User talk:Jaques1724

Topics


Welcome [7 January 2013]

NOTE: Prior years' content moved to

User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2011
User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2012
User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2013

The Porter's [28 January 2014]

Thank you for adding to the Porter family. Really appreciate what you've been doing....--Frank 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


Wiki foundation [15 February 2014]

Jaques, I don't know what your genealogical philosophy is, but I am curious what you think of WR possibly becoming part of Wikipedia. I think this will hurt WR's credibility and make it 'wiki genealogy', in other words, a laughing stock.--Daniel Maxwell 20:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. My limited experience with wikipedia is that it's less disciplined and certainly less civil. I'll have something more to say after I've mulled it over a bit.--jaques1724 20:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am in Full agreement. They don't understand genealogy over there (you will frequently see them use the tired 100+ year old family books as sources with no comment). There are some major problems with the foundation itself and how it is run that will see experienced users overruled by higher ups in the foundation (who will frequently jump from one project to another). They also are quick to ban dissenters and those that link to criticism. Feel free to email me if you have any more to add. Our many hours of work of transcribing will be deleted by them in short order. Daniel Maxwell 20:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur. I've never been highly impressed with Wikipedia, the "Fast Food" of information sources. I fear that the quality and cooperation may go straight downhill.--Neal Gardner 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I can get more of the top contributors like you two on board in a resistance movement to this. I don't know where I place in such a ranking, but I might be in the top 25 or so, though I haven't been here as long. Both Jaques and I have butted heads several times with JRich, but he's picky about genealogy sources and a wikipedia critic so I hope he might agree as well. Daniel Maxwell 21:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

--- At the present time I would NOT like to see WeRelate became a part of Wikipedia. --Susan Irish 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


Alternate Date when it is Clearly Incorrect - Appropriate? [19 March 2014]

I noticed that you added an "alternate birth date" fact (20 May 1682) to Elizabeth Burnham, and then discounted the possibility of it being correct in the source notes. This leads me to a "standards" question that I could not (in a few minutes of searching) see being addressed in Help pages. I would have thought that the purpose of adding an alternate fact is to show possible alternatives - to keep the question open as to which fact is correct. For example, if a marriage is registered in two different towns with slightly different dates, we would not know which date is correct, and thus, both dates are possible alternatives.

In this case, the alternate date is not possible (there seems to be sufficient weight to other facts, such as birth years of her children to discount it). So does it really belong as an alternate fact, or just a note in the source?

What concerns me is that as research improves our knowledge about individuals, I would not want to see all previous mistakes (even if limited to previous published mistakes) being added as alternate facts to distract from what is known. (Discussion of mistakes belongs somewhere - whether in notes about sources or on the Talk page, or sometimes in the narrative, depending on the nature of the discussion, but I would prefer that mistakes not show up as alternate facts that might be taken as being possible alternatives. For example, I don't think we would put someone in a family based on early speculation once it has been shown that the speculation is incorrect, although we might comment in the narrative about the early speculation and include a link to the disproven parents.)

I realize that one advantage of having the incorrect date as an alternate fact is that if a person searches for Elizabeth Burnham born 1682 (using the "exact & close match" default), this record shows up in the search results (and would not otherwise). However, when adding a new person, the default search is "exact, close & partial", and she would show up even without the 1682 birth date. This eliminates the risk that a duplicate page would be created just because someone has the 1682 birth date from the incorrect source.

Since a number of frequent WeRelate contributors are watching this page, maybe someone knows whether this subject has been discussed and resolved before. If not, does anyone else share my point of view? Is there any consensus (or common practice) on this, and if so, should something be added to a Help page? Thanks in advance for any responses.--DataAnalyst 02:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


I don't have any strong feelings on how to handle this sort of situation, so I'm open to advice on how to improve the presentation. I think the issue is of some importance, since even a top-tier genealogist like Mr. Harris will occasionally cite a sometimes less-than-reliable source like Stiles (both Wethersfield and Windsor), particularly if a fact is peripheral to the subject under analysis.

