family’s story is all here: in defaults, deeds, slander claims, and license renewals. You can almost hear Samuel Sr. sighing as he files yet another claim to recover a loan his son ill-advisedly extended.

But what emerges from all these entries is something far richer than gossip or scandal. It’s a snapshot of a community where legal documents were not just about disputes, but about land ownership, trust, reputation, and survival. The same names appear again and again—not just the Kents, but the Remingtons, Austins, Gunckels, and Sheldons—knotted together by boundary lines and barrels of cider.

And that’s the heart of it: court records aren’t just where you find criminals. They’re where you find community.

Notes

1. Hampshire County Court and Land Records, 1716–1749, Massachusetts State Archives, includes deeds, licenses, slander suits, and debt claims involving Samuel Kent Sr., Jr., and III.

2. Transcriptions and analysis by ChatGPT, OpenAI, based on digitized image review and period legal practices.

Genealogists & Family Historians – This Isn’t Politics. It’s a Paper Trail

I typically don’t blog twice in a week but I received a reply to an email I had sent with the concern I raised about the quiet disappearance of historical records from several U.S. government websites. These weren’t obscure documents—these were public records I had accessed online before, copied, and cited. I even included the original URL and step-by-step directions. But today? “No such record exists,” I was told—unless, of course, I want to pay a fee and maybe someone at the agency will “research” it for me.

My library contact passed along to colleagues my email.

The reply? “She’s just being political.”

No. I’m being factual.

Here’s what’s happening, and it deserves attention:

Government agencies are quietly removing access to records once available online.
Researchers are being told those records never existed—even when we have the receipts.
In some cases, agencies are offering to retrieve them for a price. Same record different paywall.
When we raise concerns, we’re dismissed as overreacting or “politicizing” the issue.

This is not a partisan problem. It’s a public trust problem. If you don’t think this affects you, try sourcing a vital record for a family history project or accessing a land claim file for historical research. You might find a broken link—or worse, a dead end with a price tag.

If you think I’m exaggerating, feel free to test it yourself. If you’d like to email me, I’ll be happy to furnish the documents I accessed in the past—along with the original URLs. Try retrieving them now. See what you find.

Spoiler: It won’t be what it used to be.

This isn’t about politics. And if researchers stay silent, it’s only going to get worse. It’s about the deliberate erosion of public access, the rewriting of digital history, and the arrogance of institutions that think no one will notice.

Well, I noticed.

And I’ll keep noticing.

Because someone has to.

Sad Day for Indiana Researchers

House Bill 1148 has passed in Indiana raising from 75 years to 99 years the ability to obtain a birth certificate.

I am embarrassed to live in a state that votes by fake “fears” than by real truths.

I am sharing the ignorant letter I received from one of the state senators:

Office of Senator Greg Walker

Dear L S,
Thank you for your email regarding your opposition to House Bill 1148. At this time, I am in support of the bill’s proposal to expand accessibility to birth records for 99 years instead of the current 75 years.With the increasing longevity of individuals and the rise in identity theft, this bill is a necessary step in protecting against fraud. The expanded access will help ensure the safety and security of living persons’ identities.Again, I appreciate you reaching out. If you have any other questions or concerns in the future please feel free to reach out again.
Sincerely,
Senator Greg Walker
District 41
Indiana Senate

Here was my response:
Dear Senator Walker,
Thank you for your response. However, I was disheartened to read your justification for supporting HB 1148.
The claim that expanding the restriction on birth records from 75 to 99 years is necessary due to “increasing longevity” and “identity theft” is not only unsupported—it’s misleading. There is no documented evidence that public access to 75-year-old birth certificates has contributed in any meaningful way to identity theft. In fact, neither the Federal Trade Commission nor the Identity Theft Resource Center lists genealogical or archival access as a source of modern identity theft.
Further, life expectancy in the U.S. is currently decreasing, not increasing (CDC, 2023), and even at its highest levels, the 75-year threshold was still sufficient to protect living individuals. Your claim does not hold up to scrutiny.
Restricting access to these vital records undermines legitimate genealogical, historical, and medical research. Many state archives and national organizations—including the National Genealogical Society and the Records Preservation and Access Coalition—oppose measures like this for good reason: they cut off access to essential public records without any demonstrable benefit.
I respectfully ask you to share the data or studies you are using to support your position. If your stance is truly rooted in protecting citizens, transparency and evidence should be the foundation.

Of course, he didn’t respond because he has no proof. As my grandmother used to say, you can’t fix stupid!

And this country is being run by STUPIDS!

