March Ancestors

For the sake of brief entries, I am not footnoting the facts in this ongoing memorial. Sources have been noted either in other blog posts or in my family history books.

2 March 1852 Peter Dougall married Catharine Fraser at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, St. Andrews East, Quebec. Peter was a native of Midlothian, having emigrated to Argenteuil Seigniory/County with his parents in 1834. Catharine was a Quebec native and a double Fraser—her father John Fraser from Perthshire, and her mother Ann (Nancy) Fraser of an Inverness-shire line. Peter and Catharine lived long and productive lives mainly in Renfrew, Ontario, raising nine children there. In their old age they moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba, to be near some of their children. They were two of my great-grandparents.

14 March 1894 William Charles Dougall married Jessie Isabella (Belle) McFadyen at Sunnyside (now Springfield), Manitoba. The wedding took place at Belle's family farm home. A Winnipeg newspaper account listed every gift the couple received, from crystal and china to linens. The bride's “beautiful costume” was also noted, unfortunately without further description. Seventy guests sat down to dinner after the ceremony; “dancing and amusements were indulged during the evening.” They lived in Winnipeg most of their lives, raising a family of three. Will and Belle were my paternal grandparents.

Invaders Came, Speaking English

I live in a town that was invaded by foreign nationals. No, I do not live in the Middle East or the Middle Ages.

The town was York, later becoming Toronto. In 1813, the town was twenty years old. It had merchants, builders, carpenters, storekeepers, surveyors, soldiers, sailors, free and enslaved blacks, civil servants, drunks, petty thieves, remittance men, doctors, judges, clergymen, land speculators, a midwife, a baker, a brewer, and ordinary folk. Not to mention transient farmers, natives, peddlers, and con men. It had a newspaper, a church, a school, a courthouse, a jail, a post office, a tannery, shipbuilding, wharves, hotels, theatrical performances, outdoor winter amusements, and some fine social distinctions. Altogether your normal little town.

"York on Lake Ontario," [looking west from the blockhouse, the fort is far in the distance]; print of engraving by William Leney; Toronto Public Library.

 

Fort York to the west of the town guarded the entrance to Toronto Harbour (there was no Eastern Gap in those days). Upper Canada did not have an army. It was a British colony and British troops manned a network of fortifications along the Great Lakes system. By law, a sedentary militia of able-bodied inhabitants was required to muster once a year, when training was minimal if anything.

Map of harbour: Benson J. Lossing, The Pictorial Field-Book of the War of 1812, Archives of Ontario Library; as seen in the AO online exhibit, "Commemorating the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the War of 1812." [URL below]

 

On 19 June 1812, the United States declared war on Britain. One of their intentions was to gain and absorb the British colonies to the north. By 1813 the majority of our troops were occupied at the Niagara border, along the eastern waterways, at Lake Erie, and westward to Detroit. York was safe, wasn't it? ... because it was well away from border territory.

Wrong. On 27 April 1813 the Americans sailed across Lake Ontario, reinforced by their naval guns, and overwhelmed the inadequate garrison numbers at Fort York. The British soldiers finally retreated to Kingston after blowing up the fort's powder magazine—a huge explosion that killed or wounded hundreds. During six days of occupation, the fearful citizens of York saw American commanders lose control of their troops who pillaged and looted, burning homes and buildings. Torching the Parliament buildings was a final insult.

In December 1813, invading forces also burned down the town of Newark (Niagara-on-the-Lake) to leave the residents homeless in winter. Retaliation was inevitable. Part of it came the following year in August when the British Navy burned Washington and its White House. Fight and burn. What were we all thinking?

The Market Gallery, poster for "Finding the Fallen: The Battle of York Remembered."

In 1934 the U.S. government returned the stolen ceremonial mace of Parliament to the Ontario legislature. One American officer managed to retrieve and return numerous books take from the library. I don't know if plunder was ever returned to St. James Church. York's first fire engine, a gift to the town from early Lieutenant Governor Peter Hunter, had been carried off by the invaders and the trophy is said to remain in “a Washington museum.”[1]

Granted, my post barely scratches the surface of one event in the War. See more of the bigger picture from historians and records-keepers; here are but a few of the Canadian dedicated websites:

Toronto Bicentennial, The War of 1812: http://www.toronto.ca/1812/index.htm

The War of 1812 Website: www.warof1812.ca

Casualty Database: http://www.1812casualties.org/

1812 and All That: http://www.ontopoftheworld.net/category/1812-and-all-that/

Archives of Ontario: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/1812/index.aspx

Library and Archives Canada: http://1812.gc.ca/eng/1305654894724/1305655293741

Revival of the great debate--Who Won?--should educate younger generations in both nations; it's being conducted, on the whole, with better humour than the original conflict. After all, Americans did not win the British North American colonies. Canadians defeated a takeover (thanks to regular troops and a resurgent militia). Sadly, our staunch Indian allies were the main losers; the proposal for a neutral Indian zone in the west was rejected in the Treaty of Ghent.

Repeat: What were we all thinking?

History, or historians, tell us that the War was the birth moment of pride in our own country. Canada .. and Ontario .. and Toronto .. have hundreds of events planned to commemorate the War of 1812. A shot of adrenalin for our modest but committed patriotism. We want to share everything—no holds barred—with our cousins across “the world's longest undefended border.” Or does that mean downtown Toronto bars will be open all hours. Debatable.

In this city, military and civilian reenactors will be appearing on the streets. The First Parliament Interpretive Centre is already exhibiting “Foundations & Fire: Early Parliament and the War of 1812 Experience at York.” From March 3^rd the St. Lawrence Market Gallery will feature “Finding the Fallen: The Battle of York Remembered.” Fort York itself will have any number of spectacular events in the spring and summer, and yes! oh thank goodness, a grand military PARADE!

I'd really like to know where that fire engine is!

[1] Eric Wilfrid Hounsom, Toronto in 1810 (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1970), 180. So far, I have not determined what museum this would be. Any help from readers? 

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2012

Frasers Part 19 (Inverness-shire)

From a work in progress: regarding John Fraser, “from Inverness-shire,” who emigrated about 1805 to settle on the River Rouge Road, St. Andrews East, Argenteuil County, Quebec.

John’s second wife Margery McIntyre is my direct ancestor but her background is as obscure as that of his first wife, Ann Fraser. Margery was born about 1785 and died at St Andrews, Quebec, (“Marjory McIntyre, widow of Jn. Fraser”) 16 May 1869 at age 84.[1] Her age at death is consistent with her age at their marriage date.[2] She was also recorded as Mary, Margaret or Marion in different sources. Page by page searches of the 1861 census for the parish fail to show where and with whom she was living; the Ancestry database is equally unrewarding. Although the Presbyterian church register gives us her date of death, as with husband John there is no surviving gravestone. The few McIntyre burials in St. Andrews Cemetery are not enlightening.

