Person talk:Mary Burley (12)

Almost surely not daughter of Peter Bulkeley [26 April 2010]

Source:Jacobus, Donald Lines. Bulkeley Genealogy, p. 103 says Peter Bulkeley emigrated with only three sons, Edward having come earlier on his own, and Thomas, being 18, probably disguised his name. There is no indication that a daughter emigrated. His will mentions Dorothy, only, as a daughter. This source after mentioning Mary Bulkeley's baptism, then says "no further record" and since they obviously examined the ship's registers and Peter's will, it is probable that Mary died before their emigration in 1635. Since the "birth" date given for Mary on this page is the baptism date of Peter's daughter Mary, it probably does not apply to this person, and it would be misleading to leave it here?? --Jrich 00:08, 14 March 2010 (EST)

reference/notation removed. good point. Jillaine 21:56, 26 April 2010 (EDT)

Resolving death date [28 November 2012]

So how to resolve two death dates like 3 Aug 1665 and 18 Apr 1681?

It is rare that precise dates are made up. Usually when people enter a precise date, it has an origin somewhere. The one quasi-exception is when people take an imprecise age at death, like 80, and insert a birth date that is exactly 80 years before the death date. or take a will or probate date and use it as the death date, or drop "Bef" or "Aft" when copying from some website. But even in these cases, research will usually make this clear. So a precise date often indicates it is possible to find the original source of the information and verify it. Usually precise dates that are wrong are the result of applying a record to the wrong person.

So given that there are two precise dates given here, it should be possible to find their oldest source, and made some sort of judgement which is the more correct, and which has been misapplied. If you try to guess which looks more reasonable, you are simply creating a myth.

The website cited (I think the link needs to be updated: [1] is Mary's page now) has no sources so we don't know where its information came from, and so it offers us no help resolving this mystery.

I tried searching the familysearch.org website's IGI collection and found nothing. My guess is they removed those IGI records that were user submissions. There are PRFs and AFNs that give the above dates, but as they provide no way for users to cite sources, they are neither reliable nor helpful in resolving this mystery.

However, familysearch.org does have this, which comes from film 3228: Charles R. Hale Collection of vital records. The one concern might be that Mary Williams could be a common name and this may or may not be the right one.

As noted on WeRelate's Source page for the Barbour collection of vital records, Windsor's vital records are published, and it turns out, available on the Internet.

On p. 22, "John Williams dyed Agust 8 1665". The similarity to the first date above should be striking. The deaths are listed more or less chronologically, i.e., apparently in the order the town clerk was informed of them, and no nearby death has the date 3 Aug 1665.

On p. 29, "ye wife of John Williams was buried Aprel 18 1681 benn maried 37 yeare nixt Juen".

Clearly, this last record is what is desired. Not only is the deceased identified as the wife of John Williams, but the length of marriage calculates perfectly to the known marriage date in 1644. Meaning Mary Burley/Buckley could not have died in 1665 and John remarried or anything like that. Meaning any death in 1665 belongs to a different person.

Also, the first record strongly suggests that the first date was some sort of recordkeeping error (i.e., sloppy copying) made by somebody along the way that confused the death of the son with the death of the wife and misread or miscopied the 8 as a three.

Sorry to be so pedantic. This case is a good example of why the use of secondary (or in this case, tertiary) sources often create problems where none really exist. --Jrich 10:51, 28 November 2012 (EST)

On 19 Jul 2022, user Jrich chose to defer resolution of issues on this page, including the issue "Born before parents' marriage". Other users should feel free to resolve the issues if they have the appropriate expertise and access to sources. Please do not remove this template unless you are Jrich, or if all issues on the page are resolved. Comments left by Jrich: No evidence given that these are right parents - this is an old posting that needs work