The Biography of U.S. Coastal Artillery Private William Swift Vaughan by William Mortensen Vaughan

Epitaph

William Swift Vaughan
(1879-1952)
U.S. Coastal Artillery Spanish-American War Veteran from McPherson County, Kansas

Basic Data

 Full Name at Birth:  William Swift Vaughan

              Alias:  unknown             

 Relationship to Me:  Paternal Grandfather 
        WikiTree ID:  Vaughan-3999
    FamilySearch ID:  KHTJ-XPF 

FindaGrave Memorial:  7392717/william-swift-vaughan

      Date of Birth:  12 July 1879
     Place of Birth:  McPherson County, Kansas
    Gender at Birth:  male
U.S. Military 

     Service Number:  unknown
             Father:  Luther Clay Vaughan (1849-1916)
             Mother:  Mary Catharine Swift (1856-1918)
Siblings

(Children of 

Luther Clay 

Vaughan and Mary 

  Catharine Swift):   
Vincent Sylvester Vaughan (1873-1927)
    John Franklin Vaughan (1874-1955)

       Maud Emily Vaughan (1875-1919)
Rutherford DeWitt Vaughan (1877-1960)
              Wife:  Maud Osborn Knowlton
  Date of Marriage:  12 July 1920
 Place of Marriage:  Chicago, Cook County, Illinois
Only Two Children 

of William Swift 

Vaughan and Maud 

   Osborn Knowlton:
William Knowlton Vaughan
 Sidney Knowlton Vaughan

    Date of Death:  4 November 1952
   Place of Death:  Illinois
  Place of Burial:  Willard Grove Cemetery, Channahon, Will County, Illinois, U.S.A.

Biography

William Swift Vaughan was born to Luther Clay Vaughan and Mary Catharine Swift Vaughan, in McPherson County, Kansas, on July 12, 1879.

William served as a Private in the 93rd Company of the U.S. Coastal Artillery during the Spanish-American War. He turned eighteen on July 12, 1897; the Spanish-American War began on April 21, 1898; he entered the U.S. Military on May 13, 1898; he turned nineteen on July 12, 1898; the war ended on August 13, 1898; he left the Military on October 24, 1898; he re-joined the Military on April 22, 1901; and he was discharged on April 21, 1904.

 
William registered for the U.S. World War I Draft, in Chicago, Illinois, on September 17, 1918.

 

William married Maud Osborn Knowlton, in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, on his forty-first birthday, July 12, 1920.

 

William and Maud had a son named William Knowlton Vaughan, in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, on June 14, 1921.

William and Maud had a son named "Sidney Knowlton Vaughan," in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, on or about July 30, 1923.

William registered for the World War II Draft, in Milton, Dupage County, Illinois, in 1942.

 

Maud died in Channahon, Will County, Illinois, on September 17, 1947. Her remains were buried in the Willard Grove Cemetery, in Channahon.

William died in Illinois, on November 4, 1952. His remains were buried with Maud's.

Research Notes

U.S. Census 1880

According to the U.S. Census of 1880, "William M Vaughn" [sic] was found living, at age "0," in Bloomfield, Davis County, Iowa, with his father, "Luther C. Vaughn," age 31 (born circa 1849); his mother, "Mary C. Vaughn," age 24 (born circa 1856); and his siblings: "Vincent S. Vaughn," age 7 (born circa 1873); "John F. Vaughn," age 6 (born circa 1874); Maud E. Vaughn," age 4 (born circa 1876); and "Rutherford B. Vaughn," age 3 (born circa 1877). William was born in Kansas, and his father was born in Indiana, but his mother and siblings were all born in Iowa.

U.S. Military Records

According to his Army Enlistment records, William was some type of "Clerk" when he enlisted, on May 13, 1898. The handwriting may be an abbreviation for "Billing" or "Postal Clerk." His hair was "brown"; his eyes, "Lt."; his complexion, "fair"; and he stood "5'4 3/4" tall.