John Hunt son of Ephraim Hunt (II) [20 March 2014]

Thank you for your update of Ephraim Hunt (m. Rebecca Allen). I would like to point out a couple of items about their children. Wyman has a dau Joanna placed between second son Rev. Samuel and third son John. However, he also says "The first dau. m., and ob. early" and there are no dates for her at all. I always thought that "early" meant early childhood or infancy, but maybe it means early in the marriage (?). Savage apparently does not list Joanna or any of the daughters (Wyman also lists daus Elizabeth, Sarah, and Mercy; all married to specific men) and a final son Ephraim. Also, Savage has third son John born 23 Nov 1687 while Wyman has him born only in 1688 (no month or day). So, in addition to adding the missing children (from Wyman), do you think it is better to go with the specific birth date for son John supplied by Savage? One other note - the probate is punctuated to make it look like Elizabeth, Sarah, Mercy, and Ephraim are children of the deceased Joanna, but Wyman has birth and/or marriage dates for each of them that show this is not so. It's too bad we don't have a husband's name for Joanna. I can update this with my Wyman info if you like.--Khs2000 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


According to Chamberlain's Weymouth Genealogies (Part of the 4 Vol. History of Weymouth), the children of Ephraim and Joanna (Alcock) Hunt were:

Children, born at Weymouth:
John,4 b. 11 Dec. 1679; d. young.
Samuel, b. 8 Feb. 1681.
Joanna, m. Benjamin Richards of Weymouth.
John, buried 4 Sept. 1761; resided in Braintree.
Peter, b. 8 Mar. 1690.
William, b. 14 Mar. 1692; resided in Braintree.
Ebenezer, b. 6 Apr. 1694.
Thomas, b. 1 May. 1696.
Elizabeth, b. 1697; m. 4 Feb. 1718-19, Lemuel Pope of Dartmouth.
Sarah, b. 19 Jan.-; m. 6 Jan. 1725-26, Dea. John Holbrook of Weymouth.
Mercy, b. 8 Apr. -; m. Rev. Richard Pierce of Dartmouth.
Ephraim, b. 12 Dec. 1707; resided in Braintree.

The second John, according to Sprague's Braintree Families, was born c. 1685 based on a church record which says he was buried 4 Dec 1761 a. 76. He is the one who married Rebecca Allen.

My interest was in Elizabeth whose granddaughter, Wealthy Gilbert, married (as 2nd w.) Sylvanus Tinker of East Haddam and thus is connected with the Olmsted and Brainerd families of East Haddam and Haddam. I don't expect to do any more work on the Hunt family any time soon, so feel free to enhance the entries for this family as you find appropriate.--jaques1724 23:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Yes, of course, you are right - Ephraim married Joanna Alcock and their second John married Rebecca Allen. Sorry about that mistake - I was going back and forth between parents and son. Also, with a little more looking I also saw the text from Chamberlain that daughter Joanna "married Benjamin Richards of Weymouth; died soon after" - so I answered my own question about what "ob. early" meant in her case. It's still an unusual use of the term. My question on the birth date of John is now even more confused - Wyman says he was born in 1688; Chamberlain says Nov. 23, 1687, and your church record source calculates it as 1685! I guess I will list all three possibilities. More than likely one of these is a baptism date which differs from the birth date, but it's anyone's guess. Thanks for your help on this one.--Khs2000 04:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

None of these are baptisms. None of these are births. They are secondary sources that found no birth or baptism record and they are just guessing/estimating. The only evidence is the age at death for John, and age at death is inherently flaky due to multiple factors (age 76, or was it in his 76th year?) The order of the will, except for the younger children, is also influenced by who got land, who got money, by gender, etc. Basically we don't know. My guess is John actually comes before Joanna based on her estimated date of marriage, don't know what caused Chamberlain to show it the other way. But that is my guess. Guess vs. guess is not how to do genealogy, so might as well keep Chamberlain's order until undercover more evidence. --Jrich 14:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Amendments to Hurst in Berkshire, England [9 April 2014]

I have made further alterations to the modern Wokingham Borough page and taken out Hurst as a "contained place". The new boroughs of Berkshire are still not counties in their own right, though in a lot of ways they have the authority. If we are to put Hurst as a contained place in Wokingham, then we have to put every other settlement in that list as a contained place as well.

Unfortunately you found a section that, looking back at it, I don't consider complete. It took months to find my way around "A Vision of Britian through Time"; now I depend on it. It is too bad that the developers at the University of Portsmouth decided that the world stopped at 1974. I really must take out that quote from GENUKI in St Nicholas Hurst. The organizer is a stickler for copyright (the way his copyright reads, I wonder why he went to the trouble of putting the stuff on the web at all). Since I live in Britain I might be more liable than one of you across the pond.

Someday, I shall go back and tackle Berkshire again. Right now I am working on Yorkshire and Lancashire (both counties that really did change county names in 1974) and it's very slow work.

