Why believe the writing at the bottom of the page? [19 February 2016]
It is often the work of family genealogists who add what they believe is missing information, ie, James Pierce Root? Unless some supporting evidence can be found...
On page 22
John Root the sone of John Root & mary his wife was born Desember : 28 : 1672
This is on the page where his marriage to "Marah Linyard" is given, his children, and his death 1 Oct 1744.
Compare to the posting on the father's page from Root Genealogical Records:
III. John, b. Dec. 25, 1676, f. ; d. Oct. 1, 1744, ae. 67.
The age at death is not in the death record, no gravestone appears to be in Find A Grave, so one would assume the age merely reflects the author's assumptions.
What if, for example, it meant to say John Root the son of Thomas Root & mary...
This would mean Mary's birth was recorded correctly and it is John would should belong to the first wife.
I don't think a case has been made that can support going against the recorded birth. Evidence is needed: what is John's age? What is Mary's age? etc. etc. --Jrich 19:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- That John was omitted as a son of Thomas is clear from deeds showing John Root inherited land from his father Thomas and gave it to his own son John. Who the author of the writing at the bottom was and what their source of information was is not clear. If it was a town clerk changing a mistake, one might expect him to cross out the incorrect information. He did not. It is not unknown for town records to have been changed by family researchers when they find missing information based on their research (Many of the "with additions" seen in the town copy of Newton VRs are from a committee in 1853 to which they added records from various sources, for example, and are not officially recorded information.) Plus many town clerks have changed data after the fact based on their or other's research (Otis Wilbur, who was town clerk of Little Compton was called "possibly the worst genealogist ever" for recording errors in the town records as if they were records). The original may certainly be wrong, but we have contradicting records, one clearly added some time later (the rest of the family was recorded, apparently, before the footnote was added), and the presumption has to be that the original carries the most weight unless the source of the footnoted information can be identified, or confirmed by additional evidence.
- Typical behavior is often that the child born at the time of a mother's death is the one that goes unrecorded. This proves nothing, as this may be a non-typical case, it only guides educated guessing. But it would hardly be surprising if John was born about the time of the first mother's death, goes unrecorded in the resulting disarray, and Mary, as the first child of the second wife, gets recorded in 1676. How to prove one way or the other? One way would be to find depositions giving the ages of John or May, or their ages at death. I have looked for ages at death of both John and Mary and don't find them. As indicated above, I discount the Root book as being calculated by the author. Another way might be to see if the fathers of the the wives mention only one or the other grandchild in their will, particularly the father of the deceased first wife, who could well name only the her children in his will. I don't have access to wills in Hampden county.
- This page was changed from what is, at least an equally likely, if not presumptively likely, value, to the other with the addition of no evidence to support it. It appears to be one person's favored choice, but it has not been shown to be the truth, nor has the other been yet shown to be incorrect. --Jrich 22:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
|