 

According to his Veterans Administration Form 7202, "William Swift Vaughan" served as a Private with the "93 Co U S Cst Art," from "5/13/98" to "10/24/98," and from "4/22/01" to "4/21/04." He resided at "818 Hillside Ave Glen Ellyn Ill," and served at "St. Louis, Missouri." He was born on "7/12/79," in Chicago, Illinois, and died on "11-4-52."

 

The Spanish-American War began on April 21, 1898, and ended on August 13, 1898, so, born on July 12, 1879, he would have been eighteen and nineteen years old, on those dates. 

 

12 JUL 1897, he turned eighteen years old. 

21 APR 1898, the Spanish-American War began.

13 MAY 1898, he enlisted.

12 JUL 1898, he turned nineteen years old. 

13 AUG 1898, the Spanish-American War ended.

24 OCT 1898, he was discharged.

12 JUL 1900, he turned twenty-one years old.

22 APR 1901, he re-enlisted.

12 JUL 1903, he turned twenty-four years old.
21 APR 1904, he was discharged again.

 

According to his Registration for the World War I Draft, "Wm S Vaughan" was born on "12 Jul 1879," and registered for the Draft, in Chicago, Illinois, on September 17, 1918. He resided at 324 N. Homan Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois. He listed himself as a "Student" at the Columbia College of Expression. He listed his next of kin as "Mrs. O.E. Toole," who resided at the same address. His height was "Medium"; his build, "Slender"; his eyes, "Blue"; his hair, "Dark." He was "Native Born" and "White." He had not lost an arm, leg, hand, or eye, and he was not "obviously physically disqualified."

 

According to the record of William's World War II Draft Registration, "William Swift Vaughan" registered in 1942. He still resided in Milton Township, DuPage County, Illinois. He was born on July 12, 1879. 

Cook County Marriage

According to Illinois, Cook County Marriages, 1871-1968, "William S. Vaughan" married "Maud Knowlton,"on July 12, 1920, in Cook County, Illinois. He was 26, and she was 27; they were born circa 1894 and 1893, respectively (see Discrepancies, below). They resided in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

Cook County Births

According to Illinois, Cook County, Birth Certificates, 1871-1949, "Wm. Knowlton Vaughan" was born to "Wm. R. Vaughan" and "Maud Knowlton," on June 14, 1921, in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. "Wm. R. Vaughan" was 41 years old, born circa 1880; Maud was 28, born circa 1893.

According to Illinois, Cook County, Birth Certificates, 1871-1949," "Sidney Knowelton Vaughan" was born to "Wm. Vaughan" and "Maud Knowleton," on July 31, 1923. Again, William's year of birth was estimated to be 1880, but Maud's, 1892.

U.S. Census 1930

According to the U.S. Census of 1930, "William S Vaughn" was born in "Kansas," circa 1880; "Maud K. Vaughn," [sic] in Illinois, circa 1893; "Willian K. Vaughn," [sic] in Illinois, circa 1922; and "Sidney K. Vaughn," [sic] in Illinois, circa 1924. This "White" family resided at 818 Hillside Avenue, in Glen Ellyn Village, Milton Township, DuPage County, Illinois. William owned his home, which was worth $8,000. He also owned a "Radio set." 

 

Although William and Maud acknowledged that he was fifty, and she, thirty-seven years old, in 1930, they both listed their age at their first marriage as "28." This seems to indicate that William had another wife when he was twenty-eight years old, but I have yet to find any indication that he was ever married to anyone but Maud. (See Discrepancies, below.)

 

This record also indicates that, although both parents could read and write, neither had attended school or college since September 1, 1929. This record does not indicate whether or not their sons could read or write, but it does indicate that both of them had attended school since September 1. William's father (Luther Clay Vaughan) was allegedly born in Kentucky, and his mother (Mary Catharine Swift), in Iowa. Maud's father (Sheldon Densmore Knowlton) was allegedly born in Illinois, and her mother (Edna Osborn), in Ohio. 

 

By profession, William was a postal clerk, and Maud, a public teacher. 

 

This record also indicates that William was a Military Veteran who served in the Spanish-American War.

