Person talk:Richard Kimball (1)

Christening Date for Richard(1) Kimball [21 December 2012]

I've seen no credible evidence that he was baptized at Rattlesden, much less a specific date. Neither Anderson {The Great Migration, IV:157) nor the 1988 edition of The History of the Kimball Family in America includes it. Does anyone have additional information on this?--jaques1724 10:40, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

I think it's safe to remove the christening date. See below. We also need to correct the parents.

Jillaine 08:20, 16 December 2012 (EST)

I don't object to the removal of the christening in the least, but I wonder how the "10 Apr" of the "10 Apr 1595" came about. People use mistaken assumptions and deductions frequently, but creating a date out of whole cloth seems very unusual (except in cases where deception is intended). I suppose the original christening records might be torn or hardly readable in parts, with some such entry showing "10 Apr" but little else, allowing unrigorous assignment to Richard, but not having seen them makes that just speculation. Perhaps there's a reasonable basis for a christening or birth of 10 Apr for Richard even if it's not in any Rattlesden record. That "10 Apr" just makes me wonder. --Robert.shaw 15:13, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I noticed today that "10 Apr 1634" is a date sometimes given for the departure of the ship Elizabeth from Ipswich (carrying Richard and family), so it's quite possible somebody accidently picked up this month and day for the supposed christening. --Robert.shaw 15:35, 21 December 2012 (EST)

I think you're right, 39 years from 10 Apr 1634. Good eye. Maybe originally some webpage said Bef 10 Apr 1595, but along the way somebody didn't bother with that pesky "bef". --Jrich 16:09, 21 December 2012 (EST)

Should we go with Anderson's line in GM for this man? [16 December 2012]

I havent done any deep research on the Kimballs but Anderson does make a good case in GM for the two men being brothers.--Daniel Maxwell 05:55, 16 December 2012 (EST)

and we should quote that on the profile page. Jillaine 08:21, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Parents of Richard and Henry Kimball / Kemball [24 September 2020]

In response to the above query, I revisited Anderson's study and the 1890 Kimball Family of America.

In addition to no evidence of a specific christening date and place, correlation of the two support different set of parents than currently placed here (Henry Kemball and Joanna Martha Eyesly-- where did that come from?

The 1890 genealogy (page 17) quotes a will of Richard Kemball with a wife Elizabeth. This Richard was a wheelwright -- the evidence that Anderson uses -- along with geography (and one could also argue the prevalence of the given names Henry and Richard throughout many generations) that the emigrating Henry and Richard were brothers.

So I don't know where this other set of parents comes from. Anyone?

Jillaine 08:19, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Here is an online transcription of baptisms in Rattlesden. Searching for Kemball, one finds the baptism of Rachell in 1589 to parents Henry and Johan. Given the baptism of Richard and Ursula's son there in 1615, the assumption was obviously made by some researcher that Rachell's parents must be Richard's parents. --Jrich 09:49, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks, Jrich, that's probably the source of the parentage as listed here currently.

Here's the text wherein Robert Charles Anderson argues for a different set of parents (TGM IV:154, citing Kimball Family of America (1890), p 17):

"The identity of the father of this immigrant [Henry Kemball] is based on geography and occupation. In his will proved on 10 September 1619, Richard Kemball of Lawford, Essex, wheelwright, bequeathed to "my eldest son [implying there were younger sons] Henry Kemball all my working tools belonging to my trade except out of them as many as hall be fitting for to serve to axe a cart withall". The immigrant Henry Kimball had his first two children baptized at Mistley, Essex, immediately adjacent to Lawford. We do not know the occupation of the immigrant Henry Kimball, but we do know that his brother Richard Kimball was a wheelwright, as were some of his sons."