Perhaps a Catherine McIntyre, age 75 in the 1851 census at St. Andrews and married to John Cameron age 88, is her sister or close relative.[3] That census—the only record where Catherine has been found to date—places her birth year ca.1777. The Cameron couple were in the River Rouge cluster two households away from Margery’s stepson James Fraser. Angus Cameron age 34 (born in Canada) is living with them; he is married to Harriett Dochsteter and they have two very young children. Angus appears to be the son of John and Catherine, born in the last years of Catherine’s fertility. The incumbent of the Grenville & Chatham Presbyterian Church performed the Cameron-Dochstetter marriage on 25 September 1844 at River Rouge; Ewen Cameron and Peter Taylor were witnesses.[4] Parents of the bride and groom were customarily not recorded by the clergy. The same register contains a whole slew of Cameron marriages—I expect some of them were children of John and Catherine.

Inverlochy Castle, Fort William; TripAdvisor photo

According to local history compiler Thomas, a John Cameron came to Côte du Midi in Argenteuil “about 1802.”[5] If this man, known as Preacher Cameron, is the same as the 88-year-old in 1851, then his storied origin in Fort William, Scotland, could be significant for McIntyre research. An Internet correspondent confirmed that the “Preacher” was indeed Catherine McIntyre’s husband, but he/she has not replied with a source for the information.[6] Unfortunately, I have not found a marriage for John and Catherine (parameters 1793-1806) in the parish registers database of ScotlandsPeople, nor in early Presbyterian registers of Quebec. It’s possible they were married by a dissenting minister whose records are unavailable. Baptisms of Catherine and Margery (various spellings) born to a McIntyre couple in the relevant time span are also not forthcoming.

The Internet provides several avenues for essential background information. Preacher clearly implies that John Cameron had the gift of oratory (no doubt based on intensive bible studies) to spread the gospel. In pioneer times, such a man was a great comfort to the faithful in the absence of an ordained minister. Just in case, I did look at Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae (potted biographies of Scottish clergy) but did not find the volume for Inverness-shire; Argyll presented no likely John Camerons.[7]

An important step is to acquaint myself with the location. Fort William in Scotland, purported origin of John Cameron, refers to both a fort and a town, strategically located at the north end of Loch Linnhe. The site is said to be in the parishes of Kilmallie and Kilmonivaig.[8] Accordingly, Kilmallie straddles the Great Glen, and its northwestern portion is the only Argyll component; Kilmonivaig shares the intersection in Fort William and then falls south of its sister parish.

While the FamilySearch Wiki places Kilmallie completely in Argyll,[9] other sources say the town is in Kilmallie, Inverness-shire.[10] The former source states basically there are no marriage records from September 1790 to February 1811; kirk sessions records exist only from 1836. The town had name changes over the centuries ... Gordonsburgh, Maryburgh, Duncansburgh, and finally the burgh of Fort William.[11]

North Argyll parishes from Lochaber and North Argyll Family History Group

I can see the headache coming ... fluid parish boundaries and jurisdictions will make for interestingly complex research (assuming there are some sources to investigate)! I’m also aware that an emigrant who said he was “from” a certain place may have named it only as the nearest, presumably better-known, point of reference.

The first Statistical Account of Scotland tells me more about the parish and its people.[12] Rev. Mr. Alexander Fraser compiled the Kilmallie report. At this time in the 1790s, the town was referred to as Maryburgh (population 1,200 with 194 at the fort garrison). In brief, the inhabitants (apart from the town) raised cattle and crops of oats, barley, and potatoes; their diet consisted largely of the latter. Their noted prejudice against smallpox inoculation seems indicative of a general Highland distrust of intrusive authority. It was customary for many to migrate seasonally to “the Low Countries” at harvest time for employment. Cameron of Lochiel and the Duke of Gordon were two of the main estate owners.

Here’s the bad news (but totally expected) straight from Mr. Fraser:

“For several reasons, it is almost impossible to keep an exact register of baptisms and marriages, in so extensive a parish as this. Unless the clergyman, at the time of these ordinances, write down, in a memorandum book, and transmit them afterward to the session clerk, they will never be registered; for the parties themselves either neglect, or disregard to do it. Besides, it is believed, that the Papists and Episcopalians keep a separate register of their own births and marriages. And, of deaths, no register has ever yet been attempted to be kept in the parish.” 

I am a long way from connecting any dots to the unproven McIntyre sisters!

[This produced a marathon of citations, not all to my satisfaction, but a great way to practice and improve!]
1. St. Andrews (St. Andrews East, Quebec) Presbyterian register, Vol. III, p. 60; correspondence Rev. W. Harold Reid to Brenda Merriman, 23 September 1970.
2. St. Gabriel Street (Montreal, Quebec) Presbyterian [first] register of baptisms, marriage, and burials, p. 47, Fraser-McIntyre marriage, 1808; Archives of Ontario (AO) microfilm MS 351 reel 1. Also, “Quebec Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection) 1621-1967,” digital image, Ancestry.ca (www.ancestry.ca/ : accessed 19 April 2008) where he is indexed as John Francer.
3 John Cameron household, 1851 Census Canada East, District 33, Deux Montagnes, E.D. 11, parish of St. Andrews, sheet 21, stamped p. 41; LAC microfilm C-1147.
4 “Quebec Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection) 1621-1967,” digital image, Ancestry.ca (http://www.ancestry.ca : accessed 25 September 2011), Cameron-Doxstader marriage, 1844; citing Chatham-Grenville Presbyterian register, p. 45.
5. Cyrus Thomas, Histories of the Counties Argenteuil, Quebec and Prescott, Ontario (1896; reprint Bellevville, ON: Mika Publishing, 1981), 144.
6. Anders153, “Still looking for McLean connections in River Rouge, Cote du Midi, St. Andrews E,” Rootsweb’s Argenteuil message board (http://boards.ancestry.com/localities.northam.canada.quebec.laurentides.argenteuil), 3 September 2011.
7. Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Google books; accessed 14 February 2012.
8. ScotlandsPlaces (http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/ : accessed 14 February 2012).
9. “Kilmallie, Argyl[sic], Scotland,” FamilySearch Wiki (https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Kilmallie,_Argyl,_Scotland : accessed 15 February 2012).
10. Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland, vol. 6, p. 498, digital image, Electric Scotland (http://www.electricscotland.com/history/gazetteer/vol6page498.htm : accessed 15 February 2012). “Maps of north and south Argyll Parishes – 19th Century,” Lochaber and North Argyll Family History Group (http://www.lochaberandnorthargyllfamilyhistorygroup.org.ukid70.html : accessed 15 February 2012).
11. Gazetteer for Scotland (http://www.scottish-places.info/towns/ : accessed 14 February 2012).
12. Sir John Sinclair, Statistical Account of Scotland, 1791-1799, vol. 8 [includes Inverness-shire], p. 410; University of Edinburgh, Edina Data Centre (http://stat-acc-scot.edina.ac.uk/sas/sas.asp?action=public&passback= : accessed 14 February 2012).

Silent Sundays

It's time for a little colour on a cold day.

The North Market, Front Street, Toronto. Photograph 2011, BDM.

Loyalists: Eligibility -- Common Sense or Splitting Hairs?

Ah, yes. We’ve been talking about eligibility ... most recently (my prior post on the subject) about successful application for regular membership in the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada (UELAC). Which is also a corollary to this post. Because membership eligibility and the ancestor’s eligibility are two sides of the same coin. This is the sixth in a small series about Loyalist ancestors.