--Goldenoldie 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Collab request - Baldwin [2 May 2014]

Jaques, been awhile since I have asked for your help with a family, but the very prolific Baldwin family of New England has given me difficulty. Sources for this family are surprisingly poor. Best I have been able to find, they range from the very old Baldwin genealogy to a few snippet articles in the Register and TAG. That seems to be it. Now, I have seen you clean up families with threadbare sources before. I am not asking you to do all of it, but maybe you are aware of some sources I am not. I am a member of the NEHGS now and even among their sources, there wasn't much. This is very important family, but it is a mess here on WR and not any better out there on the web. Let me know if you're interested.--Daniel Maxwell 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


I have Charles C. Baldwin's "Baldwin Genealogy from 1500 to 1881" in hard copy. Flawed admittedly, but a good springboard w/family groups. --Neal Gardner 03:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

in preview mode on books.google.com so big sections currently available for a limited time: [1]. Also at Internet Archive [2] and at heritagequest.com. --Jrich 05:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
That book is OK for some things, but it is lacking detail and many things were unknown in 1881. That's the problem with this line - there is a piece here, a piece there, and much of it is incredibly vague. No later authors (that I have found) have cleaned and sorted this line, which is strange, considering it's importance. Daniel Maxwell 05:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Jacobus treats the New Haven Baldwins in Families of Ancient New Haven 1:99-107 and a few Fairfield County Baldwins in Families of Old Fairfield 1:22-24 and 2:36-37. Susan Woodruff Abbott treats the Milford Baldwins in Families of Early Milford 14-60. Alvan Talcott treats the Guilford Baldwins in Families of Early Guilford 5-25 (not always as reliable as Jacobus and Abbott). Both of the Jacobus works are available on the NEHGS site. For Abbott and Talcott, you'd probably have to go to ancestry.com.---jaques1724 14:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of those; it is the family in England that is more problematic. Daniel Maxwell 18:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There are at least a handful of articles in NEHGR, TAG, etc. (to which I don't have access) with excerpts from wills, deeds.. One treats the relationship between Sylvester Baldwin/John Baldwin Sr., another Josiah Baldwin w/mother Mary vs Mercy Camp. Somewhere online WAS a mildly cited descendancy of Long Island Baldwins, and original families of Elizabethtown, NJ; both of which I will try to find sometime today. Pockets of Baldwin info are "buried" in other family studies, ie Winans, Camp, Bruen, etc.--Neal Gardner 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


FYI [3 May 2014]

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Family:Thomas_Barnes_and_Dorothy_Bigod_%282%29&diff=20693277&oldid=17740361

Noticed that edit, not sure if there is any truth to it.--Daniel Maxwell 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


The two John Reads [14 May 2014]

Yes, there are two different men. The John Read who was married to Sarah Lessie is the father of the 2nd John Read, who predeceased his father (this creates some confusion between them). I hadn't sorted all the children yet, which is why they were left unmerged. One interesting thing to note - the record that proves his wife Sarah is the daughter of William Lessie links to a town in England that is unclear to me where it's modern location is intended to be, which is another reason I set it aside for now.--Daniel Maxwell 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I just figured it out and undid the merge. The younger John was one of the two children of the elder born at Braintree before he moved to Weymouth.--jaques1724 02:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The children do need to be sorted out though; Mrs. Irish, going by the vital records alone, still has the son with the father's burial date. I will look at this again later (if you don't) after I am done with the Carringtons. Daniel Maxwell 03:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI - I think it is the book History of Rehoboth that sorts out the Read children; IIRC it lists John Read Jr.'s death. Daniel Maxwell 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
History of Weymouth sorts (I think) them all out. Sprague's Braintree discusses the elder John's career prior to his removal from Braintree to Weymouth. No TGM sketch, so the random statement that he came in 1630 is bogus, although, according to Sprague, he was here prior to 14 April 1639.--jaques1724 03:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Which does in fact mean that he could in the future, have a GM sketch, if they ever finish off the Great Migration immigrants (to 1640). Daniel Maxwell 03:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Another question about this line - where does 'Blyborough, Suffolk' that John Read's wife's father is supposed to have come from correspond to today? Other than a single mention in Google Books, a search finds that the only Blyborough in England is over 100 miles from Suffolk in Lincolnshire, and all other searches for it are mentions of Sarah Lessie, wife to John Read. I would have finished the Lessie part before if I could figure out where it is supposed to be! Daniel Maxwell 08:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps 'Blythburgh' Suffolk is what was intended? It seems the only possibility. Daniel Maxwell 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think Aspinwall's notarial records was the source for that identification. That might be worth pursuing when you have time.--jaques1724 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


An opinion [30 June 2014]

