Person talk:Joseph Emerson (9)

town records say January [20 January 2012]

I don't know who Peter Henry Emerson is, but I can only assume he didn't understand the calendar shift. I would like to make a nicer point, but he makes such a point of asserting his mistake, and calling the right answer wrong, I can draw no other conclusion. The town records, which trump a secondary source, say the 11th month and since March was the first month of the year before 1753, the 11th month was January, not November which would be the answer from naively applying modern date keeping. See also the Cutter citation. Though he is only secondary, it still serves to show that a well-known genealogist interprets it the same way. Perhaps if a primary source were brought forward, such as a gravestone, probate date, showing he could not have been alive in January, it would be possible to draw a different conclusion. But, since "but no gravestone remains. He died intestate and the inventory of his goods is dated Oct., 1680" I doubt that can happen. --Jrich 17:39, 20 January 2012 (EST)

I was working on the children of Thomas Emerson of Ipswich and made some editorial changes to Rev. Joseph's person page. You and I have had some exchanges on this sort of thing previously, and if I haven't said it before, it doesn't bother me if you either (1) have other data which clarifies a particular situation or, (2) have some insight or want to make the effort to apply a more complete analysis. By the way, not my family - I am descended from both Michael and Robert of Haverhill, but not, to my knowledge, Thomas of Ipswich.--jaques1724 18:15, 20 January 2012 (EST)

This wasn't addressing any of the changes you made. --Jrich 18:39, 20 January 2012 (EST)