Hayward Logan memories Winnipeg
Home Surnames on this site Memories Some Images on this site

A Facebook Group for Hayward, Sheane, and Logan can be found at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/hayward.and.logan/
 
 

John YOUNG and Magna/Maggie/Helen/Ellen THOMPSON Genealogy

metis

For more on John YOUNG's past Click here

John was engaged in Shetland in 1869 for the service of the Hudson's Bay Company and went to the Lac La Pluie District where he served until 1878, being stationed at Fort Alexander from 1874 to 1875. Magna's birth date around 1857 or 1860- not sure--- Magna, was apparently taken from her Indian name which was-(Muhh-Qo or u)- Her father's last name was Lacoshegan <Luckoosegun by another researcher via Hudson Bay Archive records> - Magna Lacoshegan was also known as Mary but her Christian name given her was Ellen Thompson.  Click here for a letter that shows some of this. Magna removed from the Lac Seul Band Click here.

**** Note that a recent email stated: Lucoshegan should be spelled Tuckoshegan (but the real spelling is Dakozhiigan) and it means "short back" in Ojibwe. This was a large family in Lac Seul area around that time.

The Hudson Bay Company Archives show that John Young entered their service in 1869 from the parish of Dunrossness <Scotland>.

Outfit Year* Position Post District HBCA Reference
1869 Labourer   not yet assigned a particular post B.239/g/46
1870 - 1872 Labourer   Lac la Pluie B.239/g/46-49
1873 - 1875 Labourer   Lac la Pluie B.235/g/1-2
1875 Freeman     B.235/g/3

* An outfit year ran from 1 June to 31 May

- A personal note here - does anyone know about working your way to being a freeman meant in the above case? - have not looked yet - just noting this while typing. - Bruce

- Note that the HBCA Reference B.235/g/1-2 is the Abstracts of Servants' Accounts for the Winnipeg Post (Post Number: B.235)  (Red River Valley in Manitoba) and that Note that the HBCA Reference B.239/g/46 is the Abstracts of Servants' Accounts for the York Factory Post (Post Number: B.239) - York Factory - a fur-trading post, NE Man., Canada, on Hudson Bay, at the mouth of the Hayes River, just east of the mouth of the Nelson River

-

 "Rec. your e-mail and tought I would send you a quick note- Yes, I have seen the turtle-island site you mentioned-I have quite a bit of info on the Young family- not sure what you are looking for-John's wife, Magna, was apparently taken from hher Indian name whhich was-(Muhh-Qo or u)- Hher father's name was Luckoosegun- it is not clear if this is a first or family name-Magna was also known as Mary but er Christian name given her was Ellen Thhompson. Some of thhhis has come from the Hudson Bay archives..John passed away 24 March 1904 - a marriage certificate from the district of Rainy River shows Helen Young (Helen and Ellen both seem to show up withh this woman) marrying Chharles Flett.. She is listed as a widow.. name of father is Wm, Thomas Young, so not sure about this, but know she married a Flett.. I anm not sure what kind of info on the Young-Finlayson union you would like but I probably have quite a bit - let me know what you already ave or would like- sorry for thhe errors (typing)- this keyboard is giving me problems - sincerely Helen Elliott ps- HHave you accessed records at the Metis Society?"   - note from  Helen Elliott (sent Thu 13/11/2003 2:47 AM)

From a letter from the 'Halfbreed Commissioner'  (page1, page2)while investigating the Scrip claims of the children:
"The mother is variously referred to as Magna, Maggie, Mary, and Ellen Thompson. The fact however that the wife of John Young was paid annuity from 1877 to 1886 indicates that the same women is referred to.  The explanation given is that her Indian name is Muh-kwa (Muh gua) corrupted into English as Magna, from whence Maggie or Mary, but that her Christian name given her was Ellen. ... Muh kwa is identified both as Magna Young and Ellen Young.
16943-08 (Rainy River Dist) Charles FLETT, 57, laborer, widower, Canada, Kenora, s/o William FLETT & Mary CURTNESS married Helen YOUNG, 47, widow, Canada, Kenora, d/o William Thomas YOUNG & unknown, witn: Ben FINLAYSON & Margaret WILLIAMSON of Kenora, 4 Dec 1907, Kenora