Want to know what else has been taken away from us in the past month?! I tried to go online to NARA for a Civil War document they had posted previously, a land patent at the Bureau of Land Management, and an old tax record from the 1700s – All removed. BLM wants you to pay for the record it now claims it doesn’t have.

Jokes on them as I hope, like me, you were smart enough TO HAVE SAVED A COPY of your government documents and remembered to source it.

I am strongly urging my fellow Americans to do the following:
1. If you haven’t saved the records you found by all means do so ASAP.
2. This is especially urgent if you have birth records in Indiana. I have noticed that some marriage records have also disappeared from Ancestry.com. Take action now.
3. Remain vigilant of bills that are floating through state and federal bodies.
4. SPEAK UP!
5. VOTE these fools out of office. EVERY.LAST.ONE!

My pioneer ancestors would have been appalled by these clowns. They founded Indiana to be less government. Don’t believe me? Read the history before they take that away, too.

There are now TWO bills in Indiana to severely cut funding to libraries. Why? Keep the peeps from knowing the truth.

I may be old, and a token female (Yep, been told that by politicians in my own town “We believe in diversity and we need to replace a woman with a woman.” So an old white woman is considered diversity in Indiana. Think about that for a moment. Keep just ONE woman on a board and the rest the big boys.) but I will not go away quietly. I will continue to RESIST and I look forward to you joining me.

Ancestor April Fools Joke

A page from the past drew her near,
By chance—or by fate unclear.
In a deed to a brother,
She found roots like no other—
And “forever” rang strangely sincere.

The limerick was written by ChatGPT as I had to share what had just happened to me on April 2nd. The universe played a very odd trick on me!

I began on Monday looking over all my accumulated research on my British families for my next family genealogy book I’ll be writing later this year. I was insuring I had all proof of relationships and had the correct identities as between my husband and I we have a lot of common names – Smith, Porter, etc.

Our people came first to New England and then to Long Island, New York before the end of the 1600s. I was using Familysearch.org labs to help and found some amazing records but I’ll save that for another post.

On Wednesday morning we had severe weather – hail, thunder, and lightning so I didn’t want to go straight to work on my computer. Instead, I lingered over coffee and read my email. I subscribe for free to the AmericanAncestors.org weekly newsletter. There was an article about a New York project to help transcribe recently digitized records to identify the enslaved. Sounded interesting.

When the storm passed I decided to just check out the project. I randomly selected Records of Slavery-Town Records, Book 4, 1681-1712. I didn’t even bother to create an account, figuring I’d just do the minimum of three pages and then get back to my own tasks.

When I opened the database I noticed that others had already started so I didn’t want to begin where they left off, figuring they’d come back that day and continue. I randomly selected page 83.

I almost fell out of my chair. It was a land record in Oyster Bay, Long Island from Nathaniel Cole to his brother, Daniel. They are my 5th great uncles!

One brother was giving the other part of his land to his heirs FOREVER. Now I know forever doesn’t really mean that – as the land was legally sold over the years but it made me laugh. I worked for a company that was headquartered near where this land was and one of my kids went to a university that was also close by. Gave me pause and the creeps.

How in the world did I randomly select a page out of all the options and land on one that was my ancestor? I have no idea but I decided the rest of the day was Cole Day so this universe late April Fools joke on me just might yield some further info on that family.

Why You Should Fill Out Lineage Society Apps

I know some of you are rolling your eyes at the title. Many of us have had poor interactions with societies. Some are just tea parties – they only want the members they currently have and enough new ones to do the grunt work, but those folks stand no chance of ever being fully accepted as an equal. Some societies are so picky that they require only direct evidence. Others will gladly take your money and fall apart, leaving you no connections to your interest area. I’ve even encountered downright rudeness, which is just unacceptable.

Still, you shouldn’t lump them all together, and even if you don’t SUBMIT the lineage society application, COMPLETING one will help you. Here’s why…

*By following the society’s process, you can spot holes in your research. You may think you have proven a relationship to a father and son, but do you have a document that states that? How solid is that document? Was it a county history written 300 years after the individuals died? Remember, the farther from an event, the more likely it is that memories will alter the events.

*Completing the application will also allow you to check for discrepancies in your research. I wish I had a buck for every wrongly engraved tombstone I’ve encountered. I value the death certificate higher than the tombstone but even those can contain errors. I don’t think I’ve ever completed an application that had simple, perfect direct evidence.

