Family talk:John Brown and Lydia Buckland (1)

Family Records [27 September 2019]

Source for placing John Brown (587) in this family tree: Family Bible copied on July 15, 1929 by Herman Ennis Jones for his sisters.

"John Brown, settled in Duxbury, 1632, brought with him his wife Dorothy Kent. They had two sons, greatly distinguished and a daughter, Mary, who married Thomas Willett, 1636, the first English mayor of New York City (1664-7).

Their son John, married Lydia Buckland, daughter of William Buckland, and had five children - John, born 2 SEP 1650; Lydia, born 6 AUG 1655; Anna born 29 Jan 1657; Joseph born 8 APR 1658; Nathaniel, born 9 JUN 1661."

Date formats have been cleaned up however an apparent error in the birthdate has been retained.

I have moved this comment to the Talk page because it is not useful as a source and needs discussion. I cannot figure out a way to incorporate it gracefully into what is already there.

The objections are this:

1) I assume the quoted part is what comes from the "Family Bible". This is not how entries in family Bibles read. This is how people summarize their own research. As such it appears to be the research of Herman Ennis Jones and carries no weight without knowing how he arrived at this conclusion.

2) If the quoted part is not what is in the Bible, please post a transcription, or more preferably, images, of the Bible so others can verify. This includes other entries since those help determine when the information was recorded.

3) It does not tell how it is known the son married Lydia Buckland since no marriage date is given and no record is cited. As I have posted, we know from John's will that John's widow was Lydia Buckland, but the will does not say when the marriage occurred so provides no proof that she was mother of more than one child. As documented on this page there are two schools of thought and both assumed the John b. 1650 belonged to a different wife. Please note that Robert Charles Anderson is the premier colonial genealogist, not an amateur.

4) The birth of John is recorded in Rehoboth and so there is no reason to think it is "an apparent error". The Rehoboth record would have been recorded contemporary or soon after the event of the birth, and so carries significant weight. A child born about 1650 would be very typical for a man born by 1627, in fact. To refute this date, it would need to demonstrated using evidence of equal or better weight to the Rehoboth records why this is "an apparent error". Until this can be done, the gap between John and the other children suggests he had a different mother.

Citing family records that are available to no one else is not sufficient to override serious genealogists like Robert Charles Anderson. The case must be made with reference to primary records written near the time of the events in question. Note: I have no relationship to John Brown and do not care which answer is right, only that it is right. --Jrich 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)