User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2012

Person:Thomas Fitch (governor) (1) [7 March 2012]

If you don't believe in the WP statement about this person's lineage, that's ok. I just think you owe the Gov Fitch page itself some comments on why the stuff on WP regarding his parents is wrong or untrustworthy. Other people are going to stumble along and recreate it if they don't see a substantial presentation that indicates they shouldn't and why.

I also saw that you had some thought of doing a Savage transcript. I'm putting one up that will be a relatively unchanged version of Dr. Kraft's work. I don't plan to de-abbreviate or otherwise modify Kraft/Savage appearance. I'm also preserving line breaks as in the original. The idea is to make it easy to compare the Kraft version with the original, auditing changes Kraft and his team made, and discussing whether there are additional errors or omissions (which would appear somewhere else). I'm spreading it out one wiki page per Kraft/Savage page - which automatically provides each transcript page a discussion page, list of surnames, places, and a date range. This also makes it very easy to cite Savage pages using a template {{savagepg|1|2}} = 1:2. My content is a script processed version of Kraft, so that I'll have a full set of pages with reasonable starting content for surnames, places and dates immediately. The first twenty pages are there as a sample now, under Transcript:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England.

--jrm03063 18:58, 24 February 2012 (EST)

My knowledge of the interface to wikipedia is very imperfect, but I believe WeRelate has a cached copy, and so reinserting the template will still pull from the cached copy. Better to edit the actual wp-xxx template (cut and paste?) and then next time the job is run it will update it to the latest copy. The frequency used to be every 6 months or a year, but it might be more frequent now? --Jrich 10:00, 3 March 2012 (EST)

I went back and checked the help page before I did it. This way (I believe) it will be picked up in the routine weekly update from Wikipedia, which in my limited experience seems to happen Saturday night/Sunday morning. Otherwise you have to wait until the 3 or 4 times annual. We should know by tomorrow morning whether or not I made the right choice on this.--jaques1724 10:06, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Wikipedia insertions are done by transcluding a template. All that is on the actual Person page is a reference to the template, not that actual material, so changing the page itself has no real effect. Sunday's job should reinsert the invocation of Template:Wp-Thomas Fitch (governor) and I assume the job will realize the template exists, so the new page will still transclude the old information. (You can see the reference to Sarah Boardman if you look at that Template.)

Even if the template did not exist, and WeRelate had to create it new, it would copy the data into the template from a cached copy of wikipedia that is several months old and would still say Sarah Boardman.

So unless something has changed since my past experiences (always possible), tomorrow you will see the old information naming Sarah Boardman. At that point, you can hand edit the template above to fix it, and in 6 months when a new cached copy of wikipedia is pulled in, WeRelate will update the template, replacing your hand edits, and making everything current. --Jrich 10:35, 3 March 2012 (EST)

I saw the noble, but futile, effort to flush the troublesome WP content. Jrich's description of the WP inclusion/refresh process is, to my knowledge, accurate. --jrm03063 13:31, 7 March 2012 (EST)

I revised the current template content by hand, in order to jettison the bad info between now and when the next WP archive is obtained and refreshed. --jrm03063 13:40, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Nice work; thanks [4 March 2012]

Just want to thank you for all the wonderful clean up you are doing. Jillaine 05:13, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Identity of the wife of Richard Seymour [8 March 2012]

Would appreciate your review of the seemingly conflicting information provided by Seymour and Savage. I would presume that Savage is the weaker of the two, but would prefer your analysis to my supposition. Whichever you find, please note which one is believed to be wrong via a note attached to the source citation on the page for Seymour, along with appropriate remarks of your own to the Disputed Lineages section. If it's Savage, I'll add a note indicating a probable error at the appropriate place in our transcript of Savage.

Thanks. --jrm03063 13:27, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Savage, p. 4:643, under Woodruff, contradicts what he says under Seymour and Hawkins. --Jrich 14:07, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Good eye. One strike against Savage... --jrm03063 14:11, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Wasn't original. Came from here. Based on the will of the father, which is pretty good evidence. This source also says Hannah Hawkins married Jonathan Nichols which seems to be in agreement with Jacobus and this record of marriages in Stratford. Further, Savage (2:382) also lists Hannah Hawkins b. 1662 which would make her 12 at the time Richard Seymour is supposed to have married according to the WeRelate page, if it is to be believed. This age for Hannah Hawkins is supported by Anthony Hawkins probate records in Manwaring. --Jrich 17:41, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Because of this conversation, I just went out and cleaned up the three marriages of Hannah Howkins; Jonathan Nichols, Sergeant Samuel Ward and John Judson. The applicable sources were Hale, House and Families of Old Fairfield. Got distracted while I was working on Welles/Tomes family and never got back to it. For what it's worth, I've found Farmington one of the more difficult of the old towns of the Connecticut Valley. There are some decent family genealogies, but nothing even as helpful as Stiles (which is full of misleading info for both Windsor and Wethersfield) for pulling it all together. Haddam/East Haddam is also relatively difficult.--jaques1724 18:05, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Excellent. I had been focused only on trying to help corroborate one or the other of the proposed marriages for Seymour, and hadn't even really looked at her page. Every pebble creates ever-widening rings. --Jrich 09:08, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Heard and understood. I want to wait until (hopefully) this Saturday when I plan to spend at least part of the day at the New York State Library. According to their catalog, they have the 1949 Bouton genealogy, and I'd really like to review that before I jump. If it's no more useful than the 1890 Bouton genealogy, which horribly mucks up the first two John Bouton's, then I'll go ahead, but I'd like to line up the ducks and just do it once.--jaques1724 14:22, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Savage Transcript "About" and Defect Handling Practice [8 March 2012]

