Uncertain Existence ??? [closed]

Question

The find a grave source cited shows a picture of a burial site of a United Empire Loyalist. Upon closer inspection, this is not a burial site for Hannah Van Tock

There are several references to other sources on other websites that are not correct such as this source:

__Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; County Marriage Registers, 1858-June 1869; Series Number: Ms 932; Reel: 14

There is no MS-932;Reel: 14 the County Marriage Registers - 1858 - June 1869 are all on MS: 248. When reviewing Reel: 14 it does not relate to Hannah Van Tock.

There is no primary source for ANY of the information that is present in this persons profile or the attached descendants or ancestors.

I Reviewed the following source:

Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Registrations of Marriages, 1869-1928; Series Number: Ms 932; Reel: 16.

Again MS: 932 is used. And the people referenced as parents Michael and Hannah Showers" relate to what appears to be "Hannahs" "granddaughter" [[Showers-420|Michael Showers (abt.1798-)]1h97

[edit]

Answer 1

It seems Matt is writing about Van_Tock-10, for anyone who wants to find the profile the easy way.

Comments

That is quite a large write-up on her FG, with references to local history books and people who actually met her, and members of her family, for her not to have existed.  That FG picture clearly states there is no longer a cemetery at that location- it is a historical picture only and does not claim to have any direct connection with Hannah.  So, I don't know if you can claim uncertain existence unless you can review all those local historical records mentioned.  You can (and have) point(ed) out the inaccuracies that you have found, and keep checking the other references.

Added the FG for her father, which was not referenced on his profile (Van_Tock-2).  It is a sad state of affairs that the only 2 previous references were "firsthand info" by XXX- not possible for something from the 1700s (unless we have time-travelers amongst us...)

---

Right, unless Matt can show that the cited and fully-quoted contemporary obituary in the Niagara Gleaner, July 30, 1825 (among other sources) is a forgery, then this profile should not be marked "Uncertain Existence" much less fraud. The fact that facsimiles of this entire newspaper from that year is not easily found online is not sufficient.

This question should also be linked to the Van_Tock-10 profile.

---

There is not one primary source so unlesss you can find something that supports this person existed then i welcome it. Ive done an extensive search on relatives and i cannot verify that any of them actually existed. Take for example the fact that it is claimed they are loyalists. Neither Hannah or Michael are listed in the Hamilton EUL list of loyalists https://uel-hamilton.com/history/our-ancestors/loyalist-profiles/page/8/

I have also added to my research note on the profile which includes additional reasonings behind my suspected non-existence. 

---

Newspaper obituaries are primary sources. I’ve found the same obituary quoted in a centennial article on Ancestry. I’ll see later about citing that.

I’m not sure how to say this tactfully but your research note, particularly with regard to the obituary, is veering into conspiratorial territory. Why would a newspaper make up a nonexistent, prolific and prominent local citizen’s death to fuel future genealogical fraud? Or, what evidence do you have that it is a later forgery? It seems like you are starting from the assumption that this person doesn’t exist rather than fairly gathering sources and following where they go.

Your criticisms of the obituary are off the mark. The fact that the children on WikiTree don’t match the obituary is irrelevant; WikiTree is a work in progress. One reason she has more children linked than in the obituary is that there are duplicates that need to be merged; Sarah Ann & Ann, for instance; you actually created the duplicate Sarah Ann Schauer-704 profile. Of course the number of grandchildren doesn’t match; WikiTree is incomplete and anyway she could continue to have grandchildren born following her death. You say two great-grandchildren is impossible; why? And you point out a memorial comment on FindAGrave that you find odd; probably some relative simply left a comment on the wrong memorial. This happens all the time and can’t be imputed to primary sources anyway; it’s just an internet comment.

This profile was lacking in sources, but it is now a rather unbalanced characterization of sources that are still not properly cited or summarized.

---

Ok, listen, im not going to argue with you about it. I did a quick search into a profile managed by Merle Showers Daniel Showers. These are the discrepancies I can find and this is just the beginning of errors related to the Showers surname:     Showers-7

********

The date of death of Daniel Showers and the place of death match the profile details of same.

Death Record:

https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/2473566:8946

 As per birth record: Daniel Showers is the father of Catherine, not the son as per birth record.

https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/1459338:8838

**********************

Father of Catherine is Daniel Showers 

Mother of Catherine is Jane Allan

Catherine Allen married John MacIntosh

This is according to the marriage record. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/101228848:7921

********************

==Sources==

DEATH:

Archives of Ontario. Registrations of Deaths, 1869-1948 (MS 935, reels 1-694), Archives of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

MARRIAGE:

Archives of Ontario; Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Series: Registrations of Births and Stillbirths, 1869-1913; Reel: 38; Record Group: Rg 80-2

I know you are going to say that this is not related to Hannah, I disagree if i found this many errors in one profile imagine the ripple effect. This whole families existence is very questionable as it relates to the persons portrayed in WikiTree and the subsequent relationships.

I have made an argument with VALID resources that can be verified.

---

As for the relative leaving comment on wrong relative,not likely. But you can speculate all you want.

---

I took a closer look; there's a story about her and black bean bread. She has countless descendants, is well-known, and one of them left a comment for her in the second person calling her "grandma" just to make it personal (rather than "ancestor" or "Xth-great-grandma"). This does not bolster your case that she is invented or fraudulent.

---

Oh yeah. Where did you read this supoosed story?

---

I have updated my Research Notes, Added Sources, and removed the templates. There is still quite a bit of digging to verify the validity of the sources mentioned in the Find A Grave Memorial, feel free to lend a hand on a rainy day down the road.

---

I let this brew because you were still actively editing this and I wanted to give you more time to draw your own conclusions without beating a dead horse.

I see David Rutherford has already reworked and removed some of the material you added, and added additional sourcing. In my view, his finding of an index to the microfilm for her original obituary is conclusive. Someone can go to that library and compare the original text to the reprinted text and confirm its authenticity. Barring that the library index itself is a pointer to the original, contemporary source which we already have reproduced in other sources.

Saying great-great-grandchildren being alive is a basis for her entire existence and biography being a fabrication is very off the mark. Yes the math adds up. My own great-grandmother Jessie Heffron had three great-great-grandchildren when she died at age 91 and I know that because I was there and they are my cousin's children. She didn't even have her first child until she was 28. It is not rare for late octogenarians to have great-great grandchildren.

Please be more cautious in the future about drawing dramatic conclusions about profiles and applying the "Uncertain Existence" tag. If you have questions it would be a good idea to work them out in the comments or G2G first if you do not have a solid case.

---

Nathan. I appreciate the reply amd time you have taken to help me out on this. I just wanted to say that it wasnt just the number of children and great grandchildren etc, it was a multitude of things that didnt add up, I own that i may have not gone about it the absolute right way but I believe that I wasnt 100% in the wrong either. Either way, it wont be something i plan on repeating anytime soon.