 

  • Note that that Rat Portage was the name of what we now now as Kenora - was actually part of Manitoba until late 1800's when that area moved to under Ontario.
  • York Factory - a fur-trading post, NE Man., Canada, on Hudson Bay, at the mouth of the Hayes River, just east of the mouth of the Nelson River
  • Annie's Metis Scrip application - Click here

 

John YOUNG and Magna/Maggie THOMPSON <Four of the children listed have her as Maggie on the scrip application, and two have her as Magna> had the following children:
  • Mary YOUNG born 24 Nov, 1873 at Trout Lake, married 1899 at Rat Portage to Peter FINLAYSON (scrip application) s/o Hector FINLAYSON & Sarah BRASS. <also is listed as BRANS>  More on FINLAYSON
  • Christina YOUNG born: 5 Aug., 1877 at Lac Seul, married: 1900 at Winnipeg to James MCROBERTS. (married again 1911 to George Pollard)  The 1901 census  (scrip application) - Page six of the 1901 census - Province/Territory: Ontario District Name: ALGOMA District Number: 44 Sub-district Name: Rat Portage (Town/Ville) Sub-district Number: n(2)-6 Schedule: 1 Reference: RG31 , Statistics Canada Microfilm Reel Number: T-6458 Finding Aid Number: 31-40 - lists Christina as being born Oct 1878. census images
  • Thomas YOUNG born 1878 Lac Seul (scrip application) Tom Young born 1879 Lac Seul bapt. 5 Sept 1881 married Elizabeth Bear 27 July 1902 Lac Seul deceased 27 July 1954 - Possibly also work for the Hudson Bay Company (From HBCA records)
  • Annie YOUNG  born 25 Oct 1878 Lac Seul Ontario, died March 21, 1909 in Winnipeg (my Great Grandma). She married William BATTLEY on 22 Jan 1902 in Rat Portage. (scrip applicationPhotograph  From the March 22nd, 1909 edition of the Manitoba Free Press "Mrs Annie Battley, wife of W. J. Battley, died early yesterday morning after an illness extending over the past nine months.  Deceased who was 28 years of age, and a native of Ontario, leaves a husband, and three small children.  The funeral will take place from the family residence 239 Marion street, Norwood, to Elmwood Cemetery to-morrow afternoon at 2 o'clock." - - a note that she died of "Phthisis Pulmonalis" (Chronic Tuberculosis)
  • Robert YOUNG born Dec, 1882 at Lac Seul (scrip application) Robert Young born Dec 1882 ,Lac Seul married Annie BEAR 1907 -  children were:
    • Lester YOUNG
    • John Lawrence YOUNG
    • Alfred YOUNG
    • James YOUNG
    • and a male infant

    (27 Sept 1908 Rob's wife passed away and he married Mary Pemaway PEMAWAY 3 June 1914.)

  • Sinclair YOUNG  born 1883 at Lac Seul (scrip application) - Sinclair Young born 1883 Lac S. married Mary SAPAY 7 June 1906 bapt 20 Jan 1884
  • Elizabeth YOUNG  born: 1884 at Lac Seul  (scrip application) married (see note) to Benjamin FINLAYSON on Oct. 4, 1904 at Rat Portage s/o Hector FINLAYSON & Sarah BRASS. <also is listed as BRANS>   More on FINLAYSON
  • Catherine YOUNG born Lac S. 18 Sept 1888, married Sydney BRIMBLE in Kenora , 11 Nov 1907 , Dec. 9 April 1979. bapt 6 Oct 1888
  • James YOUNG born 15 Oct 1889 Lac S. married 30 Sept. 1911, Winnipeg Bella FINLAYSON -bapt 11 Jan 1891 Lac Seul church passed away 15 Feb 1982
  • Lawrence YOUNG born 15 Feb 1899, Lac S. married Mary COOK 22 Feb 18??
  • Flossy YOUNG born 4 June 1892 Lac S. bapt. 4 June1893 
  • John YOUNG Jr born 20 Dec..1897 (22 Jul 1895 on birth record - another John in the same family?) :Lac S. married Sarah COOK 1927 Gold Pines On. They had 3 children:
    • Alice YOUNG
    • Joseph YOUNG
    • Wilfred YOUNG
  • Malina YOUNG bapt. 6 Oct 1901, married George BATES in Van. B.C. born 10 June 1901.  died about 1998 (about five years ago from November 14, 2003)