I've ammended the Savage transcript "about" document based on your comments, and added a proposal for the handling of defective (but correctly transcribed) sections. I would very much appreciate your review. Thanks! --jrm03063 11:22, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Elizabeth Usbourne, wife of Abraham Cruttenden [8 April 2012]

Hi,

Since youve done most of the editing on the Elizabeth _____, wife of Abrahama Cruttenden page, I just wanted to inform you I have renamed her to Elizabeth Usbourne, per the article last year which proved that was her name via the will of her brother (IIRC it was the same author who discovered her name as Elizabeth in the first place). Her tree was also expanded by several generations, which I will add at a later time.

I will add sources to the article once I get caught up.--DMaxwell 09:45, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Anna Richards [17 April 2012]

Jaques1724, Thanks for the update on Anna Richards, wife of Ephraim Hunt. I have updated my family history and webpage accordingly with your update and citation. Keith.--Khs2000 10:47, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

You're welcome. If you haven't already looked at it, the four-part Stott article in the Register takes the family back several generations in England and ties the Richards family to a number of other early New England families including Blake, Torrey and Wolcott (none of which are in my ancestry).--jaques1724 11:13, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Thomas Minor/Miner [1 May 2012]

Why are you changing other people's work? "Miner" is the most common spelling of the family members on WeRelate. --Susan Irish 04:08, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Because I went back through the literature and saw that the professional genealogists with the best credentials such as Jacobus and Anderson used "Minor" instead of "Miner". I believe I even pointed that out when I made the first two changes.

I have complained before about your spelling changes on colonial people (see inconsequential changes above), when there is no right answer. Everybody's got to pick one, and in colonial times, there are often multiple valid choices with documentary backup. In the end, it is just opinions, whether it be Anderson's, Jacobus', that of a prominent Minor/Miner genealogist, or your opinion of who is the genealogist with the best credentials. In the past some of your choices of spelling have actually changed spelling that had previously matched the historical documents. Other times you have changed the spellings of parents to match their parents (apparently) making them no longer match the spelling of the children. All valid spellings selected for good reasons, but changed to make the spelling match what you want. Why? It all seems so unnecessary and arbitrary, and comes across as merely your insistence on having your preferred spelling. If search finds the page when you ask for your spelling, the spelling doesn't need to be changed. If it doesn't find it, but the spelling seems phonetic, use an alternate name. Only change the spelling if it is not recognizable as the same name, or is wrong. Basically, this is the price of working in a collaborative environment. Even as a watcher that doesn't care about the spelling one way or the other, all those spurious change notices get annoying, as the spelling changes propagates through the marriages and to all the children, asking the watcher to re-inspect sometimes dozens of pages but bringing no new information of value. --Jrich 09:56, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

NEHGR access [31 May 2012]

You said you had access to the NEHGR archives? I could use a lookup for the article The English Ancestry of Elizabeth Usborne, First Wife of Abraham Cruttenden of Guilford, Connecticut that appeared in 2011. Parts of it are available online, but not enough for me to quite more fully for Elizabeth Usbourne's article (she and her husband are pages you've edited before).

This website here :http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=linda50&id=I4605 also says:

" A new article in the Jan 2011 issue of the NEHGR says he is 'probably' the Abraham bp in Etchingham, Sussex, 30 Sep 1599, son of Thomas. Etchingham is the parish next to Hawkhurst in England."

Same article? It doesnt say. Might also be worth finding.--DMaxwell 21:58, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Another set of loose ends I left lying around. For some reason I had edited the source page for the 2011 Mahler article, but never saved it. I think it's appropriately fixed ad is Elizabeth's person page.--jaques1724 00:12, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

What do you think of that Usbourne articles claiming the father of Abraham Cruttenden? You think its solid enough to put it his page? Sounds compelling, but she doesnt elaborate.--DMaxwell 00:15, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Based on Mahler's statement in the 2011 article, I went ahead and edited the page. The baptism is found in the Etchingham parish registers, the date of the baptism is right, Etchingham is five highway miles from Hawkhurst, and Cruttenden is not a common surname. I'm comfortable with the tentative identification as long as it is made clear that it is probable, not proven.--jaques1724 11:27, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Did you notice this? [4 June 2012]

Your edit on William Bradley:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:William_Bradley_%2830%29&oldid=16949682

This user deletes the note of yours that tells that all the stories about Bradley are probably bogus, without explanation:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:William_Bradley_%2830%29&diff=next&oldid=16949682

I notice that the same user deleted a note about a Joseph Fuller before, which he excused as a 'finger slip'.--DMaxwell 06:56, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

Take a look at the history - I don't think this was the wrong edit, because I don't think Prindle was discussing Daniel/Elizabeth as the parents, and while I don't know who to attribute their discovery to originally, Neal and I are the ones that went over the research to put them in. Most online/crap/previous genealogies gave different parents (William Bradley, Joanne Waddington). This should probably be better explained on the page, but unless you can confirm that Prindle was discussing Daniel/Elizabeth v. William/Joanne, to cite him is misleading. See Discussion here. --Amelia 14:05, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

