|
|
Facts and Events
Questionable Information Found
Almost certain no such person existed. See note.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ancestry.com. OneWorldTree. (Name: Name: The Generations Network, Inc.; Location: Provo, UT, USA;;)
Database online.
- Source:Eddy, Ruth Story Devereux. Eddy Family in America, a Genealogy (1930), p. 108, lists sons Warner, Ezra, and John with no birthdate or any other information in the family of Abel Eddy [#275]. This list of children for Abel given in this source is missing several children (Mary, Beulah, Lydia) and presents an incorrect birth order (Lucy should be between Abijah and Benjamin) and is missing most of the birthdates, suggesting incomplete research. A comment on one of Abel's sons notes that "Another list adds the name of Mary as a daughter" for that son, which unfortunately suggests this source compiled lists of children by combining everything submitted by correspondents. Whichever correspondent suggested the three sons named above was probably confused. Ironic that this source proposes these sons with absolutely no sources, but misses three children whose birth are a matter of record.
There appears to be no probate for the father, no mention of these three sons is found in the deeds discussed in this source, and no death record, probate or deed in Franklin County has been found for any of them. Besides finding no evidence for them in this source or elsewhere, there is probably not enough space for these to be added to this family. Adding the three known, but missed, children, and using the dates found in Warwick records (apparently unknown to the author), the proven list shows children born with some regularity for 20 years, and likely represents the full family. This suggests the three doubtful sons would have to have been born after 1790. This is doubtful based on the ages of the parents, and appears contradicted by census records in 1790, 1800, and 1810 which appear consistent with the hypotheses that there are no children after Phineas b. 1790.
Could these children exist? Possibly. One could be born in a gap about 1780, another about 1784, possibly one after 1790 or squeezed in around 1775 dying as an infant. Or perhaps a set of twins, for which it was not uncommon for both to die? If they did exist there is a high probability they all died as infants. What a lot of ifs and guesses! It sure would help to know what the basis for these assertions is, so there could be a chance to prove it or disprove it. But one cannot help wondering how these children were discovered, and other, proven children were missed. And if a family Bible was used, one would expect dates to be available. All of which suggests this is simply confusion or assumption.
|
|