We are returning to the ancestors again, the major determinants for regular UELAC membership. We know Lord Dorchester recognized them as those who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire and had joined the royal standard before the war officially ended. The UELAC has expressed Dorchester’s qualifications in their general guidelines for the ancestor’s eligibility:
■ Either male or female, as of 19 April 1775, who had been a resident of the American colonies from which they departed to resettle in British territory;  
■ A soldier who served in an American Loyalist Regiment and was disbanded in Canada;
■ A member of the Six Nations of either the Grand River or the Bay of Quinte Reserve who is descended from one whose migration was similar to that of other Loyalists.

A few years ago, the Loyalist’s eligibility was further interpreted to include (all but the last referring to those who joined the Royal Standard, i.e. served in an American Loyalist regiment):
■ Who died either in service or in prison during the War;
■ Who died on their way to Canada but their families settled in Canada;
■ Who settled in Canada and after a period of time, returned to another British Colony or the USA;
■ Who were unable to complete the land grant regulations due to ill health;
■ Women whose documentation demonstrates loyalty above and beyond being spouses of Loyalists.

The UELAC may have approved more refinements to an ancestor’s eligibility; confirmation is not forthcoming yet (anyone?):
■ With appropriate evidence [one assumes], boys from refugee camps, aged nine to sixteen at the time, who did odd jobs helping at the military camps would be considered Loyalists in their own right; 
■ Loyalists who supported the British but arrived as refugees, not appearing on a regimental muster roll perhaps because of age or poor health;
■ Some "Late Loyalists" who arrived in Canada after 1789.

You see how the collected experience of applicants and branch genealogists assists both groups in determining eligibility of the ancestor in question. Some thorny issues have been resolved, for example, the demonstrable Loyalist who died before reaching British territory. Other issues are not so clear or perhaps more contentious, such as a “cut off” date of arrival for the Loyalist. Occasionally it’s possible to uncover the reasons why some individuals lingered on American soil long after the War concluded. Or why some would return to an American state years after leaving it.

Is the status of Francophone residents of British colonies who took up arms and/or supported the British forces still in limbo? They had not been residents of the (rebelling) “American colonies” before 1775. Some lost property; some did not.

Records created by contemporary officials can contain variations in the recognition of UE status from one person to another. You only have to compare some entries on the various lists to get an inkling of that. Not finding indisputable direct evidence, some society applicants will have to collate a proof argument for the ancestor’s status/eligibility from less obvious sources and/or the avenues of whole-family research. Thus both the ancestor and admittance to regular UELAC membership frequently remain to be proved on a case by case basis.

England saw a steady stream of displaced Loyalists arriving during and after the War period, most requiring financial assistance. The initial hearings of claims for losses began August 1782 in London. At that time, the commissioners made probably the first attempt at fine distinctions of loyalty and service, for compensation purposes. Their deliberations preceded Dorchester’s landmark resolution, so the reports make interesting reading (as do the concurrent parliamentary debates).

Since then, as you see above, fine distinctions are still being explored. And that makes more blog discussion possible. 

Talking to myself is not productive. Bloggers always appreciate comments on their posts; all points of view are welcome. Dialogue is healthy.

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2012
labels: Loyalists, United Empire Loyalists, Upper Canada

February Ancestors

For the sake of brief entries, I am not footnoting the facts in this ongoing memorial. Sources have been noted either in other blog posts or in my family history books.

2 February 1854 William Charles Dougall was born at Vankleek Hill, Canada West, second child and second son of Peter Dougall and Catherine “Kate” Fraser. His parents moved to the town of Renfrew, Ontario, where William grew up. He went to school until at least the age of 14 and worked with his blacksmith father in building horse carriages. William followed his older brother John to Winnipeg, Manitoba, by 1891 to start a carriage-making business. William was my paternal grandfather who died long before I was born.

4 February 1906 Otto Freibergs was murdered by Tsarist troops at Madliena, Riga District, Latvia. Otto's story was told in a previous blog. Conflicting information surrounds his date of death, complicated by distance and the foreign language factor. The date of death given here came from his son in 1933 in the Book of Remembrance (Latvijas Revolucionārio Cīnītāju Piemiņas Grāmata, reprinted 1983) where survivors and witnesses to events of the 1905-1906 revolution were testifying. If the February 4^th date is New Style (Gregorian calendar) the date at the time could have been 22 January 1906. I am told Otto's gravestone in the family plot shows merely the year 1905 (perhaps mis-read for 1906 on a weathered stone?).

Competing with Myself for iGene Awards (and Winning)

The topic for the 114th edition of the Carnival of Genealogy is: The 5th Annual iGene Awards! It’s the brainchild of the ever-creative Jasia at CreativeGene. That means choosing your own best blog posts in five categories ... a very subjective choice. On Jasia’s website after February 1st, you will see the results—submissions from a spectrum of GeneaBloggers. It’s an opportunity to see the best of your colleagues in case you missed some goodies over the past year. This is my first time participating; it’s frankly unnerving to review one’s own opus (50 posts in 2011) to see if any make the cut. Colleagues have set a high bar in past performances.
   


Here in downtown eighteenth-century York, spotlights are swooping, the glam is arriving, and the orchestra is tuning up. I be nervous, so I am incognito. Pass the free wine quickly (included in the outrageous ticket price). Deepest regrets from George Clooney and Kenneth Branagh who would have been here to present my awards but the yo-yo weather arbitrarily stranded them in Toronto South (otherwise known as Los Angeles).


Best Picture
What was I thinking? Not that many genea-photos last year! The photograph of great-grandfather Otto Freibergs was not lost; it was his identity that was FOUND. Here is where I sneak in a non-2011 biography of Otto. Old family photos are in limited supply, whereas more current family photos are quite abundant. Therefore special mention goes to The Big Lake They Call ...  which totally ignores any people living or dead. I promise to do better this year because I want to win again.

Best Documentary
The winner is Frasers Part 15. Not just because it has spectacular scenery in exotic Quebec and mythic Scotland. I am totally convinced that if you say DON’L and DAN’L in Highland -accented English they will sound the same. Even more so if you say them in the Gaelic. The post reminds me that most research posts are part of a larger work-in-progress, and the ongoing flux makes intermediate conclusions—if any—temporary. If this is not swiftly nominated for Hot Docs or the Sundance Festival, it will go straight to DVD.


Best Biography 
Biography did not have strong contenders over the required period. I declare a tie, to tepid applause (pulling my hat down to my chin). Dougall: A Reverend is a frippery based mostly on online research because Rev. John was a curiosity, not a serious study: not anywhere on my family charts. Also featured is George Porter Farewell. The post is a summary of a same-name question that extended over a series. Reading the whole works, using the embedded links, would be a chore unless you want the full complicated flavour.

Best Comedy
The judges had skimpy material since humour is generally reserved for my other blog. The Annual Letter wins by a whisker, or rather by a cocktail. My apologies to those left in suspense about driving in a nightgown. All will be auspiciously revealed on my other blog. In due time. With literary licence, of course. The Great Big Fat Family Tree was runner-up here, but really ... apart from a magnificent new acronym, it sounds stale-dated to me, as genealogy debates go.

