Turnbull / Bonchesterbrige

[BrettMaximus]

Roger that, I shall delete the post, remove the email addresses and repost.

[majm]

New file name 

ADD

Lucy Ann WILSON 1853-1944.   

JM

[BrettMaximus]

Done, I blurred out the email addresses and renamed the file. I removed the previous attachment and uploaded the revised image. Thanks MAJM

[majm]

Mr Geggle tells me that Ballpoint pens in the USA date from 1945.  I cannot find a date for their introduction to Scotland,  but I am sure Lucy never contemplated any discussion about if she had written on a document that was published 1973, or transmitted by email in this century.    I rather suspect that her hand would be full of flourishes , with sweeping tails,  and clear up and down strokes,  with quill and personalised bond paper.  Afterall she was a spinster of independent means,  so had learnt to read and write in the 1860s.

JM

[TTLovesKwi]

JM, Brett, All,

Let me begin by offering my sincere apologies for not having my facts in place and verified.  Upon further research I have found out the answer to what was so mystifying (at least to me).

I have stated that the copy of the Wilson Family tree has been in California for decades.  That turns out to be a true statement.  The story unfolds thusly...

I had asked my cousin, who I was under the impression possessed the framed Wilson Family tree that had been on my Grandfather's wall for decades, for a digital copy of said family tree.  He then sent us an image.  That is the image I've been sharing.  After all of the discussion on Rootschat, I asked my cousin for any insights into as much as he knows about the history of that copy...

So...

He replied that it's his sister that actually has the framed family tree.  But he had been doing genealogy research on our shared family history and had found a digital copy of the same tree!  Since it was the same family tree, he sent that to us (not mentioning the circumstances).  That completely explains why I shared Brett's image.

As I await my other cousin's input on her copy of the family tree, I wanted to share this update with all.  Although I should stop making assumptions, am I allowed to assume that we do possess an early copy of the family tree print?

Thanks for the help.
Tim

[BrettMaximus]

@MAJM  this is certainly my handwriting in print by pencil, and I would have made this note between the date of receiving it in the Book in Feb 2015 and emailing a copy to Professor Douglas Scott in SEP 2016. 

Attached is another photo of the tree, taken by Tony Wilson of Hawick who is my 5th cousin, 5 x removed.

Note that there is no handwritten note or an X on his copy of the tree.

He sent took this photo on the 21st of June, 2014. Which was when I was in Hawick for 3 months studying family history and attending the annual Common Riding events.

The tree that Tony photographed is likely to be one of the original copies of the tree circulated to various family members circa 1890, as Tony also has family bibles and old letters dating back to the early 1800's (originals).

Here is some of the meta-data from that photograph 

Make   SAMSUNG
Model   SAMSUNG ES74,ES75,ES78 / VLUU ES75,ES78
Orientation   Horizontal (normal)
XResolution   96
YResolution   96
ResolutionUnit   inches
ModifyDate   2014:06:21 11:02:01
YCbCrPositioning   Co-sited
Copyright   COPYRIGHT, 2010
ExposureTime   1/90
FNumber   3.5
ExposureProgram   Program AE
ISO   100
ExifVersion   0220
DateTimeOriginal   2046:12:09 11:59:48
CreateDate   2046:12:09 11:59:48
ComponentsConfiguration   Y, Cb, Cr, -
CompressedBitsPerPixel   1.951827095
ShutterSpeedValue   1/76
ApertureValue   3.5
ExposureCompensation   0
MaxApertureValue   3.5
MeteringMode   Multi-segment
LightSource   Unknown
Flash   Off, Did not fire


Regards


Brett Wilson

[majm]

Tim,  I have not ever knowingly met any member of RChat,  but if one day you happen to be in New South Wales or if one day I happen to be in California,  I am sure I would be pleased to meet you and chat about family history being the best hobby, a hobby for a lifetime.

JM.

[BrettMaximus]

JM, Brett, All,

Let me begin by offering my sincere apologies for not having my facts in place and verified.  Upon further research I have found out the answer to what was so mystifying (at least to me).

I have stated that the copy of the Wilson Family tree has been in California for decades.  That turns out to be a true statement.  The story unfolds thusly...

I had asked my cousin, who I was under the impression possessed the framed Wilson Family tree that had been on my Grandfather's wall for decades, for a digital copy of said family tree.  He then sent us an image.  That is the image I've been sharing.  After all of the discussion on Rootschat, I asked my cousin for any insights into as much as he knows about the history of that copy...

So...

He replied that it's his sister that actually has the framed family tree.  But he had been doing genealogy research on our shared family history and had found a digital copy of the same tree!  Since it was the same family tree, he sent that to us (not mentioning the circumstances).  That completely explains why I shared Brett's image.

As I await my other cousin's input on her copy of the family tree, I wanted to share this update with all.  Although I should stop making assumptions, am I allowed to assume that we do possess an early copy of the family tree print?

Thanks for the help.
Tim

Hi Tim,

Then that would explain things for sure, and I would suggest that your cousin found that image from my family tree on Ancestry.com or from someone who I invited to view my tree and they copied my information on Lucy Ann Wilson.

Image attached from my Ancestry tree ;-)

Brett

[majm]

Well,  its all sorting out now. 

Team work.

It's 3 pm in NSW and ummm .... nothing done in real life .... 

JM