It wasnt my edit, so I dont know what the source was talking about. I was confused why he removed it without comment and not seemingly resolving the issue. It also seems to be relying on very old reference material, while not always wrong, I wondered if there might be some newer research. --DMaxwell 14:12, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I think it might have been done wrong. The removed source citation appears to say his parentage is unproven, which may be an important point to make, regardless of who that source thought were the parents. I find the evidence fairly convincing personally, but it boils down to matching names. So, for example, unless my quick perusal missed something, it does not give evidence that the Connecticut names had the same relationships as found in the English records. GPS (Genealogical Proof Standard) says that alternate theories need explained away, not simply removed. At a minimum, along with the removal, a comment could have been placed on the Talk page explaining why it needed to be removed. --Jrich 14:52, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

The late Paul W. Prindle, FASG, was a highly regarded genealogist who worked extensively on families associated with the Connecticut coast. What he was saying was that until the first record of William Bradley in New England, which was probably his 1645 marriage to Alice Prichard at Springfield, all we know about him is what Jacobus had already told us in Families of Ancient New Haven, 2:261, that Elizabeth ----- was his step-mother and his half-siblings were Ellen, Daniel, Joshua, Nathan and Stephen. I've seen no credible evidence (doesn't mean it doesn't exist somewhere) identifying his father or his place of origin. I wouldn't want to even begin to tackle his person page as it currently stands; it reads like typical nineteenth century semi or pure fiction invented by or provided for folks who wanted distinguished ancestors and a coat of arms. The nearest copy of the Gillespie Ancestry is at the New York State Library and I don't know when I'll get a chance to consult it again.

You would think that if there were any validity to the alleged origin and parentage, it would have been treated in the literature by Jacobus, Coddington, Homer Brainard or someone similar. Jacobus, writing on the family of William's wife Alice Prichard, in 1968 (The American Genealogist 44:193), says this, "Alice² (Prichard), b. say ca. 1624; d. at New Haven in 1692; m. at Springfield, 18 Feb. 1644/5, William Bradley, who d. at New Haven in 1691. If he had parents or baptismal dates, he would have given us more like he did on the next page for Hannah Langton, wife of Alice's brother Nathaniel.

I understand what Jrich is saying about explaining away alternate theories; the way the page is sourced now, it's a challenge to get back to the source(s) of (in my mind) bad information in order to start trying to build a counter-case.--jaques1724 16:03, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I agree that this could have been handled better, but in Neal's defense, you dropped in and added that citation yourself without comment, thereby implying, particularly with your bold text, that the information on the page was wrong, when in fact there had been discussion and many edits dealing with just the question that this identification was not previously known in the literature. I get that there are zillions of goofy immigrant theories out there that need debunking, but a cite from 1976 (or 1968) saying that parentage is unknown strikes me as really not very useful unless it's used to discredit a particular, earlier theory - and here it was not. With the rapid filming and digitization that's gone on since then, it's vastly easier to find relevant birth records and thus the fact that something was unknown 40-60 years ago says very little about what is a reliable theory today.

I just took another stab to attempt to clarify, and if you still think it's awful, then please [all of you] do take a stab. I left Prichard precisely because that seems to be the hook that leads people to identify Sir William and Joanna as parents. --Amelia 17:20, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I didnt say that I thought it was awful, but my thinking was that I couldnt find any recent literature that confirms it or casually gives off the parentage with no further comment. His 'parentage' was given an age of the most infamous goofy immigrant theories (ie every immigrant to New England seems to have been the son of a Sir something or other!), and what is cited is very very old. Sometimes you dont need to cite anything newer because nothings changed (say, for example, from the Barbour collection), but I cant find any newer source that just repeats it, as I said. Please dont take it personally, I am the last person to want to denigrate someone's work on a page here.--DMaxwell 21:29, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

How the edit was handled aside, I note that Jacobus did name the 5 five half-siblings as such: Ellen, Daniel, Joshua, Nathan, and Stephen, so he found evidence of their relationship in Connecticut. However, Jacobus gave estimated dates for the births of the half-siblings. This indicates that he was unaware of the parish registers (Ellen, p. 66; Joshua, p. 70; Daniel, p. 73; Nathan, p. 162; Steven, p. 169). I don't think he could be aware of them and not at least comment on how striking the match is. So, not having that information, Jacobus would naturally say the parentage is unknown. Presumably Prindle also.

We have five siblings in England, all found in Connecticut, and known to have the same relationship as seen in England based on Connecticut evidence. The baptisms turn out to be close to those estimated by Jacobus (Joshua older than Daniel, not younger). The odds of this being a mismatch are miniscule. Their father is recorded as Daniel Broadley.

The New Haven Colonial Records regarding the estate of Daniel Bradley says William is "brother by the father only". The court who had access to all the principals (except Daniel who had died) seems to make an unequivocal statement about William's relationship to the half-siblings. It seems to me this pretty much proves that William's father is Daniel.