U.S. Census 1940

According to the U.S. Census of 1940, "William Vaughan," age 60 (born circa 1880), and his "White" family resided at 818 Hillside Avenue, in Glen Ellyn Village, Milton Township, DuPage County, Illinois. There do not appear to be any significant discrepancies between his answers on this census record and the one in 1930. Perhaps most noteworthy is that he claimed four years of college, and Maud, two or four; it's difficult to decipher the handwriting. William Knowlton Vaughan had completed four years of high school; Sidney, two. William still worked as a postal clerk, and Maud, as a public teacher.

Illinois Deaths

According to Illinois Deaths and Stillbirths, 1916-1947, "William S. Vaughan's" wife, "Maud K. Vaughan," died on September 17, 1947, and was buried in Channahon, Will County, Illinois.

 

According to William's FindaGrave Memorial, "William Swift Vaughan" was born, on "12 Jul 1879," in "McPherson County, Kansas, USA"; died in "1952 (aged 72–73)," in "Illinois, USA"; and was buried in the "Willard Grove Cemetery," in "Channahon, Will County, Illinois, USA."

Y-DNA Corroboration

My relationship with William Swift Vaughan is corroborated by Y-DNA.

According to FamilyTreeDNA, a close, genetic cousin, believes that he is probably descended from  

"Dewitt Rutherford Vaughan"
"b. 16 Feb 1877" - "Davis, Iowa, USA"
"d. 24 Jun 1960" - "St Petersburg, Pinellas, Florida, USA"

I believe that he is referring to my grand uncle, whom my Uncle Sidney Knowlton Vaughan identified as

Rutherford DeWitt Vaughan-4136 (LXMT-ZWH)

a sibling of my paternal grandfather, William Swift Vaughan-3999 (KHTJ-XPF), and a son of my paternal great grandfather, Luther Clay Vaughan-4000 (KHPS-3FS).

According to FamilyTreeDNA, thirty-five of thirty-seven of our markers are a match. According to FamilyTreeDNA's TiP (Time Predictor) sheet, it is more than 50% likely that the genetic cousin mentioned above and I share a common ancestor in four generations; 90%, in nine; and 99.9%, in twenty-one generations.

Discrepancies

M., R., or S.

Although the U.S. Census of 1880 identifies William Swift Vaughan as "William M. Vaughn," the record of William Knowlton Vaughan's birth identifies his father as "Wm. R. Vaughan." Most of William Swift Vaughan's records indicate that his name was "William Swift Vaughan" or "William S. Vaughan," in keeping with the tradition of using the mother's maiden name as her child's second, given name. William Swift Vaughan's mother was Mary Catharine Swift.

William's Age at Marriage

The record of William's marriage to Maud, in 1920, indicates that he was approximately a year younger than her, born circa 1894, whereas she was born circa 1893. However, the record of the birth of their oldest son, William Knowlton Vaughan, on June 14, 1921, and the record of the birth of their second son, Sidney Knowlton Vaughan, on July 31, 1923, indicate that the year of William Swift Vaughan's birth was circa 1880. Furthermore, most records of William Swift Vaughan's birth indicate that he was born in 1879. Presumably, he and Maud were embarrassed to admit that he was approximately thirteen years older than her when they were married, or that it was his forty-first birthday, but not when she delivered their first child approximately eleven months later. The U.S. Census of 1930 indicates that William was fifty, and Maud, thirty-seven, but they both listed the age when they were first married as twenty-eight! Apparently, they still felt the need to maintain the lie that they were near the same age when they were married, but, ten years later, they no longer remembered that, on their marriage record, they had listed their ages as twenty-six and twenty-seven. I have no reason to believe that William was married in his twenties, nor that he ever married anyone but Maud, on his forty-first birthday.

The U.S. Census of 1880

Although the U.S. Censuses of 1880 and 1930, and William's FindaGrave Memorial indicate that he was born in Kansas, his VA Form 7202 indicates that he was born in Chicago, Illinois. This was probably just an assumption by whoever wrote that on his VA Form; he was probably born in Kansas.