Jaques, I am doing a little cleanup on Hendleys, and one of the families involved in this line is a 'Stadden' family of Marblehead, Mass. All of the Staddens originate with a Hannah Stadden, who had children baptized there from 1685 to 1702. There doesn't seem to be anything on her, but judging from the records I would say that all of her children were illegitimate, since they were baptized in her name and no father or husband mentioned. The baptisms are spread out evenly so it seems unlikely she was a widow, and she is not called as such in the records. I don't like to make that call without seeing the originals and their wording, but the church records of Marblehead aren't available online. What do you think? These records on in the 1st volume of Marblehead vitals on pages 482 and 483.--Daniel Maxwell 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably the father was not a church member, so as far as the church was concerned, the mother was the reason why they were allowed to be baptized there, and the person who probably arranged to have them baptized. The notion of church membership over such a long period with multiple illegitimate children is probably not likely: she would have been kicked out if they were all illegitimate. The first baptism in 1685 is two children, probably just joined the church and baptized her existing children, so marriage probably early in 1680. --Jrich 05:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I had considered that with bastard births over that length of time, however in my own tree I have an example of such a thing happening - Ann Blythe of Tibenham had 7 bastard children baptized there over a 20 year period (and I am descended from her son Daniel). They are explicitly said as such in the baptism records ("base born"), though the nature and membership of Congregationalist churches were obviously quite a bit different than the Anglican Church in England. I just find it strange that the husband is never mentioned over the course of multiple baptisms in a 10 year period, nor the name given. All of the Staddens in Marblehead and Salem seem to come from her, and I cannot find (off hand) a known Stadden male settler before that. It's too bad that the Marblehead church records seem to only be available as a microfilm, they might give further information. Daniel Maxwell 05:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
See here. Torrey cites this, but he calls the husband Andrew/Elias: Andrew/Elias STADDIN/STADDEN? [Andrew?]/Elias? & Hannah _____; by 1685; Marblehead {EIHC 47:94}--Jrich 14:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Essex Institute Historical Collections Vol 47 is available at www.archive.org (free website). The Elias Stadden House is discussed on the cited page.--jaques1724 14:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nathaniel Baldwin [8 July 2014]

As politely as possible, please don't remove the Jr.s. ie anyone who is descended from this Nathaniel Baldwin will naturally designate him as "Jr.", despite what "the records" say. I have several lines that descend down to III or IV, and I'm sure they were not called John Winans III or IV, but nevertheless that is who they are in my descendancy, for clarity and to help designate one from another.--Neal Gardner 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As politely as possible, I view the Jr., Sr., etc., as a crutch. A person was rarely a "Jr." his whole life. In fact, there are many pages on this website where I have done in-depth analysis, when 3 or 4 people of the same name were born and died in the same town, so that on one date, I could figure out which one was Jr. or Sr. (e.g., Family:Isaac Lovejoy and Ruth Davis (1)). Often, the Jr. would only apply to town, or to church, and the other entity would be different, since not all the people of that name went to the same church. Better to rely on the birth, death, or wife to distinguish people with the same name. --Jrich 02:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"Jr." as a permanent part of a person's name is actually a quite modern trend. (my late grandfather Dr. William Henry Maxwell Jr., as an example, was always called Jr. and it was considered part of his name) Jr. in the 17th and 18th century did not even necessarily indicate a father-son relationship, but sometimes just another man in town who went by the same name, but was a newer resident, might be called 'Junior'. Personally, I usually leave those alone but as Jrich says I am not fond of them especially before the 19th century. Daniel Maxwell 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I see that others have jumped into the discussion while I was composing my response. Also, as politely as possible, it is inaccurate to call him Nathaniel junior when he was probably never known as such during his lifetime. In colonial days, the terms senior and junior (and tertius and quartus) were used to differentiate between men (and occasionally women) of the same name whether or not they were parent/child, based on age. The fact that the parents and children of an individual are or should be indicated on a person page would seem to adequately describe the relationship. I would note that Charles Candee Baldwin in the Baldwin genealogy (pages 409-10) indicates several instances where this Nathaniel was called Nathaniel senior, but none in which he was called Nathaniel junior. I would be pleased to hear the opinions of others on this matter. --jaques1724 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

All comments above, I'm familiar with. "Crutch" I'll take with a grain of salt. I have an early GRANT relative continuously called Alexander "Jr." in the records, not by his children or grandchildren. Took me several years to find that his father was a John Grant. Both including the suffix or not including it can cause problems. Perhaps the "reasoning" could be briefly noted in cases where the "Jr." is excluded ? --Neal Gardner 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)