Around 1901, the three older girls lived around Rat Portage with their husbands. Tom was married with no children, as was James. Sinclair had 1 child with Sophia BRISKETT (unwed) ,Mary born 18 Aug 1906 Sinclair married Mary SAPAY in 1906 . Robert married Annie BEARMAN, children were Lester, John Lawrence, Alfred, James and a male infant 27 Sept 1908 Rob's wife passed away and he married Mary PEMAWAY 3 June 1914.

  • Annie Battley (nee Young) and William Battley acted as lay preachers (in Holmfield - Manitoba near Cartwright) and worked for the Salvation Army. They apparently traveled Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan  and the northern states.
  • A note here is that she signed her own scrip application in hand writing.
  • William remarried 12 Oct 1910 in Swan River to Agnes Mae HARVEY
 

From Gail Morin, Thanks Gail, her site can be found at:

www.televar.com/~gmorin/ - when I last checked this url on Dec 26, 2007 it was not working - Bruce Hayward.

BATTLEY, Annie; #1871; of Winnipeg; b. Lac Seul, 20 Oct 1878 (Exhibit A); d/o John YOUNG (HB) & Magna THOMPSON (HB).   Married: yes.  (see evidence in 1870).  Annie BATTLEY; Winnipeg, MB; 23 May 1902.  Extraction:  Annie d/o John & Mary YOUNG bt. Lac Seul, 6 Aug 1878.  James S. NEWTON, Missionary in Charge.  Land scrip allowed.  C-14947

 

 

This wonderful piece of information adds nicely to the life and times:

From this I see two official dates for her birth, and one earlier date for her baptism of bt. Lac Seul, 6 Aug 1878.:

  • b. Lac Seul, 20 Oct 1878 on the Scrip approval itself above
  • born: 25 Oct. 1878, at Lac Seul  scrip cert.: form E, no. 3638; file ref. 709022 on the claim below.

What is interesting about the above extraction is the "Annie d/o John & Mary YOUNG bt. Lac Seul, 6 Aug 1878.  James S. NEWTON, Missionary in Charge.  Land scrip allowed.  C-14947" - I suspect that this was for Annie's sister Christina YOUNG born: 5 Aug., 1877.

 

From the 1901 census of the Keewatin District of Ontario
A PDF Image of the Census document (Transcribed below)

L
i
n
e

#
Numbered in order of visitation Personal Description
H
o
u
s
e
Family
or
House-
hold
Name of each person in family or household on 31st March, 1901. Sex. C
o
l
o
u
r
Relationship
to head of
family or
household.
Single,
married,
widowed or
divorced.
Month and date of birth. Year of birth. Age at last birthday.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
2 7 Young John M Head M
55
3 7 Young Helen F Wife M
45
4 7 Young Thomas M Son S
21
5 7 Young Robert M Son S
19
6 7 Young Sinclair M Son S
17
7 7 Young Elizabeth F Daughter S
15
8 7 Young Catherine F Daughter S
13
9 7 Young Flossie F Daughter S
11
10 7 Young James M Son S
9
11 7 Young John M Son S
5
12 7 Young Lawrence M Son S
3

Annie Young and William Battley ca 1899/1900

 
 

 

Another picture - early taxi 8o)

 
Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-1 , Volume 862 , Reel T-14482
File : 709022 , Access code: 90
File Title:  L. MCMEANS, RE SCRIP DUE ANNIE BATTLEY, NEE YOUNG.
Outside Dates:  1902-1909
   
Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1334 , Reel C-14947 , Access code: 90
File Title:  BATTLEY, Annie nee YOUNG; address: Winnipeg; claim no. 1871; born: 25 Oct. 1878, at Lac Seul; father: John YOUNG (Métis); mother: Magna Thompson (Métis); scrip cert.: form E, no. 3638; file ref. 709022

Below is the transcript of the case referred to above:


