If you have been researching your family history for any length of time, you very well may have spent time in what I call the “rabbit hole”, à la Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. “Going down the rabbit hole” is, unfortunately, not uncommon, given what we sometimes rely on to document our research.
I see it all the time when I review family trees on sites like Ancestry and FamilySearch. Many a researcher has obviously taken a trip down the proverbial rabbit hole, relying on dubious research, or, worse yet, copying from someone else’s tree (which may very well have been populated the exact same way).
In particular, genealogical fraud and inheritance scams of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, can still lead us astray – far off the beaten path – even in the twenty-first century. As you will see it pays to know your history, as well as utilizing common sense and some basic math skills. We all need a reminder of the pitfalls of genealogical research from time to time.
It’s no wonder genealogical research has become such a popular pursuit with popular television programming like Who Do You Think You Are? and Finding Your Roots. Ancestry.com and similar sites have ballooned into a multi-million (or try BILLION) dollar industry.
The advertisements seen on television and across the Internet, coupled with the success stories depicted in these shows, have piqued the interest of millions of people around the world. After all it sounds so easy – like magic almost – given the “happy endings” featured in the various genealogy television programs. What is not depicted in these shows, however, are the hours of behind-the-scenes research which must take place in order to deliver those “happy endings”. I hate to say it but so many these days are gullible enough to believe they can discover their family history in a relatively short period of time, just like they do on television. If you are a serious and sober-minded genealogist, you are aware that’s quite unlikely to happen.
There are no magic solutions, nor are there web sites which will reveal each and every detail of each and every one of your ancestors. Remember the old adage: “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”? The same can be said for web sites claiming to sell access to databases “you can’t find anywhere else” or quick solutions to your genealogical “brick walls”. These sites, however, are likely to be a total waste of both your time and hard-earned money. Similarly, beware of sites which claim to sell things like your family’s entire history, the history of your family name, or even in some cases a “fake” family crest or coat of arms.
Family Crests and Coats of Arms
One of your ancestors may indeed have been legitimately granted a coat of arms, yet today many web sites seem to imply surnames are attached to these noble symbols. Simply not true.
According to the College of Arms in London, there is no such thing as a coat of arms for a surname. They point out that many people with the same surname can be entitled to entirely different coats of arms, while some people with the same surname (or perhaps a variation) aren’t entitled to one at all.
Furthermore, they point out that coats of arms belong to individuals who have had it granted to them or descendants of the legitimate male line of a person previously granted one. It must be confirmed to be legitimate. And, it’s not that American citizens cannot be entitled to a coat of arms. It depends on whether an American can show proof of descent from a subject of the British Crown or some other royal entity.
A popular misconception exists that the term “family crest” is the same as the entire coat of arms. The crest is “a specific part of a full achievement of arms: the three-dimensional object placed on top of the helm.”1 Thus, those companies who claim to sell your family crest may or may not be on the up-and-up. Caveat Emptor.
Finding the Cherokee Princess in Your Family Tree
Everyone who has actually found a Cherokee princess in their family tree, raise your hand. Hmm . . . I didn’t think so, but why is that? Primarily, it’s because there was no such thing as a Cherokee or Indian princess. Orrin Lewis, a Cherokee, has some observations:
“Princess” may be a very poor translation for the chief’s daughter. Remember, Cherokee chiefs were not kings, but rather chosen by their tribe or community. Lewis muses that perhaps the “mis-translation” may have been the result of American fascination with royalty, or as he called them “romantic-minded white people”.2
“Princess” may also have been a poor translation for an important female politician, peace chief or “Beloved Woman.” Again, these would have been elected positions and not inherited. Should you have such a person, Lewis suggests you not use the term “princess” for such an obviously “interesting and powerful woman”.
The term may have been used by ancestors who married Indian women, hoping to alleviate racial tensions or stigmatization. In fact, men who married Indian women may have referred to their
wives as Cherokee simply because the Cherokees were considered more civil than most tribes.
It’s entirely possible that an ancestor referred to as an Indian princess may have actually been African-American. Lewis related the experience of one family researcher who had discovered that the term was sometimes used derogatorily in the South for light-skinned mulatto women (e.g., “light yellow”).
Next: The King of Genealogical Fraud (whose dubious research still effects family trees today).
Thanks for stopping by! For more stories like this one, consider subscribing to Digging History Magazine. Purchasing a subscription entitles you to subscriber benefits (20% off all services, including custom-designed family history charts) AND a chance to win your very own custom-designed family history chart! Details here (or click the ad below).
Footnotes: