#163: Follow-up Questions, Please…

163.1 Dear Stolf: Weren’t you picking on the Greenleaf family last week…maybe just a little?  …from Dolores Fensterblau, Redneck NJ

163.2  Dear Dolores: You mean all those relatives marrying relatives? Not a bit…just telling it like it was, baby. Don’t kill the messenger. As I have said many times: their ways were not our ways. But since you brought it up…I did happen to find some more…outside of the William Greenleaf/Mary Brown line, which shows they weren’t the only “culprits.”

chart 579

163.3  Perusing Chart 579, you must remember that all these individuals were born with the last name of Greenleaf…so no new monograms on the towels were needed. I’ve included William Greenleaf’s place in the tree to get you oriented…it might be fun to do 2 things: determine how William is related to each of the Greenleafs who married a Greenleaf…and how each of those couples are related to each other. Answers will appear after today’s wicked ballsy below.

163.4  But one thing you might have noticed…there are 2 Stephen Greenleaf Jr.’s at the top of the chart. Now sometimes genealogists will bestow posthumous titles on individuals to distinguish them from those with the same name. It could be I/II/III or Sr./Jr. Personally, I think it’s better to use those only if the person did so in their lifetime. Better would be to say Joe Blow (1) and Joe Blow (2). Sometimes to be explicit about it, I’ll say Joe Blow born 1813 and Joe Blow born 1845.

chart 580

163.5  And this is a case in point. Chart 580 gives you the specifics of what was going on. Comparing the dates of the grandson’s birth and the grandfather’s death, you will see that 3 Stephen Greenleafs were alive for a span of 42 days. To the best of my knowledge…and yes, I did poke around on this a bit…#2 was known as Jr. during #1’s lifetime…and #3 was Jr. during #2’s lifetime. If it were your family, you could have done something different…employed “III” perhaps…but that’s the way they did it.

163.6  Dear Stolf: Very interesting discussion about the number of kids Jerry and Millie Helper had. But you didn’t address another issue: her “phantom” pregnancy. Will you please?  …Scarsdale Sal, Old Rochelle NY

163.7  My Gal Sal: Be tickled pink to. There was so much to cover, I reluctantly left this out…but I’m glad to put it back in. We’re talking about a sequence of 6 episodes from the first season…numbers 1-12 thru 1-17. Millie Helper does not appear in 1-13 or 1-14, but she does in the other 4…and she is decidedly pregnant. We exclude 1-15 because this is a flashback episode, when Laura is pregnant with Richie, and Millie is supposed to be pregnant too…altho with whom is a good question…see Related How Again #156…paragraphs 156.13-23.


163.8  The difficulty is this: in the present time setting of the series, they’ve had all their kids…one for the Petries, 3 for the Helpers. Flashback episodes proved popular with viewers, so they did quite a few of them…centering on the Army days when Rob and Laura met…and when they had Richie. And there are the expected discrepancies, especially with the latter…like when the time has almost arrived, and Rob is sleeping in his clothes to be better prepared for the mad dash to the hospital, they’re living in their “old place” in the fictional Willetstown, said to be one hour from New Rochelle. Yet when they bring Richie home from the hospital…the famous “switched babies” episode…they’re in their “new place” in New Rochelle. Is it possible that while Laura was in the hospital, Rob was busy moving them? Yeah…but not likely.

163.9  In any event…what to make of Millie’s condition in episodes 1-12, 1-16, and 1-17. I’d say the best way to sum it up is this: Ann Morgan Guilbert was pregnant…Millie Helper wasn’t. Because not once  during these 3 episodes is there any mention of it…and of course there is not, eventually, a 4th Helper sibling. Playing the Fan Logic Game, there are several tragic ways to explain this…obviously…but me, I chose to judiciously ignore them.

163.10  But seeing is believing, so let’s try and check it out. Guilbert and her husband George Eckstein had 2 children…Nora born 2/4/1955 and Hallie born 1/5/1962. These episodes aired from 12/12/1961 to 1/17/1962 so that’s it…it’s Hallie! What’s more, Guilbert was not in any of the remaining 13 episodes of that first season, next appearing in the 2nd episode of the 2nd season, which certainly suggests a period of recuperation, nez pah?

163.11 Dear Stolf: You said a while back that no 1st cousins have ever been President. My daughter-in-law tells me Washington and Madison were 1st cousins twice removed. I know, that means one was the 1st cousin of a grandparent of the other. Still, truthoid or crapola?   …from Garfield Harding, Polktown VA

163.12  Dear Garfield: Before I examine your DIL’s claim, a couple of things. First, any time you say “1st cousin” it certainly sounds closer than 2nd, 3rd, 4th cousins, etc. But given removeds, that need not be the case. For example, a 2nd cousin once removed is closer than a 1st cousin 4 times removed…it’s just that “1st” catches the eye…um, ear…whatever. Just for the record, a 1st cousin A times removed will never be more distant than an Ath cousin…in this sense, a 1st cousin will never “fall behind.” And it’s true that a removed 1st cousin is closer to somebody in your direct line than any higher-numbered cousin, removed or not…but again, in absolute terms, a “1st cousin” need not be more closely related to you.

163.13  Secondly, it’s safe to say that because of his historical stature, George Washington and his family have been researched and verified to a degree that is practically unassailable. All the more so because he and Martha had no children…so to be related to GW, it has to be off to the side…you must be descended from his siblings, his parents siblings, his grandparents siblings, etc. And to be thus descended is a mighty big deal to a lot of people, especially the “lucky” ones. I looked at this with the other Presidents back in Related How Again? #34: Tails or Me?…and checking back there, I had Washington and Madison related by marriage only. A quick google gave me “half-1st cousins twice removed”…always nice to see them splitting those “half” hairs, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.

wash mad I

163.14  What we need is specifics, and I found these rather quickly…2 solid “connections”…I have combined both in Chart 581.

chart 581

You will notice GW and his father Augustine appear in 2 different places, highlighted by yellow so you don’t miss it. And while both of these connections turn out to be real, they are also both by marriage not blood. On the left, GW’s half-aunt married Madison’s grand uncle…and on the right, GW’s 1st cousin married Madison’s grandfather’s 1st cousin. Now it’s interesting to notice that thru these 2 marriages, GW’s position relative to Madison spans 2 generations…he is in Madison’s father’s generation on the left, Madison’s grandfather’s generation on the right. And yes, the “1st cousin twice removed” your DIL mentioned does enter into it…altho GW himself is not Madison’s 1C 2R, he is the 1st cousin of the wife of Madison’s 1C 2R…and that’s an awfully big difference.

163.15  Still, something in the back of my mind told me there was an even closer connection, albeit again by marriage. And sure enough…

wash mad II

By closer I mean thru Madison’s own marriage to Dolley…and as you can see in Chart 582 below, Dolley’s sister married GW’s nephew…altho in the above explanation, where it says “Mary Coles Washington” is should read “Lucy Payne Washington”…they are confusing Dolley’s sister with her mother, who was never a Washington. And notice, nothing remotely resembling a 1st cousin twice removed anywhere here…

chart 582

163.16  And it’s worth mentioning once again that spelling in those days was not as rigidly policed as it is today…thus is was Dolly, Dolley, or Dollie depending on the writer’s mood. Bottom line: no blood relation between GW and James Madison…3 (at least!) by marriage…and we’ll see you next week, when it’ll be…duper!

wicked ballsy

screen cap

A couple of censored product placements on “The Dick Van Dyke Show” top row…compared to the closest I could come to uncensored versions in the bottom row…not exact matches, but still early 60s appropriate. But there was another that was a lot less clear…the crayons Richie uses once on the dining room table…and since vintage crayons are one of my special areas of interest, I was bound and determined to nail this one down.


Going strictly by memory, and based on the dark box with a white circle, obviously a wide 12-pack, I first thought of the Binney and Smith Easy-Off crayons…the company had yet to combine all its products under the Crayola label, so this was a separate brand. Looks pretty close, especially the format of the writing on the side, altho even that isn’t quiet right (red circle). And I didn’t like what looked like writing on the front, under the white circle…Easy-Off had instead just the B&S oval logo.

So I consulted my reference scrap-book…similar to what Sherlock Holmes had with his commonplace books stuffed with crime clippings. Sure enough, turned out to Easy-Off’s predecessor, simply called Washable crayons. Yeah, and Laura strikes me as the kind of parent who wouldn’t want to risk indelible scribbles…so she’d pay the slightly higher price…and it was only slightly higher…in those days, you could clip a coupon to save 5¢ after all.  Finally, the answers from 163.3



Copyright © 2014 Mark John Astolfi, All Rights Reserved


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s