The Date of Sidney's Birth

Although the record of Sidney's birth indicates that he was born on July 31, 1923, his tombstone indicates that he was born on July 30, 1923. I suspect that his family regarded his birth as having taken place on the night of July 30th, and probably celebrated his birthday on that date throughout his life, although, technically, he was probably born on the 31st, after midnight on the 30th. 

Trivia

William was married on his forty-first birthday, to a woman more than a decade his junior. His oldest son, William Knowlton Vaughan, also remained a bachelor until he was almost forty years old, and married a woman more than a decade his junior.

See Also

FamilySearch:  William Swift Vaughan
    WikiTree:  William Swift Vaughan
  FindaGrave:  William Swift Vaughan

---

Biography by William Mortensen Vaughan

A Biography of Morten Peder Andersen

A

Biography

of

Morten Peter Mortensen

by His Great-Grandson,

William Mortensen Vaughan

dated October 2, 2025

Morten Peter Mortensen was born in Denmark. His name at birth was "Morten Peder Andersen." He was the son of a man named "Anders Mortensen," and a woman named "Dorthe Olsdatter." He converted to Mormonism circa 1850, and migrated to Utah, in 1865, where he settled in Brigham City, and became a polygamist with two wives.

Morten and his first wife, Ane Kirstine Madsdatter (Americanized to Ane K. Olsen), had three children in Denmark: Ane Maria (1859-1865), Lars Anders (1861-1865), and Hanne Dorothea (1864-1865). Morten and Ane Kirstine buried all three of their children, at sea, in 1865, en route to the U.S.A.

Upon migrating to the U.S.A., Morten started using an Americanized version of his name, "Morten Peter Mortensen."

He settled in Brigham City, Utah, where he took a second, polygamous wife, Ane Kirstine Jensen (Americanized to Annie C. Jensen). Perhaps the most notable of his children was Annie C.'s son, Christian Hyrum Mortensen, who married sisters, Hulda Amelia and Violet Stella Smith. Hulda and Violet's youngest brother was a man named "William Waldemar Smith," whose daughter, Donna Smith Packer, became the wife of the Mormon Apostle, Boyd K. Packer.

Research Notes

Morten's tombstone is, perhaps, the best source for sorting out which children he had, by which of his two, polygamous wives: 

[FRONT:]

"MORTENSEN"

[LEFT:]

"ANE KIRSTINA OLSEN
17 JUNE 1833
8 JAN. 1916"

[CENTER:]
"MORTEN PETER MORTENSEN
31 DEC. 1834
16 NOV. 1906"

[RIGHT:]
"ANNIE CHRISTINA JENSEN"
4 JAN. 1853
18 APR. 1915"

[BACK:]

"Children of Morten P. & Annie C. Jensen" (Ane Kirstine Jensen):

Amelia Christina 1875-1932

Andre H. 1878-1879

Emma 1880-1880

Christian Hyrum 1881-1947

Sarah Eliza 1882-1938

Oliver 1884-1885

"Children of Morten P. & Ane K. Olsen" (Ane Kirstine Madsdatter):

Ane Maria 1859-1865

Lars Anders 1861-1865

Hanne Dorothea 1864-1865

Morten Peter 1868-1930

Lorenzo 1870-1872

William 1873-1879

Joseph 1875-1875

Gravesite Details

The remains of Morten and his two wives are all, apparently, buried together under this tombstone.

 

DNA Corroboration

As of March 27, 2025, I had thirty-nine autosomal DNA matches on AncestryDNA, who are descended from Morten via four of his children. We share between 9 and 480 cM. This corroborates our descent from Morten, via his daughters, Amelia, Sarah, and Amanda; and my maternal grandfather, Christian.--William Mortensen Vaughan, October 2, 2025

FamilySearch, Lizzie Lambert, and the Streisand Effect!

[This post was originally published on January 27, 2022.]