(322)     WRIGHT v. BATTLEY     659


 

WRIGHT v. BATTLEY

(1905), 15 Man. R. 322

Manitoba King's Bench, Dubuc C. J. and Richards J., 14 July 1905 Replevin--Land scrip issued under Dominion Lands Act, R.S.C., c. 54, s. 90, s-s. (f) as re-enacted by 62 and 63 Vic., c. 16, s. 4-- Assignability of scrip--Illegality of contract

Under an order of the Governor in Council made pursuant to sub- section (f) of section 90 of the Dominion Lands Act, R. S. C., c. 54, as re-enacted by 62 and 63 Vic, c. 16, s. 4, the defendant Annie BATTLEY became entitled to scrip for land to be located by her. She sold the right to the scrip to the plaintiff and gave him an order on the Commissioner for it. After delivery by the latter to the plaintiff, Mrs. BATTLEY, knowing that the scrip was in the plaintiff's possession, deliberately assigned it to him for valuable consideration. She afterwards took the scrip from the plaintiff and refused to return it.

The Order in Council prohibited the Commissioner from recognizing or accepting assignments of land scrips and from delivering them to assignees.

Held, nevertheless, that the contract of sale of the scrip was valid and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of it in an action of replevin.

ARGUED: 26th June, 1905.

DECIDED: 14th July, 1905.

[Statement]ACTION of replevin. Plaintiffs claimed that in December, 1903, at the Dominion Land Agent's office at Wapella, the defendants took out of the plaintiffs' possesion two scrips relating to 160 and 80 acres of land, to which plaintiffs were entitled, and they asked that same might be returned.

Defendant William BATTLEY set up that plaintiffs had no legal or beneficial interest in the scrip in question, and Annie BATTLEY asserted she was the only person entitled to the scrip, but that same was never in her possession.

The case was heard before Perdue, J., who entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs.

Defendants appealed to the Full Court.

 


660     WRIGHT v. BATTLEY     (323)


G. A. Stewart Potts for defendants, appellants. The scrip having been granted as a bounty, or matter of grace, [Argument.] and being in favour of Annie BATTLEY, not mentioning her assigns, and the Dominion Land Officers not recognizing assigns, but requiring the half-breed to personally locate, the contract of assignment was void as contrary to public policy. The question is: Is half-breed land scrip assignable? The Order in Council dated 6th June, 1901, published in the Canada Gazette of 17th August, 1901, vol. 35, at p. 262, approves an attached memorandum by McKenna, the commissioner, sec. p. 263, and therefore be- comes part of it. It shows that the land scrip is not assignable, and therefore, from public policy, the Court will treat the land scrip as not assignable. Previous Orders in Council are in the Canada Gazette of 2nd March, 1900 and 13th March, 1900. See answer to the fourth question in Gazette of 2nd March, 1900, and the amendment of 13th March, 1900. These only apply to money scrip and not to land scrip. The Order in Council has the full effect of the statute under which it was passed, and must be read as one with it: Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood, [1894] A.C. 347. There is no penalty in the Order in Council for its breach. See (as to the effect of that absence) Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & F. 148. Here the condition is for the protection of the half-breeds, they being to that extent treated as wards of the Government. The grant of scrip is only a grant of a right to go on and own the land. Contracts violating Orders in Council are as illegal as if violating statutes: Inglis v. De Barnard, 3 Moo. P.C. 425. Scrip and Orders in Council are under Dominion Lands Act, 1899, c. 16, s. 4. Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149; Leake 549. See the form of the scrip.

C. W. Bradshaw, for plaintiffs, respondents. The onus is on the defence, where plaintiffs had possession of the scrip, and defendants took it out of their possession.