Best Screen Play
No contest! Unanimous votes were cast for Camel Adventures: Wadi Rum. Helen Mirren will play ME, of course, Meryl Streep notwithstanding. I definitely want that gorgeous guy from Incendies to be the camel handler—the one who got shot right away by her brothers. The director has to be Doug Baum, my Texas Camel Corps friend, who understands all the nuances of desert culture. And can do the heavy lifting. Ideally, we would get Zou-Zou to play the lead camel. The movie will be filmed on location in south Jordan and have no full-frontals. Bring your family. 

No animals will be harmed in this production. In fact they will have more fun than we do. 
 
Whew. Good thing it was just me I was up against. This blogger sends out a big Thank You to the iGene Academy and all those bloggers who inspire me to do better. 


© Brenda Dougall Merriman 2011

January Ancestors (3)

For the sake of brief entries, I am not footnoting the facts in this ongoing memorial. Sources have been noted either in other blog posts or in my family history books.

20 January 1867: John Dougall, my emigrant ancestor from West Calder, Midlothian, Scotland, died on this day at the age of 86. Presumably he died at his farm located at Beech Ridge, just outside St. Andrews East, Argenteuil County, Quebec, now known as St-André Est. When he was 51 years old John came to Canada with his wife and children, two years after his oldest son had arrived. He is buried at St. Andrews East Protestant Cemetery. Had he lived another six months, he would have witnessed Canadian Confederation.

25 January [Julian calendar] 1881: Otto Freibergs of Ķonēni Farm on the Marzingshof (Latvian: Mārciņmuiža) estate, Riga District, Latvia, married Ilse Indricksons of the Wattram (Latvian: Vatrāne) estate, same district, in the Lutheran church at Suntaži, same district. They lived their married life at Ķonēni; Otto carried on the family farm where his father Ansis had been located since the 1850s. Otto was able to purchase the land in 1878 after modest reforms in Latvia allowed peasants to acquire and own land. By the turn of the twentieth century, he had become a local parish official and spokesman for further reforms. Otto and Ilse had six children, of whom four lived to adulthood.

27 January 1790: Marion Hastie was born, daughter of John Hastie and Margaret Brown of Heads Farm, Whitburn, Linlithgowshire. A baptism has not been found for Marion in relevant parish registers although most of her siblings were recorded at Whitburn. Evidence for her date of birth comes from two sources I have never seen. Her husband's family bible recorded her birth but the bible passed to the family of her youngest daughter, its whereabouts unknown now. Along the way, a transcript was made of the family dates it contained. When Marion was 14 years old, she embroidered a sampler with birth dates for herself and all her siblings—they concurred with the parish register entries when available.

January Ancestors (2)

For the sake of brief entries, I am not footnoting the facts in this ongoing memorial. Sources have been noted either in other blog posts or in my family history books.

13 Jan 1869: John McFadyen married Isabella Campbell, in Provincetown, Massachusetts. Both were natives of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia: John was from River Denys, Inverness County, and Isabella was from Points West Bay in Richmond County. Provincetown was a magnet for many “Capers” who pursued a maritime livelihood. John was known at home as John Hector because he had a younger brother John, called John Jr., or John Lauchlin. According to the Barnstable Patriot in March of that year, four McFadyens (first names not given) were captains in the season's cod fishing fleet for Provincetown. The couple had two children born there, 1869 and 1871, and relocated to a Manitoba homestead by 1874. There, the births of nine more children followed. John and Isabella were two of my great-grandparents.

 

Loyalists: Eligibility - Grab the Certificate and Hug It

This is the 5th post in an occasional series about United Empire Loyalists. Part One of eligibility (the ancestor’s) was discussed last month. Part Two is about who qualifies for regular membership in the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada (UELAC). The two parts are intertwined.

They are so intertwined—the second dependent on the first—that this scribe became uncharacteristically verbose. This post right now will continue in the near future. Smaller bites may be more palatable. 

We are more than 200 years down the road from Loyalist days of hardship in new territories of unbroken land. A century after that time, the beginnings of the UELAC were founded. It was 1914 when cohesion took place “to unite together irrespective of creed or political party the descendants of those families who during the American War 1775 to 1783 sacrificed their homes in retaining their loyalty to the British Crown, and to perpetuate their spirit of loyalty to the Empire.[1] You can see the modern mission statement at http://www.uelac.org/about.php.

The UELAC is a hereditary society. It is “an organization dedicated to enriching the lives of Canadians through knowledge of the past, in particular the history of the United Empire Loyalists and their contribution to the development of Canada.”[2] The organization does provide for affiliate and associate members which is not being discussed here.[3] Regular membership requires proving your ancestor was considered a Loyalist in his day, proving your descent from him or her, and swearing an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Presenting credible evidence and proof on your application will result in a certificate attesting to your Loyalist ancestry.

The words “hereditary” and “descent” and “prove” involve genealogy ... naturally! The research tasks of proving are essentially do-it-yourself, unless you hire a professional genealogist. A UELAC branch genealogist—because you must apply through one of its branches—will give you some guidance with your application. The application itself spells out how to proceed.

Today’s world of genealogy represents accelerated research tools, accumulated wisdom, and the evolution of applicable standards. It was not the same back in the 1880s when commemorative societies were being formed, or even in 1914. Grandchildren of Loyalists were still alive, many well into the twentieth century, as was family memory. Applicants for membership merely submitted the relevant ancestor’s name (perhaps the ghost of “everyone knew” was a factor). Not until 1970 did the UELAC establish standard proof requirements and application forms.

The UELAC was not alone in struggling with this situation. Other North American hereditary societies were undergoing the same self-reflective review as time marched on and newer generations had more descendant links to prove. The societies were slow to adapt to research standards promulgated in the wider genealogical community; after all, they didn’t want to discourage new members and offend the old ones.

Even still, the society requirements and submitted evidence may be interpreted differently from branch to branch, and/or possibly rely too much on derivative and hearsay sources. The position of Dominion Genealogist oversees all branch-approved applications for final approval. The bylaws provide for an Investigating Committee, to assist him or her. In practice, it makes sense for discretionary consultation with the relatively few problematic applications that come in—the ones with a weak generational link, or an unconvincing “argument” for identity or relationship from indirect references.

It may take more time again before the UELAC trades in the shop-worn Preponderance of Evidence principle. Aka “balance of probabilities,” it is a borrowed legal term from the fledgling days of raising the critical bar in genealogical and family history studies. It is not a sufficient measure for a proof argument collating indirect evidence. Graduating to the Genealogical Proof Standard would be a progressive step for the society.[4]

The last round of Eligibility continues next time.

[1] “The Founding of the UELAC,” United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada, (http://www.uelac.org/UELAC-history/Founding-UELAC.php).
[2] “About the UELAC,” United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada, (www.uelac.org/about.php).
[3] Associate members have an abiding interest in the Loyalist period without having a Loyalist ancestor (or are in the process of researching one). Affiliate members have met the proof requirements but cannot swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada (i.e. citizens of another country).
[4] Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry, Inc., 2000), 1-2. See also Merriman, Genealogical Standards of Evidence: A Guide for Family Historians (Toronto: Dundurn Press and The Ontario Genealogical Society, 2010), 38-41.

