Person talk:Isaac Foster (8)

Children of Isaac Foster [13 November 2011]

Are the children for Isaac Foster listed in "Eastham, Wellfleet and beyond" reliable? I'd like to add them, because my girlfriend Kathy descends from one of them (second Nathaniel, b 1755).

http://capecodhistory.us/genealogy/wellfleet/Index.htm

http://capecodhistory.us/genealogy/wellfleet/i1077.htm#i16784--Pkeegstra 06:26, 12 November 2011 (EST)

In general, that website is better than some websites, but still known to have made errors. The only way to determine if a website is reliable is to ask how they know what they are presenting. This usually implies trying to find the primary records that informed them that the information they presented is valid (primary records, in brief: created by participant or eyewitness or government official whose job it was to record it, the more contemporary to the event the better). This can be difficult.

In the case of the Foster family, there is a comprehensive family genealogy you can access online: Source:Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Foster Genealogy, p. 535 (view here), but unfortunately, Frederic Pierce is not the most well-respected genealogist out there. He apparently made it a habit to rely too much on other people's work without checking it, and has several errors as a result. For this family, Pierce does not list the last two children shown on your website. As mentioned, he is not reliable enough to state categorically the website is wrong, but note this about the website: only years are given for the birth dates of the last two children, not precise dates, indicating the information is not based on finding a birth record, and may be a hunch. Further, the death of the first Nathaniel is stated to be bef. 1755, meaning it is merely based on reconciling the hunch of a second Nathaniel with the known record of a first Nathaniel. This suggests to me there is not a hard piece of evidence to support children 9 and 10. At least none is presented.

Digging further, the town records of Harwich were printed in a magazine called Mayflower Descendant. You can find Isaac's family here. This only shows the 8 children given by Pierce. Generally, families were recorded as a group, however, not always. So it is still possible children 9 and 10 could exist, but one really has to be wondering why does the website think so when the obvious places don't suggest they did? One could imagine that if Isaac Foster had a will and he mentioned a son Thomas and called Nathaniel his youngest son then the website would be justified, but it sure would have been nice if the website had told us this, or whatever happened to be their reasons for adding those 2 extra children, don't you think?

A little more searching. A different issue of Mayflower Descendant (p. 10:133) has some records of the church in Harwich. "Thomas ye son of Isaac & Hannah Foster" is baptized 2 May 1755. This baptism of a Thomas in 1755 makes it unlikely Thomas was born in 1753, and further makes it unlikely that they had a second son named Nathaniel in 1755. And on p. 10:252, "Elisha ye Son of Isaac & Hannah Foster" was baptized 17 Sep 1758. It would take more searching: for marriages, deaths, etc., to confirm all this and feel confident, but it looks like the website is right in thinking there are more than the 8 children given by Pierce, but they may not have identified them correctly either. Better to find a website that identifies the primary sources behind the information they post. --Jrich 10:33, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Many thanks. I'm out of my area of familiarity here, which is third and fourth wave Netherlands-Americans, where it's clear what the primary sources are, even if from time to time they aren't online. I just downloaded the Pierce book on Fosters, but I haven't gotten into it yet. The index for Isaac and Nathaniel is a bit daunting. Does he give a family for Nathaniel son of Isaac? It's also interesting that my girlfriend's family has a document from early to mid 20th century giving an ascendancy to Elder Brewster which definitely goes thru first Nathaniel. I changed my notes when I saw second Nathaniel on the Cape Cod site. But it sounds like the thing to do is go with the 8 children, go with just a christening date for Thomas, and comment on Nathaniel's page that some sources have him as second Nathaniel. Does that sound like a plan?

--Pkeegstra 17:17, 12 November 2011 (EST)

Well, there are thousands of websites, and commenting on each one that's wrong would tend to clutter up a page. It's slightly different if Pierce is wrong, as his is obviously a source most Foster researchers will consult at some point or another, even if they don't rely on it totally, and there is only one of him, so adding a single note about his error, if there is one, would probably be worthwhile. But if I was researching this family, I would spend my time trying to confirm the birth date one way or another. For example, is there a death record or gravestone giving Nathaniel's age at death? When did he first buy land (you had to be of legal age - 21 for a man- to own land)? Perhaps even email the website administrator and see if they will tell you why they think there was a second Nathaniel b. 1755, and then try to assess that evidence. --Jrich 10:33, 13 November 2011 (EST)

OK, that sounds like a plan. I got into Pierce tonite, so I have a question similar to the one on the other page about Mary == Marcy == Mercy. Pierce lists a daughter Polly (1787) for Nathaniel (1751), Whittier's Stimson genealogy (from Google Books) has Watts Gibbs marrying the daughter of Isaac Lincoln and Mary Foster, and Kathy's family genealogy says Polly Foster == Mary Foster. Is that plausible? Is there another source you suggest? An obvious one: is there another genealogy of the Lincolns on Google Books; I downloaded one, but it was all blank pages. (I downloaded it at Kathy's, so I can't tell you the title.)

And I hear you on cluttering up the page, and presumably this discussion here will remain available to document why things were done the way they were.

--Pkeegstra 19:57, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Yes, Polly = Mary = Molly. See for example wikipedia:Polly. There are lots of names that at different times have various equivalents. If you ever see a girl named Matthew, it should be treated as Martha. In colonial times, Peggy is also usually a form of Martha, though I believe in modern times Peggy is more often used for Margaret. Nancy and Hannah at differing times could be forms of Anna or Anne. Nabby is Abigail, etc., etc.

Re: Lincolns: not a family I am connected to. Most of the Lincolns I personally have looked for were from Hingham, Mass., and there is a lot of information on various branches of the Lincoln family in the History of the Town of Hingham, split between Volume 2 and Volume 3. --Jrich 23:13, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Identifying Mary Hopkins, wife of Nathaniel Foster 1751 [16 November 2011]

Please see Person talk:Mary Hopkins (69) for a question whether this is the wife of Person:Nathaniel Foster (13). (I put the pointer here because Nathaniel has no watchers yet.) --Pkeegstra 07:16, 16 November 2011 (EST)