When I began this blog, I had decided that before posting anything, I would go back and double-check what I have, where I got it, and research for any new information. Little did I know that the Mitchell branch would benefit from this practice.
So, I have to backtrack a bit and re-vamp the Mitchell's just a bit. I'll start at the top - again.
The heads of the Mitchell's in the U.S. (for the Mitchell branch in question) is Bernard Mitchell and Jane Muleenen. This information was taken from a couple of sources. Their daughter, Katherine/Catherine reported her parents as Bernard and Jane Mitchell upon her marriage to Michael Mannion in New Hampshire. Their daughter, Margaret, has Bernard Mitchell and Jane Muleenen recorded as her parents in the Iowa Death and Burial database on Ancestry.com.
This is not to say that Muleenen is the maiden surname of Jane. Most of these databases are transcribed from handwritten records and we are dependent on the transcriber as to whether the name was correctly transcribed. So, with Margaret's information, the original record was not available (her married name was also transcribed as Giblem whereas the correct spelling is Giblin). Even though the original marriage record for their daughter, Katherine/Catherine, is available, there is no maiden name recorded for mother, Jane. So, until a record turns up with the surname corrected as Mulranel, I will continue to use Muleenen as Jane's surname, just as I will use the given name Jane instead of Jennie or Bridget.
This also brings up another issue, so here is a quick side note. When viewing other individual's trees online, I always view them as a work in progress. The information could be incorrect (and often is), but they are continually working on their tree (just as I am) and as databases and records become available online, they (like me) are continually adding, changing, deleting information. I find it so sad when I read comments from various people chastising another for incorrect information. Believe me when I say, this is not the way most researchers act. We know that genealogy is always an ongoing "work in progress". That is the reason we have been at it for years. I have errors in my own tree. I often add a person to a tree who is "suspect" of belonging to a family to take advantage of Ancestry.com's hint service (these are the little green leaves that appear in the the online pedigree chart). Ancestry.com is constantly scanning their databases to match records to the name and information you provide in your tree. So, as I am searching the site for records on someone, so is Ancestry.com!
So, I have Bernard Mitchell and Jane Muleenen. Of the original children I had for them, I can only connect six of these children to them or to each other. They are - Mary, Katherine/Catherine, Bartley, James, Margaret and Bernard.
I have removed Patrick from the tree on Ancestry. I discovered in the Illinois Death Records that the Patrick I had connected to Bernard and Jane, in fact, had different parents. I could find no other Patrick in the U.S. that could have been their son, so I have taken him off the tree along with any of his descendants. That is not to say that Bernard and Jane didn't have a son named Patrick, it's just that I cannot find anything to prove it.
This leaves Michael and Bridget. For now, I have left both on the tree, even though I can find no link to Bernard and Jane for them, nor can I find any link to the other children of them. I have done some research for Micheal (married to Catherine Maloney), but can find no link yet. I still have not found a death record for Michael. The family lived in Genesee, Whiteside, Illinois, but I have found other Mitchells in Whiteside County who are not related to this Mitchell Branch. I have left Michael on the tree in hopes that something comes up to prove or disprove he belongs there.
It is basically the same for Bridget (whom I have married to William Hawthorne). I just haven't done a current search yet for her. I will post when I do if I find any proof that she does or does not fit in the family. For now, though, she, too, will remain on the tree.