Jillaine 11:40, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Anderson gives a plausible scenario, although I'm not fully convinced and would like to see a fuller analysis. Certainly that hypothesis has some support, whereas the current Henry-Johanna parentage has no support presented (here, at least). Shouldn't we remove the connection of Henry-Johanna to Richard and probable brother Henry immediately regardless of whether there is consensus on accepting Anderson's theory? --Robert.shaw 15:38, 17 December 2012 (EST)

I was waiting on more comment before I removed it. Personally I trust Anderson, because he has always tended to be quite cautious and conservative on these matters, though as I said earlier I am no great expert on the Kimballs, otherwise I would have removed it awhile ago. The trouble with WR is that we have no means to delete the cast away unsourced (and perhaps non existent) 'parentage' once removed. DMaxwell

Actually, as noted above, the alternative parentage is not "non existent". They have other documented children. The problem is that much in genealogy is not known. Just because there is a predilection by one person towards one answer does not make the other untrue, until something can be proven one way or the other. Everybody is so anxious to have one answer, but that doesn't represent the situation. The situation is there are two possibilities. Really, both parents should be listed for now, with a note that the answer is not known and detailing the evidence pointing both ways. Evidence is what makes proof, not Anderson. Yes he has generally very good judgment, but his opinion is simply that, and does not constitute proof.

In his article Anderson calls the two brothers, but I don't see that he presents any real evidence for that. Everything appears to be Anderson calling them or describing them as brothers, and no actual documents saying that, as when he quotes a deed involving "Henry Kemball of Watertowne" but adds in the text in his own words "acting as agent for his brother Richard Kimball". Is he assuming the brother relationship, or does the deed say so? If the deed says so, he should have quoted it, so I have to assume he is assuming the brother relationship. The older Kimball Family in America says "According to Bond and other writers Richard and Henry were brothers. There is but little evidence to support this supposition, and it seems to be mainly founded on the fact that they both came over on the same vessel." Richard's one appearance in England documents occurs in county Suffolk where a family headed by a Henry Kimball is known to exist, while Henry and the Richard of Lawford are of county Essex. Basically, a lot is being read into the fact that Richard and Richard of Lawford are both wheelwrights. After all, Richard of Lawford gave his tools to son Henry, not to a son Richard, of whom there is no mention in the will. And Anderson admits that assigning Henry to Richard of Lawford is basically a matter of geography, which is the same logic somebody else used to assign Richard to Henry of Rattlesden. --Jrich 17:12, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Well, the way it is listed now is confusing. Middle names are basically unheard of in this period. Is the 'mother' Johanna or Martha? I see that a Johanna had Kemball children baptized, but the way these group sheets usually go is when an early modern pedigree has a 'middle' name it often means that the compiler is creating a composite person who is probably actually two separate people. I completely oppose having dual parents on this or indeed any page. It only creates confusion for the reader. If you oppose adding Anderson's scenario, maybe then its best to leave it as it is now, relegated to the comments as an assertion, which is exactly what it is given that Anderson is not as far as I know a Kimball researcher, and the given 'parentage' on the page removed for both Richard and Henry. Dmaxwell

I think what is important is to represent what is known precisely and to identify assumptions and guesses clearly. In this case, we don't know and we have two candidates, and that is what I think the page should reflect. I don't oppose adding Anderson's scenario and never said that, I only oppose adding it at the expense of the other candidate, since neither is proven. I think having only one would be doing a disservice to the reader in not reflecting what seems to me two very possible alternatives. If we add none, the first GEDCOM touching this family will undoubtedly add one or the other, so I think that should be pre-empted by having both there already. Some day we may know the answer, then one can be removed and the commentary updated.

I don't vouch for the name of the mother, I only know that in 1589 Rachel was baptized to a Henry and Johan Kemball according to the transcript cited above, at the same place Richard and Ursula Kemball baptized their eldest child, Henry in 1615. I don't do English research. I have heard that the English were not quite the same with middle names as Americans and I believe they were not uncommon in some classes of nobility. But whether Martha is the product of a confused researcher or whether it is valid, I can't say. --Jrich 18:42, 17 December 2012 (EST)

Whether to link both sets of candidate parents or neither seems to be a problem that can pop up anywhere, so I've added a topic on the Watercooler (archive) page to solicit other's ideas. --Robert.shaw 04:30, 18 December 2012 (EST)