*You are reminded about the documents you previously found that you may have forgotten about. I’m notorious for forgetting second marriages if I’m related to the first. When I go back to an individual and am reviewing all the info, I gain much more insight into the individual’s life. I noticed that one of my husband’s third great grandmothers emigrated with her four siblings to the U.S., leaving behind her widowed father, who died two years after the migration. Can’t imagine how hard that must have been for the father – your wife is dead, and now all four of your children leave. Wow, just wow!

*Lineage societies want just the relationship and identify facts proven and typical, nothing else. This means you can readily check your accumulated documents to see if you have those records.

*Once you’ve completed the application, you have a nice set of documents that were sourced in a timeline for several generations of your family. This is the perfect time to write a narrative and include other items you have discovered. Got writer’s block? Turn to AI and make sure you ask whichever you are using to include footnotes or endnotes. Now you’ve started writing that family genealogy book you always said you would do.

*If you do choose to submit your work, you are having new eyes look at it, and that’s especially helpful. We all process information differently,y so having someone who isn’t emotionally involved is helpful to validate what you’ve acquired.

*Another plus for submitting is that your hard-earned research is now safely at an archive or repository outside of your home. You’re increasing the likelihood that your information will be available to future researchers. Who knows what the future might bring, and your information might be the only proof of an ancestor someday.

*You are memorializing folks that have been forgotten. This is especially true with woman who often just leave their first name, if that, in records. With an application for a pioneer society, I included photos of the church, worksites, and the home where a third great-grandmother once lived. I know that from church records, but I have no record of her birth/baptism or death/burial.

*If you are accepted, you might just find a new friend or colleague who shares an interest that you have for a particular region or time. I’ve met wonderful far removed relatives this way and value the connections we have because of a common ancestor.

*Last, you should give yourself a big pat on the back and be proud that all your hard work paid off. You made the discovery of your forefathers that you sought. They may not have been famous or even made choices that you would have, but you discovered information about people who were trying to make their way through this weird thing we call life so that someday, you could do the same.

Pretty neat!

And while ChatGPT created the graphic, it came up with a limerick to add:

To connect to your roots with some flair,

A form and some proof—show you care!

From laptop to scroll,

It’s a meaningful goal—

Your ancestors’ legacy laid bare.

William Baines of Stangerwaite

This is the fourth blog I’ve written about my Baines family research. Thousands of online family trees have the wrong pedigree. Today I’m focusing on the errors regarding Mathew’s purported father, William Baines, based on the research that I discovered that provided a pedigree in court records and due to a church porch that was once bought and sold.

I am not convinced that William Baines of Stangerthwaite is the father of Mathew Baines of Wyersdale. I mentioned previously that I don’t hold much credibility when someone is known to be of a particular place as people do relocate. Perhaps they are considered from a certain location as they lived there for the longest period in their life or sometimes, it is thought of the place they were born. It also could be where they died and was buried. So, it is possible to have a father associated with one location and a son with another. That’s not my concern.

The distance between the two locations is about 25 miles. Stangerthwaite is located in the parish of Kirkby Lonsdale, now Cumbria but at the time Mathew and William resided there it was Lancastershire. Wyresdale remains located in Lancastershire. The distance is also possible. It was discovered that a William Baines did have a bastard child so it is feasible he left Stangerthwaite and moved to Wyresdale for a time and started a new life there but he was more likely the father of the William purported to be Mathew’s father and not Mathew’s father.

As with Mathew, no baptismal record for William was found. He has been mis-pedigreed to have a father named Adam due to someone who found a birth record for a William but the poster neglected to understand that “d. an infant” meant that the child had died as an infant. That Adam did not have another child he named William. Thousands of trees copied the wrong information and therefore, the wrong pedigree.

William has been recorded as marrying Deborah Hatton but no marriage record was provided. Online trees show Deborah Hatton, daughter of Thomas Eaton and Isabella Lathom Hatton to have died about 1650, with no sources. She could not have been the Deborah who married William Baines of interest as that Deborah was living in 1660. It is understandable how Deborah Hatton was identified as William Baines’s wife as her father Thomas was purportedly buried in Goosnargh, Wyersdale, again, with no source.

There has been one document found showing William Baines, Dorothy Baines, and Mathew Baines all in the same location at the same time – an arrest of the men for attending a Quaker meeting in 1660 in Lancaster. Dorothy was often a nickname for Deborah. Unfortunately, no relationship was provided.

Mathew remained a Quaker as he later married in that faith to Margaret Hatton and had his five children baptized as Quakers. He died while emigrating to Bucks County, Pennsylvania in 1686/7, likely on a William Penn ship.

No other records were found for Dorothy or Deborah Baines so she likely died shortly after the 1660 arrests of her probable husband and son.