In 2022, I suspected that my great-great-grandmother, Lizzie Lambert-13508 (GQ84-PYK), was the product of an extra-marital affair between her mother, Rebecca Orser-428, (LZ86-MV1) and her adoptive father, Charles Wilbur-1868 (LBD8-S2P).
The following list of objections by Lizzie's first cousin three times removed, M. Scott Manning, alias msm1081 on Ancestry.com, M.S. Manning and S. Manning, was based, primarily, on a discussion between me and him, via Private Messages on FamilySearch, about whether or not this could have been the case. On her FamilySearch profile, I suggested the possibility that Lizzie was the product of such an affair, based on analysis of my FamilyTreeDNA and AncestryDNA test results.  S. Manning gave the following reasons why Charles Wilbur, in S. Manning's exact words, "was not her biological father.  And Rebecca Orser and Charles Wilbur did not have an affair.  And Lizzie is not illegitimate." Below this list, find my responses to each of S. Manning's objections:

 1. I, William Mortensen Vaughan, have "not written one word about
all [my] relevant Lambert-related DNA matches."

 2. S. Manning would "caution against putting much weight on use of Ancestry Thrulines."

 3. Charles Wilbur and Rebecca Orser resided in locations which were too far apart for them to have had an affair.

 4. Rebecca was ten "years [Charles'] senior."

 5. Charles Wilbur "was not [Lizzie's] biological father.  And Rebecca Orser and Charles Wilbur did not have an affair.  And Lizzie is not illegitimate."

My responses:

 1. I, William Mortensen Vaughan, had "written...about... [my] relevant Lambert-related DNA matches"; they contradict each other. Some seem to indicate that I am descended from Charles Wilbur; others seem to indicate that I am descended from Rebecca Orser. If I were descended from Rebecca Orser; Charles Wilbur; and their child, Lizzie Lambert, autosomal DNA, inherited from parents of either gender, might match autosomal DNA in descendants of Rebecca Orser and her husband, John Lambert. Even when autosomal DNA matches triangulated onto John Lambert and Rebecca Orser, this did not necessarily prove that John was Lizzie's biological father, because Rebecca and Lizzie might have passed their autosomal DNA to me and my DNA matches who triangulated onto them. What convinced me that John Lambert was, in fact, Lizzie Lambert's biological father, was when I recently discovered that more matches triangulated onto Lizzie's paternal grandfather, John Lambrecht. This meant that autosomal DNA was passed from John Lambrecht and/or his wife, Ursula Zacharias, through John Lambert, to me.

 2. Any argument about putting weight on Ancestry ThruLines is irrelevant, because, based on my FamilyTreeDNA test results, I had already determined that Charles Wilbur seemed to be Lizzie Lambert's father before I had ever even heard of AncestryDNA's ThruLines. AncestryDNA's ThruLines simply reaffirmed what I had already discovered.

 3. Charles Wilbur and Rebecca Orser resided in locations which were close enough for Charles to discover and adopt Rebecca's daughter, Lizzie, so they were close enough to have had an affair.

 4. Rebecca being ten "years [Charles'] senior" serving as a reason not to have an affair with him is the most amusing reason S. Manning gave, especially to me, a man who has been married for nearly twenty years to Libertad Green, a woman nearly a quarter century my junior.

 5. Merely stating that Charles Wilbur "was not [Lizzie's] biological father.  And Rebecca Orser and Charles Wilbur did not have an affair.  And Lizzie is not illegitimate" does not make any of that true. If anything, it reinforces a Streisand effect.

The Streisand effect is the primary reason I became so concerned with the issue of Lizzie's legitimacy and Charles Wilbur's precise relationship to her.

Once upon a time, there was a WikiTree profile for Charles Wilbur, as well as a FindaGrave memorial. Then someone informed me that that Charles and Aurelia Wilbur had adopted Lizzie Lambert. I have a copy of Charles Wilbur's will, in which he states that Lizzie was his adopted daughter, so I have no doubt that he legally adopted her and wanted her to be his heir. But, one day, I discovered that Charles and Aurelia's WikiTree profiles and FindaGrave memorials were gone. It was if someone were trying to purge the Internet of any evidence that they ever existed, let alone that they might have been regarded as Lizzie Lambert's parents, adoptive or otherwise.

