Person talk:William Odell (1)

I have merged two records that were obviously for the same person, but do not have sufficient information to determine the correct birth date or place. I have changed the death date from 6 Jun 1676 to just June 1676, as Jacobus in History and Genealogy of Old Fairfield gives the date of his will as 6 June 1676 and the inventory as 12 June 1676.

I have removed his parents, as TAG 15:55-57 established that William Odell of Concord and Fairfield was not the son of Richard Odell and Martha Nichols of Newport Pagnell. If his birth date is known (as suggested by both records I merged) then his parents should be known as well, but I am not aware of the source of his birth information.

I have no idea if this William had two wives (one merged from each record) - and hope that I have not accidentally merged two different people based on similarity of birth and death information.--DataAnalyst 15:22, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

I removed the parents (John Odell and Susanna Nichols) from the third record also merged, as the last source I have seen (TAG 15(1938):55-57) indicates that his parentage is unknown. Also, John Odell and Susanna Nichols were married in 1645, long after he was born.--DataAnalyst 16:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Wrong info? [31 July 2012]

Im a couple years late to the conversation, but based on whats in Old Fairfield I would say its best to remove all of the guesswork and erroneous information. Parentage is unknown (as youve established), the name of his wife (or wives) also seems to be completely unknown and what is out there seem to be complete guesses. That is, unless there is better information then what is available in Old Fairfield, but I am not aware of much written on this family outside of that work.

This page lays out a plausible case for the baptism and wife of William, however. I still feel a bit uncertain about it -

http://awerkamp.org/StoryViewer.aspx?s=ad4db91c25eb4e02884d1b94d3e0afd6

--dmaxwell 13:08, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Based on the linked web page, I would agree that there is no reason to leave Rebecca Brown as his wife - there is a good argument that this "information" comes from an error made at some time in the past. Baptismal info and possible marriage are speculative - but so is much in early genealogy. I would be tempted to either include the information and a note indicating that it is speculartion (with the source cited), or to link to the web page and indicate that it includes some speculation on his origin. In terms of linking to a parent, I have sometimes not set up the possible parent as the parent, but linked to their web page in the notes instead. I can't think of an example off-hand, but if you want, I can try to find one. I agree that the page should be cleaned by eliminating the clearly wrong info, and either removing or annotating the speculative info. Go for it. --DataAnalyst 20:44, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Thats what I think, although Im tempted to say if he submitted that to TAG, it would be accepted. Its as plausable and even probable as most other theories Ive heard. (And remember this William was already placed near that location in the church fight record). I've asked for a second opinion on this, we'll see. I also wonder if the couple page and his 'other' wife should be merged with the much more likely Franklyn to prevent it from being relinked. dmaxwell

Personally, having done the briefest of surveys of stuff, I would leave Rebecca Brown with a note added describing the pros and cons of her identification as wife. There are several reasons for this.

1. I believe the bulk of people will come in with Rebecca Brown and want to match to it because nobody likes to keep an Unknown in their family tree, and the people that do keep Unknown are more likely to recognize Rebecca Brown than vice versa. So if you remove Rebecca Brown, it is possible, maybe likely, that duplicates will be created in the future.
2. I don't believe the identity of William Odell, the immigrant, has been established. Quoting the narrative: "The Baptism registers have many other William Odell’s listed and to pick one out would just be a guess." If you can't be sure of the husband, it leaves too many possibilities that one married a Rebecca Brown and another did something else. Just the number of spelling variants is enough to give one pause.
3. While there doesn't seem to be much of a case for Rebecca Brown, I don't see much of a case against her. Pool commits a standard error in sayings "genealogists are satisfied" without being specific about which genealogists or why they are satisfied (but that is one of the big differences between modern genealogy and back then), but unless she was fabricating this, there must be a school of thought tying, not just somebody named Rebecca, but specifically somebody named Rebecca Brown, to William Odell. This needs to be documented and refuted.

The pattern of children suggests the answer may not be simple. A marriage in 1629 and only one child at time of immigration in late 1630's is unusual. This may hint at two marriages. Only daughter named Rebecca. One source identifies the wife as Rebecca Brown, d/o Josiah, b. 1618 ([1], published 2008, can't see whole text because restricted on books.google.com). Too young probably to be William's mother, but old enough to be mother of the others? Lots of details that need explaining before any alternative theory would be solid enough to be more than simply another guess. --Jrich 09:57, 31 July 2012 (EDT)