 


(324)     WRIGHT v. BATTLEY     661


Illegality of the contract is the only defence now re- [Argument] lied on. Before defendants can set up illegality, they must show they have returned or offered to return moneys received by them under the illegal contract. They should have first offered to pay back the $460 and the other expenses incurred. The defence of illegality cannot be given effect to as it has not been pleaded: Hanbury v. Chambers, 10 M.R. 167. It was claimed at the trial that plaintiffs must show a legal title and not merely an equitable one. Carter v. Long, 26 S.C.R. 430, shows the holder of an equitable title can replevy. The defendant's argument is based partly on the contention that the issuing of scrip is a matter of bounty by the Dominion Government. But this Court has always held that scrip issued and land granted to half-breeds were so issued and granted in extinguishment of rights in the soil: McKilligan v. Machar, 3 M.R. 418; Re Mathers, 7 M.R. 434. Once the right arose as a right, the assignability of such right would be within and subject to the laws of Manitoba, and would be beyond the legislative jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament. The scrips may be located on any Dominion lands here in Manitoba or in the Territories. The scrips and the defendants being in Manitoba, the laws of Manitoba apply. Assuming that the Dominion Parliament could restrict the assignability of a scrip, the statute and the Orders in Council only prohibit the recognition by the Commissioner of assignments and regulate the procedure to be adopted by him. The object of these provisions was to prevent complications from accepting assignments and issuing scrip in favour of assignees. The Order in Council of 6th June, 1901, was passed to meet the argument that the regulations as to money scrip applied to land scrip. The object of the regulations that the scrip should be issued to the half-breed and located by him was no doubt a protection of the half-breeds, but they do not prevent the half-breed's interests being assigned, nor do they

 


662     WRIGHT v. BATTLEY     (325)


affect his right to deliver possession of the scrip for value. The Ordcr in Council of 13th August, 1904, as to priority [Argument.] of assignments shows that the Dominion Government recognizes the assignability of scrips.

Potts in reply. The defence of illegality was raised at the trial and argued fully before Perdue, J., and can now be relied on. Having been raised this Court is bound to take cognizance of it. The Dominion Parliament, making the grant, can attach such conditions as it chooses.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by DUBUC , C. J.--The only point raised in this appeal is whether the contract made by the defendant Annie Battley, in selling her land scrip to the plaintiff McMeans, was a valid contract, or whether it was illegal and void. It is admitted by the defendants that, if she had the power to assign the said scrip, she had done so.

It is contended on her behalf that the Order of the Governor General in Council, under which scrips were allotted and afterwards issued to the children of half- breeds, empowered the half-breed Commissioner to authorize the delivery of money scrips on powers of attorney or assignments duly executed by the allottees; but that, in cases of land scrips, the Commissioner had no authority to accept or act upon such assignments or powers of attorney. In favour of that contention it is argued that the issue of the scrip by the Dominion Govemment was in the nature of a bounty to the half-breed personally, and that he had no power to assign or transfer the same.

The Order in Council relied on by the defendants is dated the 6th June, 1903.

The Order in Council has no doubt the effect of preventing the Commissioner from recognizing or accepting assignments of land scrips, and from delivering the scrips to the assignees thereof. It might be a matter of policy adopted by the Government for the protection of

 


(326)     WRIGHT v. BATTLEY     663


the half-breed; they might attach to the grant the condi- [Judgment]tion that no one but the half-breed himself will be recognized and allowed to locate the scrip allotted to him; but that cannot affect the right of the allottee, after he has received his scrip, to do as he chooses with it; he may locate it or not; he may keep it or dispose of it. When in his hands, the scrip, as a scrip, is his absolute property.

In this case, if Mrs. BATTLEY refuses to locate the scrip, the purchaser and assignee thereof may find himself unable to get the land intended to be covered by the scrip, or to derive any benefit there from. But, as to the scrip itself, he has purchased it. Mrs. BATTLEY, on whose order it has been delivered, while knowing that it was already in Mc- Mean's possession, has deliberately assigned it to him for valuable consideration; that certainly amounted to a formal delivery by her to him. Such a transaction should not, in my opinion, be held illegal and invalid.

Whatever the Government may do, or refuse to do, in regard to the scrip, or to the location thereof, it has become the property of McMeans and his assigns. The present case has nothing to do with the lands. The possession of the scrip alone is in issue. As it has been wrongfully taken from the plaintiffs, they are entitled to recover it, and the action of replevin ought to be maintained.

This being the conclusion arrived at, it is not necessary to decide the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defence of illegality, not having been pleaded, ought not to be entertained.

I think the judgment of my brother Perdue, should be upheld, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed with costs.