Actually, it seems to me that the biggest question mark is the wide variety of information emanating from the New Haven Records about the estate of Daniel Bradley, not the lack of evidence. Savage mentioned a widow, Cutter said Daniel died 1653 instead of 1658, Bradley of Essex County quotes the document as "brother by the half only", while the above says "brother by the father only". If I was related, I'd be trying to get a film of the original records. --Jrich 10:38, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Anything for the Josiah Brown who m. Mary Holbook in New England Historic Genealogical Society? [6 June 2012]

Sorry to have another lookup request, but this Josiah Brown who married Mary Holbrook, daughter of William and Hopestill, in Uxbridge, MA has been a mystery to me for awhile. Other than what appear to be some erroneous sources on him in a couple of places, I can find nothing on him save for the record of his marriage to Mary. (Note to Jrich - thats why I havent added sources to his page - there seem to be none)

When I last had a subscription to the NEHGS, I couldnt find anything, but it was before they had indexed as much journals/sources (at that point, the Nutmegger wasnt in their archives for example).--DMaxwell 20:56, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

NEHGS site has ten Josiah Browns in the VR born between 1705 and 1725. The only one that looks really promising is Josiah, s. of William and Rebeckah, (born Mendon) Jan. 29, 1719. Searching for him using Holbrook as a keyword turns up one Revolutionary War pension file for a Josiah Brown (File Number 45,164) that mentions a Mary Holbrook. More likely to be a child of theirs than the Josiah you're looking for, if he connects at all. 81 hits in the Register, but you probably already knew that.--jaques1724 22:33, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Just providing some details to above. I looked up the pension application on fold3.com and it is not the Josiah Brown who m. Mary Holbrook. He deposes that he is 73 in 1818, so born about 1745. Served in Connecticut, was living in Madison, New York with second wife in 1818, unable to support himself and his 4 children by current wife without assistance of his children by his first wife (their names not specified in the deposition). The file says he d. 1826. The reason Mary Holbrook is mentioned is because the file contains a query by a lady trying to join DAR who states in her query that Mary was his wife. However that is obviously not possible since the marriage occurred in 1744, and since Josiah and Mary had a daughter Lydia born in 1745, it appears unlikely that there is any connection. --Jrich 20:09, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Thats the one they usually give, its who exactly are his parents that it gets murky. The problem with them as they appear only in records related to him (Josiah). Online trees give them (no source) as William Brown and Rebecca Prentice. This couple (if they exist) dont seem to connect to any Brown or Prentice line. Could also never find a provable death date for Josiah and his wife (this Josiah seems to be the same as the Rev War veteran).--DMaxwell 22:37, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

There is a marriage record for William Brown and Rebecca Prentice/Printic in Mendon, also recorded in Boston, for some reason, 13 Oct 1719. I don't doubt their existence, it is whether their son Josiah, whose birth is also of record (though apparently only 3 months after the marriage), is the one that married Mary Holbrook. His age and youth spent in Mendon argue in his favor. And BTW, middle names, and especially initials, before the Revolutionary War, happen to be one of those symptoms I have referred to in previous discussions, of poorly done genealogy. I suspect somebody copied this from CT Nutmegger p. 25:35 where an article on Gaylord Porter identifies Chloe as the daughter of "Josiah B. and Mary (Holbrook) Brown", the B. probably standing for his last name Brown, not a middle name, since not one record in Uxbridge gives a hint of a middle name, and they were rare before the Revolutionary War. They exist, but if you don't find a primary record that says so, the assumption should be that there isn't one. --Jrich 23:49, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Warner assistance request [21 June 2012]

Hey Jaques, sorry to have to ask for help again but I dont have access to sources that will help me this out.

I noticed youre the only person who edited http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:John_Warner_%2886%29 John Warner of the Increase. I believe I am descended from him, but right now WeRelate seems to confuse 3 different John Warners and I was hoping you had access to something that sort them out.

My line begins with Dr. Ephraim Warner http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Ephraim_Warner_%282%29. From all the information I have read on John, father of Ephraim, his wife is unknown and he did not come from Hadley, MA, but rather from Farmington CT (and doesnt seem to have ever lived in MA). From what Ive read, hes the son of John of the Increase, NOT John Warner of Hadley. It seems there is a bad mix up of the different Johns, but not having a source handy I am loathe to change anything first (btw, should you know of a source for the CT Warners that is available I will gladly do the legwork of adding the information).

Thanks again.--DMaxwell 06:25, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Jacobus addressed this family in Ackley-Bosworth. 220-22. Jacobus says he came with Matthew Marvin and Isaac Moore in 1635 on the Increase and so is not visibly connected to any other Warners of that period. His wife is unknown and he had children including John who, in turn, had: Dr. Ephraim; Dr. John; Robert; Dr. Ebenezer; Lydia (married [1] Samuel Bronson); and Thomas who apparently died young.--jaques1724 19:43, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

This site has some interesting information on him - http://www.askgar.com/genealogy/John.Warner.Increase.html I guess there are alot of mixups with him. It appears you have the first John with the correct wife.

Does that source go into all of his children? Id be happy to clean up the entire line with sources if he goes into detail.--DMaxwell 19:47, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for point the article out. I will start adding the information to the Warner line. The only other issue I wanted to be able to sort out with the Warners is getting the correct family for the other John Warner and Lydia Boltwood, who were an actual, separate couple. Ive found a few sources that mix the John Warner Jr whos wifes name was unknowns children with the children of this other couple. Very confusing. I hate to remove parentage, even if wrong, unless I can add the correct information.--DMaxwell 20:00, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Ok that article has been a great help and it should allow me to finish at least the first generation of his family, which I hope to do today.