But this leads us to another problem with the trees. William was said to have remarried a Sarah Hepworth but no marriage record was found. The couple have been recorded to have three children, James, born 1655, Joseph, 1657, and John/Jonathan, 1658, though Johnathan was likely confused with a son of James.

James, based on court document copies found in a local church, was a devout Quaker like his father William. The court record provided that James had a brother Joseph and they resided next to each other. James had purchased the land from his father, William in May 1685. William had purchased some of the property from his own father, William Sr., in 1651. The eldest William retained partial land as noted by another document that showed 2/3 of his estate was under sequestration in 1653. That portion was likely sold out of the family to John Robinson and Robert Hebblethwaite but was repurchased by grandson James in 1662 and 1677.

We also know that William [Jr.] had a brother named Joseph who was a Quaker. This was also confirmed by another source that noted both men were imprisoned for not paying tithes in 1664 in Sedbergh, Yorkshire.

Many records for William have been found: In 1661 he refused to take an oath, in 1662 he was imprisoned in Yorkshire Castle, he was again imprisoned in Yorkshire Castle in 1664, he paid a hearth tax in Pooley Bridge, Westmorland, near Sedburgh in 1669-1672, he received a fine in 1670 for attending a Quaker meeting, he was brought to court in Richmond for not paying his Easter tithe in 1674, he was imprisoned in Lancaster Castle for nonpayment of tithes in 1675, and returned to Richmond Court in 1675-1676 as a defendant in a case brought by a local minister.

He may or may not be the William who renounced being a Quaker in Lancaster in 1679.

No further records were found for William and he may be the William who was buried on 18 September 1687 in Lancashire, England.

From one additional document regarding an interesting panel in a local church, we are given a further pedigree of William Sr. The earliest Baine in the region was Adam Baines of Hegholme who acquired land in Whinfell in 1428. Adam had a son named William who was living in Hegholme Hall in 1497. William’s son Adam inherited a portion of Hegholme known as Gilfoot but sold it before Easter 1546 to John Rigmaden and Anthony Rose. Adam’s son was probably John, whose son Thomas Baynes of Hegholme was baptized on 14 December 1544. Adam likely had a second son, Adam [Jr.] who had children Mable, Thomas, and James. Adam’s probable third son, William, became the heir of Hegholme after his brothers died. This was the William who was recorded as having a bastard child.

Thus, the correct pedigree for the family is as follows:

Although a William Baines was the father of Mathew Baines who died at sea in 1686/7, it was not likely the William Baines who had sons James and Joseph who lived on what had been Hegholme Hall.

The Mathew of interest’s mother was still living when the William of Hegholme married Sarah and had two or three children. Bigamy is not accepted by the Quakers. No divorce record has been found.

If Mathew was the eldest son of William he would have been the son to have purchased Hegholme. An explanation for him not doing so could have been that his wife and three of his five children had died and he wanted a fresh start in the colonies. It is interesting that William sold Hegholme to James in 1685 and Mathew left the following year. It was more likely a coincidence as was the case of a woman named Deborah who happened to live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and was placed as a daughter of Mathew when she was from a different family line.

Mathew was probably related to the William of Hegholme but not in a father-son relationship. William’s brother, Joseph, purportedly purchased land in Bucks County, Pennsylvania where Mathew intended to settle, although I have not found a deed to verify that claim.

The problem here is the records are sketchy, there are too many men with the same name in close locations, who all joined the Quaker faith. Until additional records are located my online tree will not have William of Hegholme as the father of Mathew of Wyersdale.

Oppose HB 1148.03 – Preserve Access to Indiana’s History

This wasn’t my plan for a blog post but I think it’s vitally important for everyone interested in family history, whether you live in Indiana or not.

I’m copying the email I sent out to many folks who do live in Indiana yesterday. Even it you don’t – this will effect you as records are disappearing. Don’t believe me but believing your news source?! Think again. This is a bipartisan attack on all of us and we need to have our voices heard.:

This morning, I became aware of Indiana House Bill 1148.03, which just passed and is headed for the state Senate. I am emailing you because I know you have a deep love of history and genealogy.

While the bill has been widely framed as addressing gender changes on birth certificates, hidden within its provisions is a major change that threatens the work of genealogists, historians, and all who seek access to historical birth records. Buried on page 10 of the bill is a proposal to extend the restriction on birth certificate access from 75 years to 99 years. This unnecessary change would significantly hinder the ability of genealogists, historians, and researchers to access critical historical records, delaying access for an additional 24 years—nearly an entire generation.

