Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 01:44 PM by Gene C.)

(10-02-2014 07:53 AM)Rsmyth Wrote: The picture looks more like Alex Trebek sporting his new mustach.

I think you're on to something.
Could Alex Trebek be a reincarnated John Wilkes Booth? I did a Google Image comparison, and it sure looks like it. And Alex is definately a distant relative of JWB, although I have no proof and haven't done a geneology check (that's to hard) so I can't be sure.

http://www.quotessays.com/gallery/alex-t...5.jpg.html

Angel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The page has been removed!!
What a shame, now future readers will have no idea what we've been critical and making fun of. I guess it's all for the best

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 02:26 PM by BettyO.)

Quote:The page has been removed!!

"JWB" is Gone with the Wind!

L Verge · 10-02-2014, 02:39 PM

You can thank our Scott for that! I haven't even had a chance to train him -- but he sent a very professional letter to the Duke website "chastising" them for assisting in perpetuating bad history by posting Hager's story and photo. I saw what he sent, and he did the right thing and said the right things. Thank you, Scott.

The Lincoln assassination/John Wilkes Booth story has too large a following of good researchers and scholars that errors like this should not be allowed to continue.

John E. · 10-02-2014, 04:04 PM

I received the following email today regarding my post:

Dear John,

I write in response to your comment on Josh Hager’s blog post about an image he found while working in the Rubenstein Library. You are absolutely right, that post never should have been published on the Library’s blog. In the interest of accuracy, we have taken it down and replaced it with another acknowledging our error and setting the record straight. You can read it at http://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein...es-booth/.

With best regards,

Naomi L. Nelson, Ph.D. ‘88
Associate University Librarian and
Director of the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library
Duke University

Dave Taylor · 10-02-2014, 04:04 PM

(10-02-2014 01:32 PM)Gene C Wrote: The page has been removed!!
What a shame, now future readers will have no idea what we've been critical and making fun of. I guess it's all for the best

Not quite. Nothing on the Internet is ever completely removed: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...clnk&gl=us

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 04:20 PM by L Verge.)

Dear Ms. Verge,

Thank you for your substantive response to Josh Hager’s blog post regarding a photograph he found while working in the Rubenstein Library. That post should not have been published on the Library’s blog as written. We should have returned the draft to Josh and helped him locate appropriate sources to test his claim. I feel badly for him that we did not do so.

In the interest of accuracy, we have taken the post down and replaced it with another acknowledging our error and setting the record straight. You can read it at http://blogs.library.duke.edu/rubenstein...es-booth/.

With best regards

I especially enjoyed a P.S. that she made: "Alex, I'll take Mea Culpa for $1000!"

My response to her: Thank you so much for understanding and being professional in your method of handling the situation. It is greatly appreciated by those of us in the Lincoln field.

Just an FYI: You might enjoy visiting our museum’s website at http://www.surrattmuseum.org. Have a good evening.

Laurie Verge
Director, Surratt House Museum
Department of Parks & Recreation
The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission
9118 Brandywine Road, Clinton, MD 20735
laurie.verge@pgparks.com/www.pgparks.com
301-868-1121 Fax 301-868-8177

John E. · 10-02-2014, 04:25 PM

I wonder if he'll recant his claim tonight. Probably not, but he certainly ruffled the wrong feathers.

Dave Taylor · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 05:02 PM by Dave Taylor.)

(10-02-2014 04:25 PM)John E. Wrote: I wonder if he'll recant his claim tonight. Probably not, but he certainly ruffled the wrong feathers.

He admitted his mistake on Twitter today. I have to say that is very refreshing to see as most people with bad identifications cling to them forever.

https://twitter.com/JoshHagerNC/status/5...8644608000

(10-02-2014 01:04 PM)L Verge Wrote: Warren, you awakened my sleeping brain. There was another Booth child that I did not take into consideration - the "legal" son from his first marriage to Adelaide. The young man's name was Richard (after his grandfather), but I don't remember whether he married after he came to the U.S. Dave Taylor, or someone, please fill in my gaps.

Laurie,

Richard Junius Booth did marry Sarah P. Ware in 1849. He had at least one son by her, John Baptist Booth. There were also three other young Booths living with them in the 1850 census, but they are probably Sarah's children from a previous marriage. Richard and Sarah moved back to England and they both died there within a month of each other in 1868. The son, John Baptist Booth, had at least four children all of whom immigrated to Australia after his death. One of his daughters died there in 1972 and apparently her descendants are still around, down under. However, from what I have found, it doesn't look like any of Richard Junius Booth's descendants still have the Booth name.

Junius Booth, Jr. actually had four boys by his third wife, Agnes, but two of them died as children. The other two, Junius III and Sydney Barton, married but Junius III murdered his wife and then committed suicide without any heirs. Sydney Barton appears to have had at least one daughter, but I haven't done any significant research on him.

In conclusion, it is highly doubtful that any Booth family descendant would have the Booth name. The last male Booth was Sydney Barton Booth who died in 1937.

Gene C · 10-02-2014, 05:39 PM

(10-02-2014 04:04 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:
(10-02-2014 01:32 PM)Gene C Wrote: The page has been removed!!
What a shame, now future readers will have no idea what we've been critical and making fun of. I guess it's all for the best

Not quite. Nothing on the Internet is ever completely removed: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...clnk&gl=us

That should serve as a reminder to all of us (including me). As I tell my grown up children, don't put anything in an email, facebook, or in cyberspace that you wouldn't want seen on a billboard.