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2012

January Ancestors (1)

For the sake of brief entries, I am not footnoting the facts in this ongoing memorial. Sources have been noted either in other blog posts or in my family history books.

2 January 1962: Marija Jurikas Freiberg died in Port Arthur, Ontario. She was two months short of her 90^th birthday when she died, and had suffered from a form of dementia in her last years. Marija had lived at Krumini farm, Limbazi parish, Latvia; St. Petersburg, Russia; New York City; and finally settled to domestic life in Canada. She was my maternal grandmother; more information was written about her here.

3 January [Julian calendar]1843: Ansis Freibergs of Koneni farm, Kastrane, Latvia, married Trute Grunfeld at Malpils Lutheran Church. They were my great-great-grandparents.

11 January [Julian calendar] 1798: Jurri Jurikas of Allika farm, Tori parish, Estonia, died. He had married Marri, daughter of Peet, probably of a farm known as Tohivere nor Tohera or Tehver. Research in this family grouping is incomplete (and difficult without surnames in usage---to be another story) but for the one firm date. Jurri and Marri were my 4^th great-grandparents.

The Annual Letter

Right now my only New Year’s resolution is getting past the struggle with wording my Annual Letter. It used to be my Christmas letter until the kids left home. Now it comes out in January. Actually, last time it appeared was March ... pause ... two years ago. I have become a Biennial Letter writer. If it gets later and later, those distant friends and family will think I’m dead. The kind of dead for which reports have been greatly exaggerated (M. Twain, I believe) but that really happened to my doctor twenty years ago. Back when doctors impersonated human beings and had time to chat with you. I cried over the loss for at least an hour. Luckily his office knew it was a mistake because he was right there interrogating patients and tickling babies. Seems the deceased was a person of the same name. Fancy that. Genealogy rears its head everywhere.

Back to the struggle. If I want to say the family is thriving despite individual problems, should I just say they are thriving? That’s so 1980s—like everyone had a functional family. Or should I lightly mention they are either poor, jobless, or depressed, whichever applies where? But that’s sort of a teaser, right? Must be another way. For all I know, the recipients could be poor, jobless, and/or depressed too. You don’t want to rub it in. Empathy at all times.

Does Mexican friend want to hear what a great city I live in? Not when he’s battling annual floods and fighting for turtle rights. Does cousin Agnes want to hear she’ll have to buy the family history? Likely not. Does my high school friend want to hear I went to Scotland without her? What about Uncle Sydney when he hears I was in his town last year and didn’t visit him? And worst of all, who wants to hear about more camels. 

So why am I doing this and what will I “talk” about? Should I repeat stuff from my blog that they never read? You don’t have to remind me that not everyone gets thrills and chills from genealogical problem-solving.  

But wait. Speaking of thrills and chills. How about medical reports. Everyone likes a little of that. For advanced hypochondriacs who enjoy a good colonoscopy, maybe I could prepare a separate handout, you know: a blow-by-blow account of various symptoms, diagnoses, and operations; contrast and compare emergencies rooms; number up the friends in rehab centres (physical and mental). Mere cataracts and bunions don’t count. Slipping on the sidewalk doesn’t count unless it led to a hip replacement. Coronary stents and pacemakers should have a good audience. Funerals. Bedbugs. Now I’m thinking I could really go to town here.

I should probably omit events such as the outdoor café in Edinburgh where the stupid pigeon crapped on my stupid sandwich plate when I went indoors for the stupid salt and pepper. Or the time all the fake barnboard had to be peeled off my door. Or anything to do with Karaoke. Or the persistent man to whom I never properly explained the War of 1812. Or Amethyst cocktails and driving in your nightgown. Things like that.
  
It’s a delicate thing, the Annual Letter.

But a lot of fun. Oh what the hell. Throw tact and diplomacy to the winds! Happy New Year!

© 2011 Brenda Dougall Merriman

December

Peter Dougall family home, Renfrew, Ontario. Photograph BDM family collection.

Like many GeneaBloggers, I have decided to pay tribute to the ancestors by remembering them more often in my blog. It will be monthly, minimally, in my case. Starting in January. Perhaps not always regularly (the old CYA principle) in case I get caught up in something else displacing all other rational thought. It happens. A writer must go with any sudden new creative current and paddle like mad or perish.

Renfrew. A place I have never seen. My great-grandparents--Peter and Catherine “Kate” Dougall--spent the majority of their lives there. I've pored over Renfrew newspapers. I did the usual census returns, vital stats registrations, Presbyterian church records, cemeteries, wills/estate files, local correspondence, and family papers and reminiscences. I've contributed to a local history of the place. I'm lucky enough to have old photographs showing Peter and Kate at different stages of their lives.

I regret I still don't really know them. Peter and Kate raised nine children during the late nineteenth century when Peter adapted his blacksmithing trade to carriage-building. Some of the sons took it up and eventually adapted the trade to motor vehicles. It seems the couple had their share of progeny who either prospered, sadly stumbled, or quietly carried on.

As a preview for my proposed monthly discipline, Kate (Fraser) Dougall was born and died in December. My favourite photo of her was previously shown here.

© 2011 Brenda Dougall Merriman

Loyalists: Eligibility - Taken for Granted?

This is the fourth in an occasional series about United Empire Loyalists.

So I don’t lose sight of what I’m doing, a DISCLAIMER: I am an independent genealogist and family historian; my opinions or practice may not always coincide or agree with those of the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada (UELAC)—their Genealogists’ Handbook, or the Branch Genealogists, or the Dominion Genealogist. While I’ve studied documents and stories of the Loyalist period for many years, I greatly respect those who are more knowledgeable than I. Do we all sometimes find ourselves in comfortable ruts searching for evidence of Loyalist ancestors? Yes.  

In posting here, and in my book, I am primarily reaching to the newly-curious about their Loyalist heritage. But also to those descendants who were fortunate enough to find solid ancestral evidence without too much time and trouble. Maybe I can prompt a deeper attitude to historical (and research) understanding. Too often I see the focus only on a target ancestor—tunnel vision leading to the desirable certificate—ignoring the potential for a richer family history. Stepping back from a tree to view the forest is needed for fresh perspectives.

    Genealogists both within and without the society who assist applicants and/or offer services to the public are behoved to understand the contemporary circumstances AND the society’s requirements for (full) membership.

... a statement I made in my first post about Loyalists.
There are two not-always coinciding elements here, and both involve eligibility, i.e. qualifications.
One: Contemporary circumstances: Who “qualified” as a Loyalist?
Two: Society requirements: Who qualifies as a full member of UELAC?

Part One again concerns the area that became Upper Canada; there, the administration notably applied Lord Dorchester’s privilege of recognizing Loyalists. His original resolution was straightforward. Those who deserved “distinguished benefits and privileges” had:
● “adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and
● joined the Royal Standard in America before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783.”

