Person talk:Thomas Wetmore (18)

There is some problem here. Carnahan says the following:

He first married Sarah, daughter of John and Ann (Willocke) Hall, of Hartford, Dec. 11, 1645..."--p.ll. "...Sarah died Dec. 7 1664-5"--p. 26. Thomas married secondly, Mary Ann Attconson who died June 1, 1669.

However, the person page says Sarah's mother is unknown. His second wife is shown as Mary Platt. was she a Widow? which was her maiden name or is this even the same person? also she is shown as his third wife, not the 2nd.--Scot 15:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I wouldn't say it's a problem so much as a lack of documentation. I've never seen any primary source or sourced research that documents John Hall's wife's name. Various places give it as Ann Willock or Esther Willock or Ann Ester Willock, with various spellings. I prefer not to change an "unknown" entry unless there's documentation. There probably should, however, be a note on Esther Unknown's page that most people list her name as some variation of Willocke, and that most only list one wife, be it Esther or Ann or Esther Ann, and not both -- unless someone knows where those names come from and can show there were actually two wives.

As for Mary Ann Attconson, according to Savage she was the daughter of Deacon Richard Platt and widow of Luke Atkinson. She's listed as third on the Thomas Whitmore page because WeRelate doesn't yet sort marriages correctly, but the marriage dates are entered for each showing Mary was second.--Amelia.Gerlicher 16:47, 7 February 2008 (EST)

I agree with you on undocumented information. However, I have noticed that several pages that you have redirected me to, contain sources such as Worldconnect, the Ancestral File and various personal websites. In my opinion these are not valid sources and are likely to be riddled with errors. My biggest hope with ths website is that source documentation will improve as people edit the pages. Even Savage, Torrey and Jacobus are secondary sources, all be it more credible than the above named. So sorry you can't shed light on my Gray/ Quigley folks. They are my most recent deadend.--Scot 18:02, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Of course you're right about the Worldconnect, etc., sources, but in the absence of anything else, I leave what's there. If you have something better, the purpose of merging the pages is that you can replace the useless sources with the good ones (or leave them all if you can't determine which is trustworthy).--Amelia.Gerlicher 18:15, 7 February 2008 (EST)

There is another issue here with the 19th century fraudulent genealogies. I am sure most of us have picked up some material from them in one way or another.I keep running across references to them with lists of surnames which are affected, but never any specifics as to what information is bad. If some one knows of any fraudulent links or sources, a page should be kept at that article with the debunking there.--Scot 16:47, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Thought I would jump in on this discussion. I just placed Thomas Wetmore/Whitmore's Will and Inventory on his page and corrected his will date, added his Inventory date w/website. At the bottom of the Inventory is a legatee list of sons & daughters with their ages at time of Inventory (7 Jan 1681/82). From another website are references to 2 articles 1) NEHGR 1860, 14:136 & 2)TAG 1955, 31:155-170. I don't have access to these here in the Parma Library & can't get to either Cleveland Public or Fairview Park Library. Can someone access these to see what information is contained ? Shortly I will correct Thomas' children's birthdates and baptisms according to Savage's 'A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers....' Vol 4 pa 528- 530 ? for WHITMORE/WETMORE as a spring board to standardize the separate WeRelate Thomas WHITMORE and Thomas WETMORE person pages. Hopefully these pages can eventually be merged. If any correcting information can be gathered from either of the above referenced articles, please change anything I've entered from the Savage article. Regards..--Neal Gardner 12:58, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Both articles are available to NEHGS members. NEHGR 14:136 is part of a list of information about families in Middletown, CT:

TAG 1955, 31:155-170 is an article about the Platt family. The pertinent part is on p. 163:

--Amelia 23:53, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, Amelia for the help 'smoothing out & citing' the Wetmore/Whitmore family. Unfortunately I can't afford a NEHGS membership just now. Regards...--Neal Gardner 11:05, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

Parents of Thomas Wetmore [23 May 2013]

The page as it stands shows John Whitmore as the father of Thomas. At best there is no proof for this. Both John Carnahan Wetmore and William Henry Whitmore considered this a possibility, but neither one showed it in this way. Later genealogists, including Stadel simply give it as a "fact" as this page does. Some even go so far as to bring the Whittemore family into the picture.

For some years I was the Project Administrator for the Whitmore DNA project. We tested more than a dozen male line descendants of Thomas Wetmore, four of Francis Whitmore, and three or four of Thomas Whittemore of Charlestown and Malden. The three families are NOT related. Therefore showing John as the father of Thomas AND Francis is an out and out error.

We also tested an English baronet, Sir John Whitmore, descended from the Whitmores of Whitmore Hall in Staffordshire. He wasn't related to any of the three American families. (This is not offered as proof. His line had to go back to the 1300's to connect to Whimore in Staffordshire, so plenty of opportunity for a paternity error.) But the best proof for a Wetmore connection to Whitmore Hall lies in the fact that a painting of the current owners in the dining room was done by the American portrait artist, the late Gordon Wetmore, and a label on the wall next to it refers to him as "our cousin." Stadel was in cloud coo coo land with that stuff.