This same legislative effort was attempted in January 2024 (HB 1365) but failed in committee. Now, it has returned—this time hidden within a broader bill.

Why This Change Must Be Stopped:

A Reversal of Established Access – For decades, the 75-year threshold has balanced privacy concerns with the public’s right to access historical records. Arbitrarily extending the wait to 99 years serves no clear purpose other than restricting access to our collective history.

Hindering Family Research – Birth records are vital for genealogical research, citizenship applications, and historical studies. This change would block access to information for countless individuals seeking to understand their heritage.

A Threat to Historical and Academic Research – Many historical projects rely on birth records to reconstruct community histories, track migration patterns, and verify personal identities. Extending the restriction to 99 years would severely impede research and publication efforts.

No Justification for the Change – There has been no demonstrated need for this increase. Indiana’s current 75-year access aligns with national norms, ensuring transparency while respecting privacy. This bill does not provide a clear reason why an additional 24-year delay is necessary.

Take Action Now

If HB 1148.03 is passed, Indiana will become one of the most restrictive states in the nation regarding historical birth records. We cannot allow this to happen.

I urge you to contact your legislators immediately and demand that they reject this extension to 99 years. Let them know that historians, genealogists, and the public deserve access to their past.

Find your representative and senator here:

Or better yet, copy the list of email addresses and paste them into the “To” field of your email composition window.

If you prefer, you can call the Indiana Senate at (800) 382-9467 or snail mail them at:

Indiana Senate

200 W. Washington St.

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2786

Please make sure that your message is clear, concise, and respectful because that’s who we are.

Together, we can ensure that our history remains accessible to future generations.

Sincerely,

Lori Samuelson, NBCT Emeritus & Genealogist

This is not just Indiana – Records are disappearing. Here are some other situations that need to be addressed immediately:

“An executive order was issued yesterday to reduce the funding for the Institute for Library and Museum Service (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/continuing-the-reduction-of-the-federal-bureaucracy/). This appears likely to reduce grant funding to libraries that, in some states, is being spent on genealogical programming and resources. The current 5-year plan for Massachusetts, for example, includes “Goal 4: Build Thriving Communities – Massachusetts residents will have opportunities to discover and explore their personal and community histories[…].” To learn how money is being sent in your state, go to https://www.imls.gov/find-funding/funding-opportunities/grants-state/state-profiles/massachusetts , swapping in the appropriate state name.”
“The other issue that needs attention is the National Archives where the current conversation is about shutting facilities and selling/leasing real estate instead of providing access to records. Please take a moment to read: “

https://fundnara.com/

History SHOULD NOT be erased. We should have access to it and learn from it. Please take a moment to email ALL OF THE Indiana State Senators. Here is a letter you can copy and send:

Subject: Please Vote NO on HB 1148.03

Dear Senator,

I am writing to oppose the provision in HB 1148.03 that would delay public access to birth certificates from 75 years to 99 years. This change serves no clear purpose but blocks access to history for an entire generation.

Birth records are not just for genealogists—they help people reconnect with their family roots, preserve Indiana’s history, and even prove eligibility for heritage societies. The current 75-year rule has worked for decades—why change it now?

Please vote NO on this provision and keep Indiana’s history accessible.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

I also want you to know that Nextdoor refused to allow me to post the above letter. Said it wouldn’t allow “election” information. This has nothing to do with elections – it has to do with the government not working for the people but I guess Nextdoor’s view is that’s the folks we elected so you get what you voted for.

One more thing – I had someone respond with this: “It is probably related to thousaads of deceased people age 104+ that have been fraudulently collecting Social Security. When you access the birth cert, do you have access to SSN? If not, I’m totally with you.”

THIS IS FAKE NEWS! Here was my response:

I appreciate your concern about Social Security fraud, and I want to clarify that this bill has nothing to do with protecting Social Security numbers—those are already not included on publicly available birth certificates. In fact, no identifying personal financial data (like SSNs) are released when historical birth records become public. The current 75-year rule has worked effectively for decades, and there is no evidence that extending it to 99 years would prevent fraud. Instead, this change would only harm genealogists, historians, and everyday Hoosiers who rely on these records to trace family history, apply for heritage societies, and preserve Indiana’s past. This same proposal was already rejected by lawmakers in 2024 (HB 1365), which tells us that there was no compelling reason for this change then—and there isn’t one now. If you’re with me on this, I encourage you to contact your legislators and let them know that this unnecessary restriction should not become law. We need to protect public access to history, not block it.

My husband and I took a few minutes yesterday to email each Indiana state senator. Please do so as soon as possible.