 

Some source:

From Ontario Archives, microfilm MS 932

#015158/02 (Rainy River) William John BATTY, 22, clerk, Ipswich Eng., Winnipeg, s/o John and Mary Ann BATTY, married Annie YOUNG, 21, Lac Seul, Lac Seul, d/o John & Annie YOUNG, witn James KIPLING & Sinastin JACONS, both of Rat Portage, 22 Jan 1902 at Rat Portage

#016363-04 (Rainy River Dist): Benjamin FINLAYSON, 24, driver, Rat Portage, same, s/o Hector FINLAYSON & Sarah BRASS, married Elizabeth YOUNG, 18, Lac Seul, same, d/o John YOUNG & Ellen THOMAS, witnesses were Margaret WILLIAMSON & Mary RICHARDS, both of Rat Portage, Oct. 4, 1904 at RP

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1347 , Reel C-14969 , Access code: 90
File Title:  Finlayson, Mary; address: Rat Portage; claim no. 2002; born: 24 Nov., 1873 at Trout Lake; father: John Young (Whiteman); mother: Magna Thompson (Indian); married: 1899 at Rat Portage to Peter Finlayson; scrip cert.: form E, no. 3637

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1347 , Reel C-14969 , Access code: 90
File Title:  Finlayson, Peter; address: Rat Portage; claim no. 1991; born: 11 May, 1874 at Fort Alexander; father: Hector Finlayson (Métis); mother: Sarah Brans (Métis); married: 1899 at Rat Portage to Mary Young; scrip cert.: form E, no. 3648

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1371 , Reel C-15010 , Access code: 90
File Title:  Young, John; for his minor son, Sinclair Young; address: Lac Seul; born: 1883 at Lac Seul; father: John Young (Whiteman & deponent); mother: Maggie (Métis); scrip cert.: form E, no. 3635; file ref. 754794 on 842832; claim no. 1994

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1371 , Reel C-15010 , Access code: 90
File Title:  Young, John; for his minor daughter, Elizabeth Young; address: Lac Seul; born: 1884 at Lac Seul; father: John Young (Whiteman); mother: Maggie (Métis); Disallowed; claim no. 1996

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1359 , Reel C-14990 , Access code: 90
File Title:  McRoberts, Christina; address: Rat Portage; born: 5 Aug., 1877 at Lac Seul; father: John Young (Whiteman); mother: Magna Thompson (Métis); married: 1900 at Winnipeg to James McRoberts; scrip cert.: form E, no. 3636; claim no. 1870

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1371 , Reel C-15010 , Access code: 90
File Title:  Young, John; for his absent son, Thomas Young; address: Lac Seul, Keewatin; born: 1878 at Lac Seul; father: John Young (Whiteman & deponent); mother: Maggie (Chipewyan Indian); scrip cert.: form E, no. 3639; file ref. 754797; claim no. 1993

 

Reference: RG15 , Interior , Series D-II-8-c , Volume 1371 , Reel C-15010 , Access code: 90
File Title:  Young, Robert; address: Lac Seul; born: Dec., 1882 at Lac Seul; father: John Young (Whiteman); mother: Maggie (Indian); scrip cert.: form E, no. 3634; claim no. 1995

 

Reference: RG10 , Indian Affairs , Volume 3721 , Reel C-10191
File : 23431
File Title:  APPLICATION OF HANNA MCIVER, MAGNA YOUNG AND LOUISA KIRKNESS OF THE LAC SEUL BAND, SAVANNE AGENCY, FOR COMMUTATION OF ANNUITIES
Outside Dates:  1885-1886

 

 

   
A Facebook Group for Hayward, Sheane, and Logan can be found at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/hayward.and.logan/
Home Terms Privacy About us Charts & Tools Contact us

Though we make a ongoing effort to ensure the validity of all information on this site, that does not ensure that it is so.  As we can, we will associate each event with a collaboration, or source.

We welcome all inquiries about the families by those who are looking for information, or by those who want to share information that will enhance the information of the families listed on this site.

Please do not ask for information on the living, you will not receive it.

All information on this site is freely available for use by those whose end result is the pursuit of their own family lines, and not for profit. View our terms/privacy page.