Another one I noticed - I noticed that you (correctly) disconnected Thomas and Aquila Chase from the Chesham Chases using a good source, but I wonder if said source (which I cant find online with a quick search) also covers William Chase of Yarmouth, who they used to think was brother to Thomas and Aquila but now do not, and how he is probably not connected to either family at all? My grandmother is a Chase, descended from the Yarmouth line, but at the moment he (William) is still connected to the Chesham Chases. The only source I have for removing the connection is a website that has snippets from an article discussing what Chase researchers think is the actual William Chase line, but it might not be enough to use as a source to remove it.--DMaxwell 15:57, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

In the "Great Migration Begins" sketch of William Chase of Yarmouth (1:336-39), neither Aquila nor Thomas Chase is mentioned. In the sketches of Aquila and Thomas Chase in the "Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire" (138, 39), William Chase is not mentioned, but it is stated that Aquila and Thomas were brothers. I haven't researched this further, but I suspect there is no credible evidence connecting William of Yarmouth with Aquila and Thomas of Hampton.--jaques1724 16:21, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

Do you have any sources for this family? [29 July 2012]

Hey Jaques,

One family that is my tree that is extremely poorly sourced pretty much everywhere is the Tompkins/Thompkins family of CT. The last Tompkins in my tree is this person:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Susannah_Tompkins_%282%29

Her parents are supposed to be Edmund Tompkins and Hannah Unknown, and from what I have read this line traces up to Ralph Tompkins of the Truelove (or in some tree, a nephew or brother). But what is out there for this family is a mess, however, if you know of or can point me to a good source going back to my Tompkins Id like to be able to do most of the line for the first few generations as I did with John Warner of the Increase you were working on yesterday (I added pretty much every bit of data that was in that article of Jacobus's).--DMaxwell 13:26, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Merrill Memorial (309) says she was daughter of Edmond and Hannah Thompkins of Waterbury, born in 1734, died 20 Dec 1818 (page) 308, Caleb Merrill's brother Ephraim married Susanna's sister Jerusha).
The Town and City of Waterbury, genealogical appendix (138Ap) Edmond probably s. of Nathaniel of Eastchester, d 1732; only s. of Nathaniel, d. 1684; s. of John of Concord, Mass., 1640, and Fairfield, 1644.
John of Concord and Fairfield is addressed in Jacobus' Families of Old Fairfield. This John does not appear to be connected with the Ralph T. who came on the Truelove [sketch of R.T. in The Great Migration (7:68-72)].
NYG&BR (51:44) The following items are all from Liber C, Westchester Co. Land Records at White Plains. …
P. 263: John Tompkins, Senr., of Eastchester and wife Mary, for love and good will, to "my natural son Edmund Tompkins of Eastchester," land in Eastchester, January 9, 1701-2.
P. 267: John Tompkins of Eastchester for love and goodwill to natural daughter Hannah, now the wife of Abraham Hiat, land in Eastchester, April 16, 1702.
The last two items from the land records indicate that Edmond was son of Nathaniel's brother John since Jacobus' abstract of Nathaniel's will does not mention a son John. His lack an abstract for John may or may not indicate an extant probate and there may be other land records for the Tompkins family at White Plains.--jaques1724 14:22, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Yes, Id read some information that stated John may not be the son of Ralph, but not many places go into detail about it. IIRC, John is still shown as his son on WR. I have a copy of Merrill Memorial here, but of course it doesnt go into detail beyond Edmund. Ill look up Old Fairfield this afternoon then. I just cant remember if it went into much detail, either.--DMaxwell 14:41, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

If I am to remove the relationship between John of Fairfield and Ralph of the Truelove, is anything you were able to find explain the why/how of why this relationship is either unproved or impossible?--DMaxwell 18:38, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm having trouble finding your John Tompkins. According to the sketch of Ralph, The Great Migration (7:70) he had a son John who married one Margaret by 1636 and, at Salem, September 1673, Mary Read. I can't find a person page for a John Tompkins of Fairfield.--jaques1724 20:47, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I called him by that name because he was in the Old Fairfield book. My mistake. Most genealogies seem to consider the John of Concord the same as the one that is supposed to be the son of Ralph. Yet other genealogies say that there is no proof for any of the other Tompkins in the area being his children except for the 3 named in the passenger manifest. Some even put Nathaniel, son of John of Concord (according to Old Fairfield), as a son of Ralph (as it is now on WR).

The Tompkins are a big tangled web, so thats why I asked for help. When I do my own lines, I like to be able to clean up the entire family around my ancestors for the benefit of others looking for accuracy, if I can; but this family is proving to be a challenge.--DMaxwell 20:55, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

According to Anderson (TGM 7:70-71), Ralph had 5 ch. John, mentioned above; Samuel, m. Lettice Foster at Plymouth; Elizabeth, emigrated with family but no further record; Sarah, born and buried at Wendover, Bucks; Mary, married John Foster. John of Concord not included. Nathaniel of Rhode Island not included [Savage says this may be the same Nath. that was at Eastchester, but without chasing it down, I rather doubt it]. Micah of Wethersfield and Milford not included.--jaques1724 07:33, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Nutmegger lookup [29 July 2012]

Hey Jaques,

Although I have a small number of issues of the Nutmegger in my possesion, but there is one in particular I do not own I am hoping you can look up. Volume 7 appears to offer complete coverage of the Batterson family, very weakly covered in most of the CT series of books. Although at the moment I am still working on the Gunn/Lane families, I'd like to do the Battersons afterwords, who are prominant in my tree. If it is indeed in depth, please let me know.--dmaxwell 20:28, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

It is indeed in depth (two installments, 28 pages), and fairly well sourced for that periodical at that time. I created a source page for the article which you can check out. Several years ago, CSG was giving away back issues just to try to clear space in their basement for other uses. I suspect that they are gone by now, but it might be worth a phone call to see if they still have some.--jaques1724 08:17, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Was able to find the Dec 74 issue. How many generations are covered in the first part? I hoped to be able to source up to at least George Batterson Jr, Rev War veteran, as I have nothing for him save for his census entries (died before 1850) and the Batterson bible record which isnt online anywhere.--dmaxwell 14:26, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Is this your guy or are we looking for somebody else?