Glad the young man acknowledgrd his error. Tough lesson to learn, but he's better off.

I received the email from Dr. Nelson also. Nice that the Library responded so quickly.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 07:17 PM by L Verge.)

(10-02-2014 04:40 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:
(10-02-2014 04:25 PM)John E. Wrote: I wonder if he'll recant his claim tonight. Probably not, but he certainly ruffled the wrong feathers.

He admitted his mistake on Twitter today. I have to say that is very refreshing to see as most people with bad identifications cling to them forever.

https://twitter.com/JoshHagerNC/status/5...8644608000

(10-02-2014 01:04 PM)L Verge Wrote: Warren, you awakened my sleeping brain. There was another Booth child that I did not take into consideration - the "legal" son from his first marriage to Adelaide. The young man's name was Richard (after his grandfather), but I don't remember whether he married after he came to the U.S. Dave Taylor, or someone, please fill in my gaps.

Laurie,

Richard Junius Booth did marry Sarah P. Ware in 1849. He had at least one son by her, John Baptist Booth. There were also three other young Booths living with them in the 1850 census, but they are probably Sarah's children from a previous marriage. Richard and Sarah moved back to England and they both died there within a month of each other in 1868. The son, John Baptist Booth, had at least four children all of whom immigrated to Australia after his death. One of his daughters died there in 1972 and apparently her descendants are still around, down under. However, from what I have found, it doesn't look like any of Richard Junius Booth's descendants still have the Booth name.

Junius Booth, Jr. actually had four boys by his third wife, Agnes, but two of them died as children. The other two, Junius III and Sydney Barton, married but Junius III murdered his wife and then committed suicide without any heirs. Sydney Barton appears to have had at least one daughter, but I haven't done any significant research on him.

In conclusion, it is highly doubtful that any Booth family descendant would have the Booth name. The last male Booth was Sydney Barton Booth who died in 1937.

Thanks for this, Dave. I must admit that trying to figure out my own family tree is hard enough. I tend to ignore everyone else's. At least you corroborated my thought that there were few lines, if any, that carried the Booth name.

A surname that is tied to the current movement to disinter Edwin to test for DNA is "Hulme." The ones pushing that are here in the states, but the Surratt Society has at least one Australian member named Hulme. I have never ventured into asking if there is a relationship, but do you know if the name ties into the Booth heritage?

Dave Taylor · 10-03-2014, 08:18 AM

(10-02-2014 07:13 PM)L Verge Wrote: A surname that is tied to the current movement to disinter Edwin to test for DNA is "Hulme." The ones pushing that are here in the states, but the Surratt Society has at least one Australian member named Hulme. I have never ventured into asking if there is a relationship, but do you know if the name ties into the Booth heritage?

My original post was wrong so here is the correction.

Members of the Hulme family are related to the Booths, but they are not direct descendants of any of the Booth children. Their line descends from Jane Booth, Junius' sister. She married James Mitchell and had several children.

Dr. Joseph Booth's second wife was Cora Estelle Mitchell. She was his first cousin once removed and 30 years his junior. They had a son together, Edwin, but he died at the age of 15 months. All three of them (plus Joe's first wife, Margaret) are buried at the Booth family plot at Green Mount. Some of the outspoken Hulmes like to lay claim to Joe and Cora, but they are not direct descendants as Joe had no heirs.

Not all members of the Hulme family agree with the few misguided members of their family who push for an exhumation of Edwin. I hope that they are so distantly related (1st cousins 4+ times removed by my count) that they will likely never have the legal standing to desecrate the grave of the Booths.

Jim Garrett · 10-03-2014, 08:29 AM

I understand a contestant on "Wheel of Fortune" recently found a previously unknown post-mortem in a flea market in West Virginia...... Smile

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 10-03-2014 09:57 AM by L Verge.)

Oh, Jim, please don't get that one started up again. I've been in pergatory for two years over it.

Dave, it was my understanding back in the 1990s that there was a great deal of pressure brought on some of the Booth descendants by other members of the family to agree to suing Green Mount Cemetery for the right to exhume JWB.

I am pleased to tell you that Dr. Naomi Nelson of the Rubenstein Library at Duke University took my invitation and visited the Surratt House website. She sent a very nice note and was especially intrigued with our John Wilkes Booth Escape Route Tours. We may snag another enthusiast!

BettyO · 10-03-2014, 10:15 AM

Quote:I am pleased to tell you that Dr. Naomi Nelson of the Rubenstein Library at Duke University took my invitation and visited the Surratt House website. She sent a very nice note and was especially intrigued with our John Wilkes Booth Escape Route Tours. We may snag another enthusiast!

Fantastic, Laurie! Perhaps that bit of bad history is sometimes what's needed to assist getting the truth as well as the GOOD history, out there!

Eva Elisabeth · 10-03-2014, 01:23 PM

(10-02-2014 01:31 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: Like Gene, John and Laurie I posted a comment to the website that harbored the supposed Booth photo. Just now, I went back to the website to copy the link into an e-mail I was sending to a friend who studies the Civil War and guess what:

The page has been removed!!

Maybe we CAN make a difference in getting irresponsible history out of the public eye. Way to go team!! Now if we can just prevent it from being posted in the first place...

Sorry I'm replying quite late to this, but just to add - today Kees achieved another correction:
http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...l#pid38928

Also I recall "irshgrl500" Karin and Roger once achieved a website correcting a false Mary Lincoln photo: http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...t#pid26453