Family talk:Nathaniel Phelps and Hannah Bissell (1)

I suspect we have this family screwed up. Ricker shows the following:
Nathaniell, mar Hannah Phelps, 28 Mar 1699 - Hebron VR
Nathanaell, mar Hannah Bissell, 20 Mar 1700 - Windsor VR

Holcombe has this family starting out in Windsor and then ending up in Hebron, when there was already a Nathaniel and Hannah Phelps family in Hebron at the time.

Perhaps this family did move to Hebron. Ricker records the birth of Hannah Phelps', the oldest daughter as recorded here, as "Hannah, dau of Nathaniell, b. 22 Jan 1701/2 - Hebron & Windsor VR." The Barbour Collection at Ancestry.com shows Hannah Phelps born Jan 22 in Hebron (I did not find a Windsor listing). Holcombe has her birth as 12 Jan 1702 in Windsor.

The other children are suspect, as Holcombe has them all being born in Hebron. Looking at the GEDCOMs at World Connect, the data has been merged as well. No one has a Nathaniel Phelps marrying a Hannah Phelps in Hebron (though they will sometimes use the March 28th date and others the March 20th date). They all have the Windsor family moving to Hebron instead.

Very confusing.

--Ronni 08:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I really have no idea because it's a couple generations off my direct line. But I have two thoughts. 28 Mar 1699 could be 28 Mar 1699/1700. Which is awfully close to 20 Mar 1699/1700. Which is the seems a more likely date than 20 Mar 1700/1701 if they had a kid in Jan 1701/02 (not impossible of course, just fast). Perhaps, since no one has identified a Hannah Phelps this could be, or another Nathaniel Phelps, the 1699 record at Hebron is a later recorded record for the same people.

All just speculation, but it seems that if no one has it any differently on WorldConnect that's weird if this is in fact two different couples.--Amelia.Gerlicher 23:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Your explanation of the same event being recorded in two different areas is a possibility, especially in light of their daughter Hannah's birth. The Nathaniel in Hebron was active in town activities, holding some kind of office even, so you're right, seems someone on WC would have mentioned the confusion if they were actually two different families. This family is not in my direct line either, so I'm setting aside my confusion and moving on.:) Thanks Amelia! --Ronni 06:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)