15 GEORGE (3) BATTERSON. Jr. s of George & Elizabeth (Oysterbanks) Batterson b: 16 Jul 1758 (Fam Bib) bapt: 13 Aug 1758 Fid, Ct. d: 11 May 1837 at Warren. Ct. RevW sold W-17257. m: 23 May 1779. MARY SEELEY. Of Weston. She b: 30 Jun 1763 (Fam Bib), d: 5 Dec 1858 ae: 95-5-5 at Warren Ct. They had:

47 (1) POLLY, b: 20 Mar 1785 (Fam Bib) bapt: 22 Sep 1786 (FOOF) m SETH MORSE. Warren, rem to Ohio.

48 (2) ANNA, b: 10 Jan 1789 (Fam Bib) bapt: 22 Sep 1792 (FOOF) n/1: 5 May 1816 at GF Cong Ch, PHILO GRIFFITH of Norwalk. m/2: 27 May 1832 at GF Cong Ch: BOAR TILTON

49 + (3) NATHAN, b; 22 Jun 1792 (Fam Bib) bapt: 22 Sep 1792 (FOOF)

50 (4) AMELIA, b: 15 Jan 1783 (cam Bib) m: 1804 at GF Cong Ch CHARLES GILBERT, 1781-1855. She d: 1852.

They rem co Revenna, Ohio (Pension rec).

(The above are recorded at Green Farms Congregation Church and are listed in Families of Old Fairfield (FOOF) by D.L. Jacobus. It was about this time that the family removed to Warren, Litchfield Co., Conn, and the other children are recorded there.)

NEHGS has all the Connecticut Nutmeggers online now. I'm a member. Anything I can grab for you? Jillaine 14:44, 29 July 2012 (EDT)--Jillaine 14:45, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Jillaine, yes thats the family. Ive left you a comment on your talk page.

Jaques (or Jill), I wondered if either of the two articles on the Battersons cover the supposed link to the clock maker Batterson in London who married Thomazine Olive, Robert Batterson. You see this on alot of trees, and while I could see a link between the two (both being clockmakers with the unusual name Batterson), I wondered if it went into detail about it at all.--dmaxwell 17:12, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

It does acknowledge the possible relationship between your James and Anthony of Norwalk. Absolutely no mention of a possible London connection.--jaques1724 17:58, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Just an opinion.. [31 July 2012]

Sorry to keep spamming your wall, but I just was curious what your opinion is of this:

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

...concerning the immigrant William Odell, whos family I have done work on. Personally, I find that evidence very compelling, but I dont know what WR policy is when it comes to what WP would call 'original research', especially when related to those elusive NE lines back to England.--dmaxwell 19:06, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

I suggest a way of linking to this work at the bottom of William Odell's page. Jillaine 20:23, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for cleaning up Street [29 August 2012]

I've been unable to contribute much lately as I discovered a major problem in my tree's sources that has been taking up all of my time when I am able to do genealogy. I didnt intend to leave Street unfinished, of course. The Gilbert side still needed some work but the article I using as a source didnt give very good detail. Hopefully I should have this all cleaned up this weekend and I can finish up some of ones I had started (major unfinished project: Coe/Coo family).--Daniel Maxwell 16:20, 29 August 2012 (EDT)

Do you have access to the latest version of RD600? [24 October 2012]

hi Jaques,

I understand the newest edition of RD600 throws doubt on the supposed royal ancestry of Gov William Leete, but I havent read it and only have access to the 2005 edition. I believe it is the only comment by a genealogist on his line beyond the old TAG article from the 50s you used to cite the page of his wife's family, the Paynes. I am curious where the line breaks so I can actually attempt to work on his.--Daniel Maxwell 08:57, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Don't have it and would guess that the only way you'll get access is to buy it from NEHGS. I do, however, have the latest version of Roberts' Ancestors of American Presidents.--jaques1724 09:04, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Just wanted to comment about this again. Seems the break in the Leete line happens at person 25 in TAG 31:116. There is no proof that Thomas Peyton had a daughter named Rose, or that she was a Peyton at all. The newer editions of Magna Charta Sureties 1215 shows the broken line and gives the source as the book Applied Genealogy, whom it seems looked at it. Still, Gov Leete has some interesting ancestry that is covered in the various Vistations of Cambridgeshire.--Daniel Maxwell 19:33, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Nantucket Cemeteries.... [5 October 2012]

Saw you touch on a Nantucket Cemetery - did a quick look-up and found this link. I saw only two listed for Nantucket, so one of us should probably kick in the rest, which seem to be (at least):