A perspicacious reader will likely ask what does adhere to the Unity of the Empire mean? The phrase has had its debatable moments, but for now we will say it meant at the time—the 1780s—someone who left the rebel colonies to be within the British King’s domain. Joining the Royal Standard, i.e. “signing up” for military service, further delineated the qualification.

How was privilege administered? In practical terms, it meant the Loyalist’s land grant was free of all fees when title was transferred from the Crown. But that was the final step in a developing system of regulations. Initially, land allocation gave only temporary “custody” of a piece of land to a nominee—a specific location on a ticket or certificate. Concomitant obligations included the standard clearing, cultivating, and building.

The first district land boards1789-1794 were established to ease the work of the overloaded Executive Council. Board members handled petitions and assignments of land; in most cases, local Loyalists would be personally known to them. By 1796 Loyalists were required to confirm their allegiance on district rolls, turning in their former tickets or certificates for the official crown patent (title deed). Some did not live long enough; others neglected to complete the process for various reasons (both situations caused complications in confirming Loyalist status/eligibility among officialdom and for later researchers).

It is well worth noting that Loyalists knew who they were although it’s unlikely they ever pinned that label on themselves. So many of their neighbours and kinsmen shared the same upheaval of starting life again in new territory that it was taken for granted “everyone knew” their background—their migration, their losses, their loyalty. They had land to work; a piece of paper signified their right to occupy it; “everyone knew” it was theirs. Who had time for a trip to the district town and more government paperwork when subsistence was their daily concern? For subsequent generations, in the absence of overt documentation about the target ancestor, trickle-down family memory played an insistent role.

The land-granting system and Loyalist privilege/eligibility are inseparable. I’ve not even mentioned the confusion that arose in resolving how much acreage to grant, the problems sometimes caused by the status of military claimants, or discrepancies in the lists that were underway in different offices. For sure, it’s eighteenth-century immersion for dedicated family historians. To be continued? More space and energy are needed to address Number Two!

It should be clear thus far in my rambling that the well-known petitions for land grants, as genealogical sources, are not necessarily available for each individual Loyalist. True, petitions and other documents exist after the fact when titles and claims had to be sorted out. But ultimately, the most benign effect of privilege was the 200-acre grants to the sons and daughters. In fact, it is their records—petitions—that speak most often to the Loyalist status of their fathers.

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2011  

SWHIHR

It's a mouthful just to say the initials. It's the Society of West Highland & Island Historical Research. Herewith an example of how we try to expand our genealogical minds.

Serious family historians look for detailed context about their ancestors' lives---geographic, cultural, social, political, economic, religious, legal, and so on. What did the family breadwinner's occupation mean to them in terms of location, income level, housing? What influences would they have felt from cultural pressures?

Searching for such information takes us well beyond surname targeting and building a family “tree.” And so we seek out resources not restricted to online searching or genealogical societies, although they can assist. Somehow I doubt that academic and/or scholarly sources are frequently consulted. It takes more time and trouble to find them.

That brings me to my example ... one of the “extras” that enrich my understanding, and thus my family history. The non-profit SWHIHR is fairly locale-specific with a journal three times per year: West Highland Notes & Queries. Contributors delve into all historical time periods of Scotland's western Highlands and islands (Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, the Inner and Outer Hebrides, and more). Scholarly discussion, dialogue, and nuance go back and forth among contributors who are mainly historians (with an occasional genealogist), many of them with a lifetime of expertise in esoteric, private manuscript collections that you and I could scarcely hope to access. 

There is a point at which, in every Highland family history, the ancestral line blurs into the localized clan mass. And clan history is instructive through its leading figures---and the lesser-known---because their activities include the shades of our forebears. Besides, it feels good to engage one's intellect in a slightly alternative perspective.

West Highland Notes & Queries is not a high-tech production. It is only available in paper form, and the small print requires a large magnifier. Enquiries about current rates can be directed to the secretary at nmbcoll@aol.com. I can't let it go without saying the editor is Nicholas Maclean-Bristol, based on the Isle of Coll, author of the brilliant From Clan to Regiment: Six Hundred Years in the Hebrides, 1400-2000 ... and numerous smaller but important works.

May you all find your own gems to add depth to your family research!

Loyalists: A Mark of Honour

The biggest migration in North American history took place in 1783-1784 at the end of the War usually called the American Revolution by Canadians and the War of Independence by Americans. Historians will confound you with the variation in numbers of Loyalists (really, who could count them?!) who left the new republic. Some estimates have been up to 50,000. Let’s say dozens of thousands. Reimbursement by the states for confiscated properties was never considered.

The British government was financially constrained due to the war effort and could offer only limited compensation to the Loyalists who lost their homes, their assets, and too often the family breadwinner. Giving them land in the wilderness areas (“waste lands of the crown”) was the most adequate and useful resource at their disposal—along with token subsistence items. Useful, because it was also the answer to populating its colonial borders for future defence against the reconstituted, potentially aggressive neighbour.

In Quebec, where the French seigniorial land system continued, placement had to be found for 25,000? 35,000? Loyalist refugees camped near border forts—and they wanted freehold land tenure. Westward along the Great Lakes system was an obvious choice (although not the only one). Settlements were already in evidence at Detroit, Niagara, and Cataraqui (Kingston). The refugees were given some rations and tickets for land allotment. Some disbanded soldiers from the regular army units joined them. Before long, their numbers were swelling with “ordinary” arrivals, drawn by the sweet lure of free land.

A comprehensive land granting system for all comers did not miraculously spring into being, fully formed. It took time for rules, regulations, and procedure to develop. By 1789 the overburdened land committee of the Executive Council of Quebec had seen to establishing district land boards in what would become Upper Canada; they were to function as local gateways for all newcomers looking to acquire land.

Baron Dorchester, Commander-in-Chief of British North America and the King’s representative, in 1789 proposed privilege for the Loyalists, to distinguish them from other incomers to his territory. “ ... it was his wish to put a Mark of Honour upon the families who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and joined the Royal Standard in America before the Treaty of Separation in 1783.”[1]

The man who made that declaration was none other than Sir Guy Carleton, newly elevated to the peerage, among former duties the administrator of Loyalist New York City and manager of its heroic evacuation. The Executive Council agreed, and a resolution was ordered:

“That the several Land Boards take Course for preserving a Registry of the Names of all Persons falling under the description aforementioned to the End that their Posterity may be discriminated from future settlers, in the Parish Registers and Rolls of the Militia of their respective Districts, and other Public Remembrances of the Province, as proper Objects, by their persevering in the Fidelity and Conduct so honourable to their ancestors, for distinguished benefits and privileges.”[2]

 Distinguish and discriminate. Dorchester was furthermore quite specific about privilege on the forms to be printed for the militia rolls:

“N.B. Those Loyalists who have adhered to the unity of the empire, and joined the Royal Standard (in America) before the Treaty of Separation in the year 1783, and all their children and their descendants by either sex, are to be distinguished by the following Capitals affixed to their names: U.E., alluding to their great principle, the Unity of the Empire.”[3]

Technically, Dorchester’s territory included all the northern colonies but Upper Canada more than others would embrace the U.E. appellation as an expedient element in its land granting system. In the genealogical sense, the system was not perfect at recording those deserving of privilege. Official process was fraught at times with ambiguities and antinomy, as we shall see.

