KYGREENU-L Archives

Archiver > KYGREENU > 2000-06 > 0961597309


From: "Ceal Wutka" <>
Subject: Re: [KyGreenu] What now????
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:21:49 -0400
References: <64.3db6f9d.2680e00c@aol.com>


http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khs/ is the URL for the Historical Society.
There could possibly be microfilms of the papers at the Ky. Archives.

I remember close family friends when I was growing up who had two girls,
about two years apart, then over 10 years later, had two boys! They were
catholic and probably didn't use birth control, so this was probably not
planned.

You might still find John on the 1900 census by doing a hand search (line by
line) of the census. The index is not always complete.

Also, if you can actually see the tombstone, you might also find a birth
date. A cemetery worker went to read a grave of my gggrandfather and
reported only a death year was on it. But when I visited in person, there
was also a monument above this plaque in the ground that had his *full*
birth and death dates!

Deaths before 1911 also may have been recorded in record books that can be
found on microfilm. The LDS might have these. There are a lot of these at
the Archives in Frankfort. I have also seen Birth Books, but the years
contained in these is spotty. I read that Kentucky passed a law in the
1800's ordering the recording of births and deaths, then repealed it. So, I
have found in Kenton county some listings that ended around 1874 (I think
that was the year) and didn't begin again until around 1901 or so. I have
not found anything like this for Greeunup - yet. (But I haven't looked for
this at the Archives yet, either.)

Ceal Merz Wutka
Atlanta

> I have a John McEnerny, b. 1873 to Michael and Mary. I had previously
> thought that John was a child to Michael from a previous marriage because
of
> the difference in years between John and the birth of the next child, Ted
who
> wasn't born until 1883.
>
> Then I got the 1900 census of Greenup County, and saw that Michael and
Mary
> had been married for 28 years by that time. That would have put their
> marriage in 1871 or 72. So I think that it would be a safe assumption that
> John is the child of Michael and Mary. Why there is a 10 year span
between
> children, I don't know. Perhaps there were other children between those
> years that did not survive.
>
> The 1900 census notes that Mary had 7 children and all 7 are accounted
for:
> Ted through Lucy. Would they just not have counted John or other children
if
> they were not in the household at that time? John was 27 by 1900 and was
> most probably not in the household. I have not been able to find him in
the
> census as a separate household.

>
> Would the Historical or Genealogical Societies have those papers? Would
> someone send me the URL for them?


This thread: