nature of proof? [7 May 2012]
I have no reason to doubt John Threfall, but am a little in the dark about the nature of his proof that Dorothy was Dorothy Heald. Apparently, this is not a common identification as I cannot find any reference to this in NEHGR and various other sources. Was it proven by a will or deed, or is it an assumption based on process of elimination or some other reasoning? The marriage record in Lancaster does not give her name, there is no marriage record in Concord. --Jrich 09:17, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
- Sorry, after checking the same sources you just mentioned, I meant to add that there is no indication of how he reached this conclusion. It was not proven by her father's will, since the literature tells he mentioned only his three eldest children by name. It is possible that there is a probate package for the mother who died at Dedham in 1698. Since Jonathan and Dorothy's son Samuel was still living at that time, he may have been mentioned in a distribution.--jaques1724 15:15, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
- Well and the father's will was 1662 so she wouldn't have been married yet, though perhaps a division of estate or receipt could have provided a clue if it happened long enough after. Since no explanation, I'm assuming it's not original research, so possibly he's relying on the Clarence Almon Torrey typed manuscript that appears to be in only three libraries all on the East Coast. --Jrich 16:57, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
- One of which is the Connecticut State Library (now open 9-2 on Saturdays!). It's a day's project since I live 20 miles north of Albany, but I've added it to my hit list for the summer.--jaques1724 17:26, 7 May 2012 (EDT)
|