• Find A Grave: New North Cemetery - on internment.net
• Find A Grave: Colored Cemetery/Mill Hill Cemetery - on internment.net
• Prospect Hill Cemetery
• St Mary's Cemetery
• Unitarian Cemetery
• Find A Grave: Newtown Cemetery - on internment.net
• Find A Grave: Quaker Burial Ground/Quaker Cemetery
• Find A Grave: Polpis Cemetery

--jrm03063 11:49, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

I tend to add them as I come to them rather than doing a batch on a particular location. I actually have very little interest in Nantucket and would have none at all if Tristram¹ hadn't left a son, Tristram², from whom I descend, in Newbury. I actually got 14 Nantucket hits on Find A Grave, with one duplicate (Newtown/Old North).--jaques1724 12:04, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

What do you have on this family? [10 October 2012]

Hi Jaques, been some time since I worked on this family, but I wonder what you have on the Alfords/Alvords - Benedict and Alexander. I've seen a line repeated for them, but I dont know how strong it is. It isnt linked to on Benedict's page, but it is on Alexanders: Person:Alexander Alford (1). When I searched through the 'free' database on AmericanAncestors, it gave just the article on his wife and father in law, the Newtons, which I have mostly already added.--Daniel Maxwell 13:24, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Haven't got much. See http://archive.org/details/genealogyofdesce00alvo --jaques1724 13:39, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Yeah thats all I could find either. Generally, with older genealogical works such as that I like to see a more recent 'seal of approval' of it exists in later works. If you never hear professionals mention it (ie discussion of an immigrant as though the earlier work didnt exist) or they openly criticize it, chances are it can be discarded. Trouble in this case is that I cant find discussion of it. Oh well, thanks anyway.--Daniel Maxwell 13:43, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Barbour Collection or other vital records? [24 October 2012]

Can you recommend any high quality public-domain transcripts of any key New England vital records? I'm thinking of trying to do with some of those something like what I've been doing w/Savage.

Thanks! --jrm03063 18:51, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Most of the published Mass. VR's were published prior to 1922. The problem there is that you have to start from scratch with OCR and proofing since no one has done what was done with Savage. I don't think it would be as useful, either, since so many of those entries involve persons who can't be identified with a particular family, especially the marriages and deaths.--jaques1724 19:10, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Although it isnt public domain, I'd also like to recommend the Ricker Compilation of CT records, which I own and am happy to do look ups for. Its quite a bit more comprehensive than Barbour, although I have noticed some records that were in Barbour that didnt make it to Ricker.--Daniel Maxwell 19:36, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Great Migration Study Project work question [1 November 2012]

Hey Jaques,

I was emailed your work on the GM sketches category/study page, and since it mostly seems to be your work I wanted to as you what to do with one of the persons listed.

John Anthony, supposed Hercules passenger, is usually claimed to be the same John Anthony who appears in Portsmouth RI after ca 1640. GM, however, says that they are probably different men based on the huge gap where there are no appearances of him in records. They conclude that there is no evidence he even came over. I was not able to find much discussion on him either way, hes usually assigned a pedigree from a Dr John Anthony. So I wasnt sure if to put the John Anthony of Portsmouth in the list or add, as you have with other entries, 'no further record'.--Daniel Maxwell 14:08, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

My Category Ignorance [2 November 2012]

I just saw you add the "1630s immigrants" category for John Cogswell. I've been adding to and adding some additional categories for various immigration voyages - and had added the Angel Gabriel 1635 voyage for Cogswell. Do we really need to add "1630s immigrants" everywhere? Or is there some way to say that being in the angel gabriel 1635 category ALSO makes you part of the 1630s immigrants category? I'm afraid I'm not hip to the subtleties of wiki categories.... --jrm03063 10:47, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

The way the ship templates and categories are handled has not been consistent. Until I just added the Angel Gabriel category to the 1630s immigrants category, Mr. Cogswell would not have shown up as a 1630s immigrant. Bottom line is that he is now included indirectly in the 1630s Immigrants category so whichever of us gets there first can wipe it off his person page. If this discussion doesn't make sense, check the history on the pages involved to see what I did.--jaques1724 10:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Transcript Practice [2 November 2012]

As one of the more active users of the Savage Transcript (at least for purposes of annotation), I wanted to seek your views on a related matter.

I've been in some discussions related to data at the MA vital records project. I've got a couple sample pages for vital records from Bradford, MA - as I think we could/should present them here at WeRelate. Could you please take a look at the following example pages? Of particular interest would be the linked person pages under the surname "HAGGIT")

• Transcript:Bradford, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849/p61
• Transcript:Bradford, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849/p215

Please excuse their incomplete nature and numerous red links. They are intended as an illustration are not complete. --jrm03063 10:54, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Looks fine. Probably more work involved than the Savage project. It would be very useful to link the church and gravestone annotations back to the pages at the front of each book (C.R.1), (G.R.1), etc.--jaques1724 11:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Finishing is not something that I would ever anticipate! :) - really for any of these efforts. I'm hoping to establish a practice that others would find useful and be willing to carry forward. I'm really interested in an idea of exhaustive sourcing - not in the sense of every source for a particular person - but in the sense of exhaustively establishing WHO is meant by any given name appearing in a source transcript - because plainly - only one association can be correct. This is also an idea that Mr Slaughter of the MA Vital Records project is interested in - but I don't think he has a good way to pursue it at present. I've discussed use of WR for this with him, but he's nervous about a wiki being a little too open. --jrm03063 11:24, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Sutliffe [6 November 2012]

