User talk:KayS


Welcome [29 October 2015]

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 23:24, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Hello Kay, you recently alerted me to an incorrect Frances Eaton as the wife of Anthony Low. "There seems to be much confusion regarding various women named Frances who may have married into the LOW family. Boston records show that this Anthony's wife was Frances ARNOLD."

    I would like to do more research on Frances Arnold and correct it in We Relate.  Would you please tell me the source of your information on Frances Arnold and Anthony Low?  This would help me in my research.
    Thank you so much.

Teacher Roxie--TeacherRoxie 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find much about Anthony Low (d. 1692) and his wife online. You might take a look at the following sources:

1. Inhabitants and Estates of the Town of Boston, 1630-1822 (Thwing Collection), (Online database:, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2014.), p 12535-6; giving info about Anthony and his father John of Boston.

2. Clarence Almon Torrey, New England Marriages Prior to 1700, (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co, 1985), v 2, p 973; giving "LOW, Anthony (-1693, 1692?] & Frances ____ (1632-1702); [by 1655]; Boston/Warwick, RI/Swansea."

3. NEHGR, "Marriages in Warwick, R.I.," 37:275; giving "John Low (s. of Anthony) and Mary Roads (d. of Zachary) on Mch 3, 1674."

4. Savage, Dictionary of NE Settlers, v3, Anthony Low; giving "ANTHONY, Boston, s. of John, a wheelwright, rem. aft. 1654 to Warwick, had w. Frances, and s. John, perhaps other ch. He was afterwards of Swansey, when his ho. had been burned at W. in Mar. 1676, and in July aft. performed good service for the famous capt. Church."

5. The American Genealogist, Florence Harlow Barclay, "Blossom-Davis-Walley," 64 (1989):113; giving info about Anthony's son-in-law Simon Davis.

6. NEHGR, "Bristol County Probate Records," 62:181; giving son John quitclaimed his right to lands in Swansea inherited from "my honored father Anthony Low deceased."

Another possible source: John Osborne Austin, The Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island: Comprising Three Generations of Settlers Who Came Before 1690, (Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co.: 2008 reprint); digital images, Google Books (; giving info about the family of Nicholas Davis (father of Simon). Unfortunately, the entry for the Low family was not accessible online. I'd like to see what it says if you can find that entry.

Also check the link on the page for Frances Holden.

I think Anthony's page should have just one wife (Frances Arnold) and children John, Samuel, Elizabeth, and Ann (wife of Simon Davis). Frances Holden married Anthony's grandson or gt grandson (can't remember at the moment).

Hope that helps ... --KayS 20:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Kay, thank you so much on the Low sources. A few of them I have and others are brand new. I'll have fun searching. Thanks for your expertise and time!.--TeacherRoxie 02:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

John Tate information [19 July 2012]

Hi Kay, I received your note regarding information on John Tate. There is conflicting information on the several John Tates from Augusta County, I was changing the information based upon the researcher listed on Genforum Message Board (added to his page).... Is the John Tate that you are referring to the one that married Elizabeth McClanahan? If so, that is supposedly THIS John Tate, son of James Tate. He was apparently confused with: John Tate (8), son of John Tate that died in 1802. Feel free to add family records to the Person Page for the John Tate that you have information for....

If you don't agree with the analysis done by the researcher on Genforum, you can add your own rationale to the Talk Page for the John Tate that you feel is incorrect.... Hopefully, between the sources available, we can get the correct information...

Best regards,

Jim:)--Delijim 19:11, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

Yes, I'm aware of the confusion about the various John TATEs, but it's hard to see and compare two people at the same time in WR. Plus it's hard telling people with the same name apart in narratives.

KS--KayS 19:26, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

John Tate [7 December 2012]

Kay, I agree with your synopsis of the John Tate page. I've deleted the page. Better to just let it die with its errors...


JIm:)--Delijim 15:51, 7 December 2012 (EST)

Ruth Loomis [26 January 2015]

I don't know if you noticed the previous source citation, but that Ruth is not believed to be the same Ruth born in 1698. Births were not always recorded, so if she is indeed the daughter of Benjamin Loomis and Ann Fitch her birth very well may not have been in the Windsor vitals. I guess I could pull the Jacobus citation myself to see why he thought this, but he probably had good reason to.--Daniel Maxwell 00:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're continuing to edit the page without explaining why Jacobus is wrong. Daniel Maxwell 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've found where Jacobus explains why the Ruth Loomis born in 1698 is not the one who married Peter Mills. He covers it in The American Genealogist Volume 21, page 221 in an article called 'Three Ruth Loomises and their Marriages'. Jacobus then goes to explain that the 1698 Ruth Loomis married Ebenezer Dart. If you'd like me to type out his reasons why, I can, but it has to do with Ruth (Loomis) Mills being conveyed land by her father Benjamin Loomis in 1742. Daniel Maxwell 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to type out the information; I'll check out the TAG article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I try to be sure my data is as accurate as possible. --KayS 01:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's ok. I err'd in not adding it to the article myself (and making pages for the other two Ruth Loomises just so no one else fell into this trap). I was working on the Mills descendants for 2 generations because there was no coverage of them here on WR and I think I didn't finish it. Seems that aside from Ruth, no other children of that Benjamin Loomis have been found. That Benjamin Loomis is usually given a '1726' death date with no explanation, and said to be without issue, but Jacobus points out that the otherwise very good Loomis Gen just got sloppy with her. If you need the article, let me know as I am a NEHGS member. Daniel Maxwell 01:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)