It would be a few more years before attempts to compile “a Registry” were evident. Dorchester left the country permanently in 1796 but his resolution was honoured.

In Upper Canada, Loyalists were allotted their land free of all surveying and administrative fees. Initially, refugee families were awarded a predetermined amount of land; service in a Loyalist (militia) corps raised the amount, depending on rank. Plus: children of Loyalists, both male and female, would receive 200 acres of crown land on coming of age.

Loyalist privilege in Upper Canada was so attractive that some land-hungry latecomers and ordinary settlers would claim the qualifications (and more on that to come). All the more reason for government officials to distinguish the type of grant they were allowing.

Discrimination is not necessarily a bad word.

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2011

Please note: In my text I am not quoting the entire passages of these citations; additional bits will get attention in future posts.
[1] Library and Archives Canada (LAC), RG1, E1, State Minute Book, Vol. 18, p. 110, 9 November 1789; LAC microfilm C-100. 
[2] Ibid.
[3] British Colonial Office 42, Vol. 67, pp. 367-373, Dispatch no. 25, 27 May 1790; LAC microfilm B-47.

Cemeteries Part 13: El Alamein

It’s been a while, over a year since I blogged about a cemetery. Opportunity comes when and if. And this year I missed Remembrance Day at home. Instead, I had the privilege of visiting Alamein War Cemetery, part of which is one of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites.  

Photograph BDM, November 2011

The battle of El Alamein in Egypt—across the Western Desert region of Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia—was a victory for the Allied Forces in the Mediterranean theatre of the Second World War. Most visible are the British, German, and Italian memorials to honour the fallen servicemen. I was in a group of visitors highly conscious of our proximity to Remembrance Day, wearing our poppies. We brought a wreath to place at the British war cemetery.

Photograph BDM, November 2011

Some in our group were searching for specific grave sites. Unless they had known to use the online CWGC search engine in advance, it was difficult to pinpoint precisely an Allied individual’s gravesite. Well-worn “index” books are available on site, but visitors crowd them, and the various military divisions can be confusing. 

Photograph BDM, November 2011

“El Alamein War Cemetery contains the graves of men who died at all stages of the Western Desert campaigns, brought in from a wide area, but especially those who died in the Battle of El Alamein at the end of October 1942 and in the period immediately before that. The cemetery now contains 7,239 Commonwealth burials of the Second World War, of which 814 are unidentified.”[1]

The magnitude of the Commonwealth cemetery is overwhelming, especially when one reads row after row of the young men who died. What a waste. Many had brief verses or words inscribed by surviving family. Saddest of all are the unidentified graves, “A soldier of the 1939-1845 War, known only to God.” Visitors, even those with no family associations, were overcome with quiet tears as they walked.

Without a relative to seek, I chanced upon a few Canadian stones.

Photograph BDM, November 2011

R 55367, Sergeant William Patterson Begley, pilot, Royal Canadian Air Force, [died] 25 July 1942, age 20, “He rode the skies in service of King and Country and rests in peace with God.”

The CWGC search gives more details: the son of Thomas Allan Begley and Mabelle Rose Begley of Quebec City, Alamein War Cemetery location XVII 18.F.1. [2]
             

Photograph BDM, November 2011

                   Per Ardua ad Astra 




[1] “Alamein Memorial,” Commonwealth War Graves Commission (http://www.cwgc.org/search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery=131900&mode=1).
[2] “Debt of Honour Register,” Commonwealth War Graves Commission  (http://www.cwgc.org/search/SearchResults.aspx?surname=Begley&initials=&war=2&yearfrom=1941&yearto=1942&force=Air&nationality=2&send.x=35&send.y=11).

Loyalists: "O Give Me Land, Lotsa Land ..."

Recently I was appalled to see a statement that a Loyalist had to prove British birth for entitlement to free land in Canada.
... a sentence of mine made last time about an online website. I hasten to add the correction has been acknowledged. What I did not address was two additional elements of that statement: “free land” and “in Canada.”

Getting a handle on geography and political administration is always a first challenge for family historians who encounter unfamiliar territory. A bit nitpicky perhaps, but to say in the above context, free land in Canada, ignores contemporary reality. One might say “Canada” did not exist when Loyalists were arriving in the 1780s. Britain had several colonies north of the newly minted American republic.

Canada was not a country, a political entity per se as we now know it, until 1867. So one might have referred to free land in Quebec, or Nova Scotia, or St. John’s Island, or merely used the term British North American colonies.

After the American Revolution, free land was widely available for a long time in most British North American colonies. Admittedly, I am most familiar with developments in one specific colony: Upper Canada. The new colony, or province (“up” the St Lawrence River and Great Lakes system from its French origins) was created in 1791 from the vast post-Conquest Quebec colony . Upper Canada was re-named Canada West in 1840/41 and again, the province of Ontario in 1867. Similar name changes applied at the same time to Lower Canada > Canada East > province of Quebec.

You can find references to “western Quebec” before 1791 which refer to the wilderness area (“waste lands of the Crown”) west of the Ottawa River. Gratuitous aside: That river was once called the “Grand”—a name apparently applied at one time or another to all impressive rivers by officials singularly bereft of imagination.

Free land was dispensed about as fast as surveyors could work. You did not have to be a Loyalist to obtain a free grant of land in Upper Canada. Every petitioner who presented himself as respectable and willing to make a home was eligible. In fact, with the advent of Governor John Graves Simcoe in 1792, Upper Canada welcomed, and indeed sought, Americans to come—populating the wilderness was a priority. The dispensing of free land continued until 1827.

Now, there’s a little twist to this free land policy. Someone had to pay the surveyors for their work, and the officials for processing the applications, and all the other paperwork. So free land actually came with administrative fees, to be paid before title was finalized. Loyalists were given a “break” in this regard. In the next post on this subject I will discuss Loyalist privilege. 

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2011
author of United Empire Loyalists: A Guide to Tracing Loyalist Ancestors in Upper Canada (see www.globalgenealogy.com).

(Almost) Wordless Wednesday

Photograph BDM October 2011

Eye-catching neon bicycles appeared throughout downtown Toronto this summer, fastened to various fixtures. It seems every city has its cache of broken and abandoned bikes. Spontaneous street art became the city-approved “The Good Bike Project” ... not without a few bureaucratic tussles. It's a mystery why the occasional vandal damages something that brings a smile to most people.

Loyalists: Call the Cops

I have a beef, soon to become clear. As this post developed, I thought how much can I condense here and be lucid without tying myself in knots? Thankfully for all of us, I found my way to posing my concern du jour without writing another book on the topic.[1]

The word Loyalist, in Canada’s historical context, refers to United Empire Loyalists. Is there any other such group about which the general public is more confused, if not outright apathetic? Not only that, some of the membership, or would-be membership, in the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada (UELAC) are also guilty of misperceptions. The UELAC does its share of educational outreach but clearly there’s room for more.   

