|
|
son of John [16 September 2013]
I can't argue that Francis has been shown to be the son of John, but on the other hand, Anderson actually presents zero evidence that he is not the son of John, excepting to say that there is no evidence. So his tone in the cited passage seems fairly inappropriate, I think, and possibly misleading. I think a researcher would be in some risk of making a mistake if they didn't keep an open mind here. Actually, from my reading, it seems that it is still the most likely arrangement for the following reasons, admittedly all of a most circumstantial nature.
- Not only did John name a son Francis in his will, he called him his second son, between Thomas and William 1620, which is not out of line with Francis' birth about 1613 based on his age at immigration.
- Francis named his first son John.
- No evidence of a different Francis to be the son of John has been brought forward that I am aware.
- No evidence of other parents for Francis have been suggested. The one Francis that was found in mentioned in wills of Leicester (among other places searched) by Source:Peabody, Selim H. Peabody (Paybody, Pabody, Pabodie) Genealogy ended up writing his own will there and ruling himself out as a candidate since he obviously never immigrated.
The conclusion of the cited source, by the way, is that while there is no evidence that Francis is the son of John, "that theory is acted on in this work", meaning the author deemed it probable and presented it that way. --Jrich 20:46, 26 May 2011 (EDT)
- After re-reading Anderson's statement many, many times, I believe the message of Anderson's statement is being somewhat misrepresented on this page. As I read it, his statement "No reliance should be placed on this proposal." is referring strictly to the work of Banks in proposing origins in Leicestershire. Regarding the relationship of Francis and John, Anderson only says there is no records, i.e., no documentation connecting Francis to John. But he does NOT say they are NOT connected. (Nor do I believe he even means there is no evidence, because there is circumstantial evidence as presented above, a piece of which, John mentioning a son Francis in his will, Anderson even referred to.) --Jrich 00:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
- I know this is old, but I've been meaning to clean up Pabodie for some time. I agree with what you've said here, but fortunately WR offers a nice middle ground - the 'speculative parents' tag which I used for Person:Phillippe Kellogg (2) [just to note - in the Kellogg genealogy, Philippe is said to be the son of Thomas Kellogg with no proof]. Maybe there is something else that Anderson wasn't mentioning - ie perhaps there is just no record of John associating with Francis in instances where it seems likely he would have if Francis was indeed John's son. I've seen such instances used to disprove relationships between supposed 'brothers' in early New England before. But it is hard to escape the mention of Francis in his will. Daniel Maxwell 11:32, 16 September 2013 (EDT)
|
|
