SSH and environs

Great granny Annie moved to Birchington with her second husband James Huckstep. This marriage caused a rift and split her family, all but the youngest children going their own ways. Kate was one of those who stayed and lived with them in Birchington. Indeed she married James Pearce, a local boy, and lived out her life there. Kate was my mother's favourite aunt and, because money was tight when my parents married, she and Jim gave mum and dad a holiday by the sea for their honeymoon.
When I knew her Kate was an old lady with long white hair and a slightly curved nose and chin. One time Jim fell ill and was hospitalised. Kate visited wearing all black. She looked at him and wandered up and down the ward muttering to herself. The other patients, all of a similar age to Jim, got increasingly worried, so the nurses had to ask Kate to leave. Now why did they think she was a witch casting a spell? Kate was not wearing the traditional black pointed hat, so surely she was misunderstood!
When Kate died, in her eighties, Jim was not able to get her buried in the parish she wished so bought a grave in the near by village of Saint Nicholas at Wade. When he wrote to my mother to break the news of Kate's passing he was so sad that he had not been able to comply with his wife's wish.
Poor old fellow could not live without her and followed within six months. I visited them as part of my round Kent trip. I suspect I am the only one to remember them.

Labels: Genealogy

Dear Mr Chant,
It has been brought to my notice by other people looking into family history, that you have all the details of my living family showing of your web site which can easily be accessed.
Are you not aware that you are breaking the data protection act. Living members details should not be shown. If you care to remove all traces of living people then action will be taken. Advise has already been taken and this is the way I have been advised to initially take, in order for you to correct the matter.
Also please ensure that anyone who has taken information from your web site do not display it on the internet.
Those of you doing family history really should take greater care of what you are doing with the details of the people who are still living.
Your site is being watched so get the details off immediately.
Yours faithfully
A livid Chant family member

Postmark
Royal Mail 28.08.09 Bath Bristol Taunton 08.56 pm 64104545


This letter was awaiting me on my return to Stoke. The postmark was no help to me in tracing the source. It is obvious that an anonymous letter containing an unsubstantiated allegation and an implied threat is illegal but someone, somewhere is upset. It would not help for me to report the matter to either the police or the Post Office investigations department: indeed, I feel this would be counter productive in sorting out the problem and cause no end of grief within the family. I research my tree for my amusement and with no thought to create any unhappiness. If I do not have a death confirmed for someone in the published tree I apply the ‘hundred year rule’, which is to say that I assume demise only one hundred years after the date of birth of the individual.
I have two Chant trees on the Internet but neither contains more than one living person, and that is me, as the root for the tree in each case. It seems that another family member has shared information with me and I with them. I now have to speculate that whoever it is has published a tree that has caused the problem and cited me as the source for their information. Without the URL for their tree I can do nothing practical. I have over four thousand contacts with whom I work on different aspects of family history, both theirs and mine.
I hope that someone will see this, either the writer or their informant, and tell me the address of the web site that offends in order that I can attempt to get matters corrected to the satisfaction of all of us.

Labels: Genealogy