United Empire Loyalists were the founders of the provinces of Upper Canada (Ontario) and New Brunswick. Beyond that, their courage and diligence in great adversity were the strong fibre of a renewed British North America. Remember? ... They were the “losers” in the American Revolution (1776-1783), the defeated American colonists, the “migrants” some would call them, the evacuees, who started their lives again from scratch and succeeded.

Enough waving the flag.

So what’s my beef? Well, the UELAC is a hereditary society and so it involves genealogy. Just like the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) and the Mayflower Society, if those names are more familiar to you. Genealogists both within and without the society who assist applicants and/or offer services to the public are behoved to understand the contemporary circumstances AND the society’s requirements for (full) membership.
  
Recently I was appalled to see a statement that a Loyalist had to prove British birth for entitlement to free land in Canada. What is wrong with that egregious statement?

It’s long been known to historians and family historians and others who care (i.e. who read on the topic) that Loyalists came from very diversified backgrounds. All of them had spent time in an American colony before 1776. Some were born in Great Britain. Some were born in Ireland (not deemed as "British"). Many were born in America: generations-old families of New Englanders and colonies further south, descendants of Palatine origin, and old Dutch stock. Some were Québecois. Some were Iroquois Confederacy Indians and even some were slaves of African descent. British birth? Dickswigger me. 

The well-intentioned individual was not familiar with very basic Loyalist research. The concern—of course—is that internet surfers with a new interest in family history will swallow such tripe. And probably pass it on to other naïfs. Credit where credit is due: the gaffe is being corrected.

This is but one example of misleading information and statements of dubious worth—an endemic genealogical hazard on the internet. Offering oneself as a family history guru on many resources and countries is a risky business without earned peer recognition. I don’t like to see the efforts of professional educators being undermined but Genealogy Policeman is not a job to which I aspire ... do we need some??   

Some readers will be astute enough to notice I addressed merely one element of the offending statement.  The bits about “free land” and “in Canada” would have generated much more blogging than you want to read at one go. If this post raises questions about Loyalists among enquiring minds, I could be persuaded to add more commentary. I’m willing to share because I do know a fair amount about this particular subject and earned some recognition for it. I am also on record that I always have more to learn. 

[1] Brenda Dougall Merriman, United Empire Loyalists: Tracing Loyalist Ancestors in Upper Canada (Campbellville, ON: Global Heritage Press, 2006).
Winner of the National Genealogical Society’s 2008 Award for Excellence: Genealogical Methods and Sources.

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2011
 

Camel Adventures, Wadi Rum

If you could have but one camel ride in your lifetime ~ should you be so inclined ~ I strongly recommend you book yourself to Jordan and the Wadi Rum desert. If camel rides were rated on a scale of 1 to 10, trust me, it’s a 10.

Police Band, Jerash; Photo BDM 2008

The germ for this post preceded recent widespread events in the Arab world. Beyond my obvious sympathies, the blogger in me self-centredly regrets the sadly diminished camel opportunities. Yet somehow I have faith that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will retain its stability in the unpredictable Middle East volatility.

Better scribes than I have written glowingly of Jordan’s magnetism. A relatively new nation, the country includes some of the world’s oldest inhabited sites. It’s not only on the ancient Fertile Crescent, it’s also on the Rift Valley. If you are into archaeological, if you are into biblical, if you are into cultural, if you are into photography, or just plain scenic awe, the country amazes from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea. Truly majestic.

At Petra; Photo BDM 2008

One could spend days in Madaba absorbing the local flavours, the celebrated mosaics. Or pondering the recently uncovered site of  Jesus’ baptism in the river Jordan. Aqaba is still a small town, not yet a developed tourist destination apart from savvy scuba divers. Fabled Petra is a magic time warp. Few would go so far as Married To A Bedouin but I was pleased to meet her son.[1]. The warmth of the people is evident ... with little of the vendor hassle experienced elsewhere.

Wadi Rum desert is in the south; descending into it from a plateau is spectacular, certainly one of the world’s most extraordinary places. We cross the railway famously bombed by T.E. Lawrence, to access the modest Welcome Centre in the protected area. One of the local women’s co-op handicrafts shop is here. The tiny support village is full of camels. I know because it’s my second visit here and each time was different.

Photo BDM 2007

What do most tour companies offer, encouraged by entrepreneurial young village men? Careening across the sand in a 4-wheel-drive jeep or truck lacking shock absorbers. Go figure! Environmental irony. Camels were not on the agenda but I had persisted.

Like most Jordan women, my guide Nadine spurns the hijab. Myself is wrapped up more than she is, against the sun and the possibility of blowing sand. We go well beyond any sign of civilization and on my behalf she haggles fiercely with some camel handlers in Arabic. Nadine does everything fiercely, including telling raucous jokes.

Finally. The others tear off in their kidney-splitting jeep to bash some dunes and inspect ancient inscriptions. I get a couple of hours as Queen of the Desert. The arrangement involves a female and her baby who must not be separated. This tells me the colt is less than five years old. The boy who leads me is very serious with responsibility for the animals. Good thing he’s along because he knows where we are going. All is sandy desert in every direction to the horizon, with gigantic mystical rock outcropping here and there. If by some flight of imagination I were allowed to trek alone—unthinkable of course—no question I would be lost, wandering from one isolated cliff to the next, until someone finds my dessicated corpse splayed across the hump of the steadfast camel.

Photos, BDM 2008

The boy-who-won’t-tell-me-his-name (not under-standing my question) disapproves whenever I lean to touch the baby. Experimenting with saddle positions also earns me scowls and rapid verbal orders. I am so relaxed I don’t even try to interpret. Nevertheless I emulate the leg-hook favoured by bored camel police. Baby’s hair on the hump—which is as far as I can reach without falling off and disgracing myself—looks bristly but feels soft. Of course! That’s why we have camel’s hair coats in North America.

Photo by Jerome Enger, 2008

My guide stops remonstrating with me. I am one with the stately undulation of my steed and her sidekick. “Oh the desert is lovely in its restfulness. The great brooding stillness over and through everything ...”.[2] We are in the heart of silence. Separation from everything in routine life! No cares. Just be.

Photo by Jerome Enger, 2008

Bedouin tribal memory still reveres Lawrence here in places where he camped. “To those bred under an elaborate social order few such moments of exhilaration can come as that which stands at the threshold of wild travel. The gates of the enclosed garden are thrown open... and behold! the immeasurable world.”[3] Yes. “Wild” in that special sense of the unfamiliar becoming an unsuspected, thrilling gateway.

Photo Mary Ann Waring, 2008

It had to end. Dismount at a Bedouin camp. Until the next camel experience, insh’allah.

[1] Marguerite van Geldermalsen, Married To A Bedouin ( London: Virago Press/Time Warner Book Group, 2006). 
[2] Terry Kelhawk, “Skirts on Camels: Early Women Travel Writers,” The Huffington Post  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com : accessed 24 October 2010); citing Lilias Trotter, Journal 1885.
[3] Gertrude Bell, The Desert and the Sown, (London: William Heinneman Ltd., 1907). 

© Brenda Dougall Merriman, 2011.