Furthermore, S. Manning acts as if he were the sole proprietor of Lizzie Lambert's profile on FamilySearch. I can't think of anything I've ever added to her profile that he hasn't made a point of second-guessing and editing, if he can, to always have "the last word," so to speak. He acts as if he's afraid someone might disturb his great-great grandmother's remains instead of mine. As stated above, and according to his own claim, he is merely a "1st cousin 3X removed." (I have verified this claim via my own research.)

By the way, several months ago (in 2021), I complained to FamilySearch about S. Manning bogarting my great-great grandmother's profile, but I never heard from them until 2025, after I complained again. They informed me that posting incorrect information did not constitute abuse, which reply, as I told them, told me that they hadn't grasped the import of my complaint; my complaint was not that Mr. Manning was posting incorrect information about Lizzie. On the contrary, he had made and posted significant discoveries about her for which I am grateful, and I thanked him personally (via online messages). He discovered that Lizzie was not another Elizabeth whom he and I had both previously supposed that she was. He also discovered the record of her birth to Rebecca Orser and John Lambert. My problem with him is the manner in which he bogarted her profile, always insisting on having the last word, no matter what, as if he had the authority to have the final say on anything regarding his first cousin three times removed, my great-great-grandmother, Lizzie Lambert.

In 2022, I looked at the list of infractions which FamilySearch considers abusive, and it includes posting anything which might embarrass living people. Suggesting that S. Manning's first cousin three times removed might be the illegitimate product of an extramarital affair would probably qualify as such an embarrassment. FamilySearch seems to be less concerned with the truth than actual harassment. 

UPDATE:  In 2025, I discovered that twenty autosomal DNA matches on Ancestry.com triangulate onto Lizzie Lambert's paternal grandfather, John Lambrecht, via her father, John Lambert, and her aunt, John's sister, Catherine. According to Ancestry.com, we share between 8 and 57 centiMorgans, so I acknowledge that it Lizzie was almost certainly John Lambert's biological daughter. 

When I posted this new conclusion, I noticed that Mr. Manning had been started referring to me as "one cousin," a blatant attempt to diminish my direct descent from Lizzie, in contrast to his relationship to her as a distant cousin. Then I noticed that he had posted documents among her gallery, associated with her Memorial on Findagrave, which I manage. It wasn't enough to bogart her profile on FamilySearch and Wikitree; he was attempting to bogart her profile on Findagrave, even though I manage it! So I posted AI-generated artwork related to her, and arranged the gallery to push his to the back/bottom of the gallery. I wouldn't have removed the documents he posted even if I could; they are valid, and I have no objection to that. 

But he changed his captions under them, in response to my AI-generated art, telling readers to ignore those sad fakes. He actually called them "fake," which is tantamount to accusing me of the intent to deceive people. 

I had clearly labeled my art as AI generated. It was not intended to deceive anyone. 

I complained about this to Findagrave's moderators, and they saw it my way. At first, they altered his captions to avoid accusing me of deception, and calling my art "sad." I was satisfied with this solution. But they eventually took it a step further, and removed his posts from Lizzie's Memorial.

In response to him calling my "fakes" "sad," took a look at his profile, and discovered that he manages his parents' Memorials, but had neglected to sponsor them. So I sponsored them, and sent him a message, telling him that what was sad is that, in more than six months and sixty years since his mother and father died, respectively, he was too cheap to sponsor their Findagrave Memorials.

Although I acknowledge that John Lambert was almost certainly Lizzie Lambert's biological father, the possibility still exists that John's wife, Rebecca Orser, may have had an extramarital affair with Charles Wilbur. The following questions are still begged:

"Why did someone delete Charles and Aurelia Wilbur's Wikitree profiles and Findagrave memorials?"

"What was Charles Wilbur's precise biological relationship to Lizzie Lambert? He might taken her in as a foster child, and/or he might have employed her as a domestic servant; why did he not only adopt her but also bequeath his entire estate to her? Did he believe that she was or might have been his biological daughter?" 