You provide a link to our old web page for the will, but I don't think the spelling in this transcript (it is not the original will, but a transcript in the probate records) justifies adding a third spelling to Thomas' surname. (It does prove that James Carnahan Wetmore never actually saw the transcript, as he says it is spelled Whitmore. He is right that the early Hartford court records use Whitmore or a variation, but the town records (I've looked at the original Vol I of the Land Records at the CSL) begin with Wetmer and Wettmer and finally end up with Wetmore when his third marriage is recorded.

Then there is the 1635 arrival date from James Carnahan Wetmore. I've not been able to find anything to substantiate this. The earliest date I can come up with is 1641, when John Whitmore sells his land in Wethersfield and Thomas Whitmore/Whetmore is shown as the land holder on one of his borders. Stiles History of Wethersfield does suggest that Thomas was there as one of the earliest settlers, but I can find nothing to substantiate that.

I am, by the way, a descendant of Thomas, but my spelling change ocurred about 1838 with my g g grandfather.

But, I don't want to barge in as a "new comer" and make major changes to a page that has been so carefully put together.

If I stay I'll be working on the lines from Joseph (my own line) Samuel and probably Beriah, as I have some great data on these. I notice Thomas Trask Wetmore IV has added some of his family, and I probably could get him to add back to Izrahiah. His line is from the Rev. James Wetmore, and most of them were Empire Loyalists and moved to Canada.

Hal Whitmore--Hnwhitmore 22:15, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Hal,

Please, please, please add what you know and delete what needs to be deleted from this page. Your Whitmore DNA information is invaluable, and you have done more original research than anyone else watching this page. Those in the discussion above are the only active users watching this page, and you can tell from the discussion above that our resources are limited. Please don't worry about being a newbie! If you have any questions, please ask. Best, --Amelia 00:18, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

Ok, Amelia.

I'll take you up on this. I had just ventured here after reading about it in Dick Eastman's newsletter. He mentioned another wiki as well, but that sure looks like it is going the way of Ancestry trees, while it was clear that someone had put a lot of thought into these few pages. I'll read some instructions, but I will probably blunder a few times on layout things, so I'll trust you to set me on the right path when I do,

As creator of many of the Whetmore/Wetmore pages, I certainly welcome any corrections by anyone having better resources than I did at the time created. And welcome to werelate ! --Neal Gardner 12:21, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

Thank you, Neal. I felt reluctant to "mess" with something that had taken so much work. I will break the link to John Whitmore, and eventually begin a discussion here on the ancestry of Thomas and possible place of origin in England. I don't happen to believe the connection to Joh Whitmore, although it may well be true. But I would like to get discussion going on the subject.--Hnwhitmore 15:07, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Date of Thomas' marriage to Mary (Platt) Atkinson [24 May 2013]

I noticed alternate dates for this marriage and thought it would be easy to settle. I thought I could go right to pages of LR1, but find what I printed from the film is buried some place. (And, without that I don't know whether it is one of the original pages or one of the ones that had been transcribed before the LDS filmed LR1.

I see that Barbour (at least my copy of the printed version)l shows the February date. But I have a copy of the transcription Donald Lines Jacobus did for the TAG and he shows "Thomas Wettmer married Mary Attcenson 3 Jan 1666". (His transcription even shows the page number, 9, in LR!) A transcription from the Register (April 1860) shows "Thomas Wetmore m. Mary (Attconson?) Jan 3 1666".

My copy of Barbour shows her surname as Allenson.

The Barbour copy (supposed to be an original typescript donated by Barbour) agrees with my printed version, both in the spelling and the date.

I trust the Jacobus' transcription more than whoever did the Barbour typescript from the original slips, especially with the Allenson vs Attcenson bit with I am virtually certain is an error.

I propose going with the Jacobus transcription until someone can look at the original book (or the film if it happens to be an original page).

Any of the three of you following this object?--Hnwhitmore 22:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Not me.--Amelia 23:03, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

Major Revision to Thomas' page [13 June 2013]

I have completed my major revision to the page for Thomas Wetmore. There are a couple of things that I think need further comment or research.

First is the spelling of his surname. JCW made quite a production of stating that his name had been Whitmore and was changed to Wetmore in the third and fourth generations. Many of his facts were in error, (eg the name in the will transcript is Whetmore, not Whitmore as he claims; there were Wetmores in Gloucestershire in the early 1600's; in the town records the his name is spelled variously Wetmer, Wettmer and Wetmore), but basically I don't think folks in the 1700th century "changed" the spelling of their names. The spelling is usually what others thought it sounded like. It wasn't until the 1700's that "standardized" spelling began. I may eventually take a whack at an article on the spelling of his name.

Second, I"d like to begin an ongoing discussion of Thomas' origins. I've been in touch with a member of the Hall DNA project who has a proven line to a Hall from Gloucestershire. He is an excellent match for another member of the project who claims a line of descent from John Hall, Thomas' father-in-law and is convinced that John Hall must be descended from an uncle or great uncle of his ancestor. I'd love to find our John Hall and our Thomas Wetmore/Whitmore or however his surname was spelled on parish registers, in one of the Gloucestershire parishes. (It's not the one the Hall guy's ancestor was from. I've read -- or tried to -- that one. I am at this point "convinced" that Thomas that they came over together, and came from Gloucestershire. No evidence what so ever, but I like the idea.

I'm sure that what I have put together on Thomas still needs some work and corrections, so I hope anyone interested will have at it,. Hal--HBWhitmore 13:19, 13 June 2013 (EDT)