I seen you did a little work on the Sutliffes because they connected to the Brockett family. Other than the really old (and probably wrong) book on that family, there isnt alot on the immigrant Nathaniel Sutliffe. I believe I added some of what was known, but if you have anything else to add if you have the time that would be great. (next year - I swear I will get a subscription to AmericanAncestors.org - couldnt justify it after Id gotten a 1 year Ancestry.com International subscription).--Daniel Maxwell 18:28, 5 November 2012 (EST)

If you're working in New England, not having it is only handicapping yourself. In addition to the full run of the Registers, they're up to 40 CT towns from the Barbour Series (which spawned the Genealogical Publishing Corp. softcovers which, in turn spawned Ricker, with a few more mistakes being perpetuated each time) and up through 1998 with TAG. Hope you can find the $80 soon, you won't be sorry.--jaques1724 18:36, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Right, I agree, and I regret not doing AmericanAncestors instead of Ancestry. I wasnt really looking for a person to do lookups for me but I wanted to collaborate on some of these families. Some of our work dovetails sometimes of course, but for quite a few of the large families (not so much Sutliffe) they can be a challenge for one person to do.

In particular, I like how you have been able to construct neat looking birth date/estimates from pretty thin sources. I hesitate to create certain families for this reason (try working with only Visitation files - that almost always are literally just names with no dates).--Daniel Maxwell 19:21, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Visitation files are something I let other folks analyze. Once people were on this side of the water, I find that 99% of the time, the thumb rules Robert Charles Anderson uses work pretty well (and I'm working mostly in New England between 1620 and the late 1700s); males married on average at 25, females at 20. If you have a date of birth for the eldest child, absent other information, an assumption that the marriage took place the year before is adequate. And when you have families where you have birth dates for some children and not for others, marriage dates, positions named in wills and other tidbits can let you construct a family. If you read Anderson, every once in a while he will go into great detail about just how he constructed a given family in the Great Migration sketches. Sometimes a rough estimate is all you can do. To me, the underlying object is to provide reasonable date approximations so that others, when they do searches, have some sort of year range to evaluate.--jaques1724 22:57, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Pages [29 November 2012]

I see youre working on the Page family. I have a source for this line, but Ive been sitting on it for a year because I dont know if its well regarded. I had originally started to add it but reverted it. In ' The History and Descendants of George Page', which is linked on the page for the immigrant George Page (who is covered very briefly in Ancient New Haven), he presents a line of descent going back to lines covered in Visitations. I believe this book was reviewed in one of the Genealogical journals, but personally after buying the book and reading I felt it was a bit on the weak side.

Anyway, if you think youre going to be working on Page, I could show you his proof. I have not heard it referred to by anyone so I just wasnt sure if I should use it or not. Quite often the family associations will propose lines of descent that are really no more than a plausible if unprovable theory.--Daniel Maxwell 23:54, 27 November 2012 (EST)

I don't intend to do anymore than incorporate the FANH data. I'm actually working on Blakeslee and wandered into the Pages. If you've got some doubts about the Page genealogy I'd suggest adding what's verifiable to the person or family pages. The info you have doubts about could be handled by summarizing it, along with your reservations, and placing it on the appropriate talk page(s).--jaques1724 00:05, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks Jaques. I just re-read it. He spends alot of time talking about the supposed ancestors in England but doesnt really establish how he was able to prove it was the same man. The sole piece of evidence that I see he offers is one reference to George Page being called 'Mister' in records. (the Page lines he shows the reader is one coming from Gentry.) Personally, I think the George Page of NE is more likely to have been younger, but I dont have all of the evidence in front of me. The work is mainly interesting for the sheer number of Pages sub-lines that he goes into, though not all of it is sourced, so I wont be using it as a source. I am considering making a note on George Page's page that a line of descent was suggested in that book (as you did for a few other lines with weak English pedigrees), but not actually the ancestry to WR. That seems to be the best way to include it, but I dont want to show it as proven. Daniel Maxwell

Need some advise with a source Im using [14 December 2012]

Jaques, I am in the midst of a major reworking/expansion of the Sherman family line using the still well regarded work Sherman genealogy. Its very well researched, but there is a problem. The author is a date raiser (ie with dual date years), but he seemingly switches between using the raised date and the non raised date at various points, making it a bit of a headache to figure them out since in some cases I cant see the original source. In these situations, what would you do? I have been giving the lower date correctly in cases where dual dates would apply, but now I am wondering if I should just put what he has since he isnt always clear. Only at a few points does he actually use a dual date.--Daniel Maxwell 17:05, 14 December 2012 (EST)

My thumb rule is to use the single date; e.g., 15 March 1689, unless some other data point, usually the birth of the prior or succeeding sibling, makes it obvious that the date should be tweaked. In those cases, I'll use the double date in the date field, but copy the source verbatim in the text field under the source. In these instances, the knowledgeable reader (hopefully) will understand the situation. Hope this helps.--jaques1724 18:42, 14 December 2012 (EST)

1988 edition of Kimball Family? [16 December 2012]

Jacques,

On Person_talk:Richard_Kimball_(1), you reference a 1988 edition of the Kimball Family of America. Do you have this edition? If so, could you quote the passage(s) pertaining to their origins that are different from the 1890 version, please? Thanks. Thanks!

Jillaine 08:55, 16 December 2012 (EST)