"Why is Mr. Manning so invested in bogarting my great-great-grandmother, Lizzie Lambert's profiles, when he is only a distant cousin?"

"What is he trying to hide?!?"

 

_________________________________

Commentary by William Mortensen Vaughan

The Fickleness & Pettiness of Findagrave Moderators

AI Portrait of Lt. Presley O'Bannon

Two days ago (Monday, August 11, 2025), I noticed something I found particularly distasteful that Findagrave moderators have done to me:  They have apparently removed all of the AI-generated portraits I had previously uploaded to the Findagrave Memorials I manage and/or sponsor, as well as to Memorials I do not manage or sponsor, such as the one in honor of U.S. Marine Corps Presley Neville O'Bannon. 

This is upsetting, because it makes me feel as if trying to improve the memorials I manage is a waste of my time.

 Furthermore, their application of their rules seems willy-nilly.  On July 21, 2025, I received an e-mail from no-reply@findagrave.com, which thanked me for an AI-generated portrait which I had uploaded to the Findagrave Memorial of my first cousin five times removed, U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant O'Bannon, whose expedition "to the shores of Tripoli" is memorialized in "The Marines' Hymn."

Presley & Eleanor

 It also indicated that the photo had been approved, which was, apparently, necessary, because, since he is regarded as a notable person, his Memorial is managed by "Find a Grave." I followed a link in the e-mail to his Memorial, and found that my AI-generated portrait was indeed on display there.

Apparently, without notification, that decision has been repealed. That portrait (above right) is gone, as well as every AI-generated portrait I had posted, which I've been looking up today, including the one above left, which I had posted on my three times great-grandmother, Eleanor O'Bannon's Memorial.

Here's a better one. 

After Googling Findagrave's policy regarding AI images, I discovered that they are no longer allowed.

Another thing Findagrave's moderators have done which bothers me, is that they took away, without warning or notification, my management of their Memorial for my first cousin once removed, Donna Edith (Smith) Packer. At first, they removed the biography I had created for it. then they posted it, with my name still on it. As of tonight, it's still online.  

Another policy they have which infuriates me, is that they limit relatives' rights to claim their Memorials to great-grandparents/children or closer. They reprimanded me, via e-mail, for requesting the Memorial for my great-great-grandfather, Luke Wright Osborn, even though the person managing his Memorial did not claim to be related to him at all! 

 

Another thing I dislike about Findagrave is that they only allow links to Findagrave pages in the biographies volunteers post on their memorials. I'm able to hyperlink my name as the author of a Findagrave biography, to my Findagrave profile page; I can also hyperlink the names of relatives mentioned in my Findagrave biographies to their Findagrave memorials, but Findagrave does not allow me to post links to Familysearch or Wikitree profiles of the same people, or any other non-Findagrave webpages. There is one exception to this. I am allowed to hyperlink one non-Findagrave webpage from the Home Page that I list on my Findagrave profile. 

The Dishonesty & Pettiness of Wikitree Moderators

The other day (prior to August 2, 2025) I discovered that at least one Wikitree Moderator was even more dishonest than I would previously have supposed. I plugged my father's Wikitree ID into the Wikitree Relationship Finder to determine his relationship to several men surnamed Rutherford, and it told me that the Rutherford profiles/IDs did not exist. I Googled their names and dates of birth and death, and quickly discovered that their Wikitree profiles and the IDs I had used did exist. By further experimentation, I quickly discovered that only my father's Wikitree ID seems to be effected. To hide the ruse, I was able to look up his relationship to his forefathers one or two generations "upstream." How petty and DISHONEST!

The purpose of a genealogical website should be to share the TRUTH - not outright lies. To tell me that those Rutherford profiles/IDs did not exist were outright lies.

Wikitree Moderators, you should be ashamed of yourselves! 

UPDATE:  As of August 13, 2025, plugging my father's Wikitree ID into the Wikitree Relationship Finder seems to work again.