|
|
Baseless garbage [19 January 2017]
The following comments have been addressed by updates to the pages. The Winifred Holman source is one I am not familiar with, so I simply referenced this Talk page. --DataAnalyst 21:38, 26 December 2011 (EST)
- See here. Since Ancestry.com took over heritagequest.com almost all useful sources that could be found there are no longer on line. Fortunately various online libraries are developing some critical mass. Regarding comment below, Charlestown Genealogies is here.--Jrich 03:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have personally checked out 11 of 15 of Torrey's sources (the other 4 are not available to me: Warner-Harrington, LBDF&P, Boston Transcript 18 May 1927, Charlestown Genealogies and Estates), not to mention my own searching efforts before that (including NEHGR, TAG, Mayflower Descendant, etc.). Not a single one presents any evidence as to Thomas' wife's identity, though there are assertions aplenty. The marriage date on this page, Apr 1640 in Charlestown, is only given by Davis-Everett, but there is no evidence provided, it is merely stated in passing, in a paragraph describing the supposed ancestry of one of their granddaughters, Hannah Wilder.
Neither can I find any evidence for her death date of 10 Jun 1692, having looking in Marshfield as this page says, Lancaster as Bullard Anc says, or Charleston as DePew says.
The most responsible source appears to be Winifred Holman in Stevens-Miller who only gives what is known: Thomas' wife was Anna or Hannah ---, known to be living on 4 Mar 1667/8. --Jrich 17:31, 4 December 2011 (EST)
- I am in the process of reviewing a GEDCOM (which includes Thomas Wilder and Ann Unknown). Once the GEDCOM is uploaded, I always go through all records I added and merged with to see what should be refined/clarified. I can clean up this record at that time if no one else has got around to it by then. (BTW - The record was like this before I touched it - all I have done in my GEDCOM merge is add a death date to son Thomas.)
- I do have a death year for Ann - 1691 - from the article "From Emigrants to Rulers: The Charlestown Oligarchy in the Great Migration" NEHGR 131:212. I have no idea how reliable it is, but had planned to add it and the citation. The article (which starts on page 3) says on page 21 that it generally follows Torrey - but Torrey says she died in 1692, so I don't know if another source was used for her death year. If this source is considered unreliable, the death can be set to "aft 4 Mar 1667/8" with an alternate of 1691. --DataAnalyst 18:39, 4 December 2011 (EST)
- I hope you did not think that I thought you added Torrey as a source. I think actually that I myself added it some time ago as a way to illustrate how unsure the identify of Thomas' wife is. Your change just caused me to reinvestigate it, and reinforce my feeling that a marriage listed in Torrey is hardly any better than a marriage found in an AFN.
- As for the death date, I have no contradictory information, but some of the coincidences make me question it, and to want proof, which I cannot find:
- The date 10 Jun 1692 is given, but the death is said to occur in Lancaster, Charlestown, or Marshfield, depending on where you look, which is unlikely if a real death record or gravestone had been located. I haven't found a death record in the VR of any of the three. These places aren't exactly close to each other, at least a day's travel in colonial times, in different counties in modern times.
- Elizabeth Eames, d/o Anthony, m. Edward Wilder, and d. 9 Jun 1692, one day different from the date cited for a proposed Hannah Eames, allegedly d/o Anthony, who is supposed to have married Thomas Wilder.
- I don't find the 1692 date unreasonable per se, I just don't know what it is based on. Is there a probate document saying she was deceased on that date and the date should really be before 10 Jun 1692? Is her name spelled strangely (Wyllder?) so my searches for a death record have been unsuccessful? Did Anna/Hannah marry again, and the death record is under a different name? Whether it is 1691 or 1692 or something else altogether doesn't matter. What matters is how it is known. --Jrich 23:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)
|
|
