Person talk:Sarah Burnap (4)

Birth date is wrong [9 August 2022]

Over 10 years after birth of a previous child to a man would have been 58? Plus in the George H Perbix, Thomas Burnap, Husband of Mary Pearson argument cited on Robert Burnaps page he signs a deed selling Isaac's land with his children (Essex 3:47), they all being heirs, which includes a Sarah Burnap spinster. So at least 18 on 1 Sep 1668, so born before 1650 to participate in a deed.

Your argument appears to be based on citing the will of the wrong father in justifying the removal of Sarah Burnap b. 1653 from a marriage with Abraham Roberts Family:Abraham Roberts and Sarah Burnap (1), and it was incorrect as the son Robert² in his will [Middlesex Probate 3609] names "son Abraham Robbert". --Jrich 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

See

Janet Ireland Delorey, JOHN2 SOUTHWICK OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A Study of Mistranscribed Records, in American Society of Genealogists. The Genealogist. (New York: Association for the Promotion of Scholarship in Genealogy), 12:223-31.

I don't have access that I am aware of, it only being 1998. So why should I see it? You'll have to tell me if you want me to know. The deed shows that the daughter of Robert Burnap¹ was born before 1653. The birth record you cited (which was originally properly given to Abraham Roberts' wife [1]who is a granddaughter of the man) does not belong to her. --Jrich 00:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You have access: https://fasg.org/the-genealogist/complete-contents/ Back-issues: https://fasg.org/the-genealogist/subscribing-and-back-issues/

See also:

Janet Ireland Delorey, Sarah3 Southwick: The Forgotten Daughter: Wife of William3 Aborn of Salem, Massachusetts, in American Society of Genealogists. The Genealogist. (New York: Association for the Promotion of Scholarship in Genealogy), 16.1:40-41 Spring 2002.

You did not cite a specific deed. If you'd like to discuss a retraction after reading both articles please correspond with:

"Mrs. Janet Ireland Delorey 's address is 496 Main Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545. She wishes to acknowledge and thank Dr. Neil D. Thompson, F.A.S.G., for his research assistance."

Posted on the bottom of the first publication.

You did not read my message very well. There was a link in the first message to Essex deed 3:47 which is free, unlike your "access", so access I do not have and do not plan to get. Anyway, as I said the deed was cited in the article you cited, so you could have found a reference to it there. I'll repeat the link to the deed for you convenience: Essex 3:47.

You are supposed to sign your postings. --Jrich 00:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm "supposed to" sign my posts? That's not an argument. Can you please cite the rules from Allen County Public Library, that says I am "supposed to" sign my posts? Not only is that not an argument it is an untrue accusation against me. And if you keep up with these allegations you will find yourself on an actionable lawsuit for liable because there is no rule here about signing posts and you've made several of these untrue accusation against me in the past which I have documented. I am not breaking any rules here. So do not accuse me of breaking any.

You asked about this issue and I gave you my sources which includes all the arguments published by the 50 Fellow of the American Society of Genealogists. I gave you their contact information. Moreover you have access. It is your responsibility review peer-reviewed scholarly material before you make edits that conflict with that material. This is *the* top journal in genealogy. So if you are implying that you can override it without even reading the article above I will have to bring this issue to the Allen County Public Library.

Help:My Relate tutorial#Lesson Five: Collaborate with others. See item 4. Allen County Public Library was once affiliated with this website, not sure it that is stilltrue, but certainly does not have anything to do with administering or setting the rules.

The remark on signing wasn't meant to be an argument. It is not pertinent to the substance of the discussion, only how you are participating. It is the etiquette accepted by WeRelate community. Look at any talk page, and notice how few posts are not signed: virtually none. Don't do it, I don't care, that speaks volumes, too. Any user will determine who posted it by looking at the history if they care.

Argue the genealogy, if you can. If you don't want me to know what the article says, don't tell me, I will probably never know. One advantage of using primary sources like deeds: secondary sources don't matter much, and if they do, someone else will surely eventually be collaborative enough to share. --Jrich 03:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, with no help from above, and at the cost of half a day to take the bus into downtown, I have reviewed the two cited articles by Janet Ireland Delorey (who I probably would be trying to contact right now, except that unfortunately she died in 2013). Both articles are about the Southwick family and only cover the older Sarah Burnap because she married John Southwick. They make no mention of the younger Sarah Burnap.

First I will discuss the second article. It never mentions the birth date at all. It is concerned with Sarah's daughter by John Southwick b. 1672. John Southwick's wife was definitely the daughter of Robert Sr. as this daughter of hers is called granddaughter by Robert Sr.'s will.

Onto the first article. It does not contain any information about the birthdate that is not already cited, and hence considered, i.e., the only significance would be that a genealogist did show this Sarah being b. 1653. But consideration of all the data shows she made an error. She merely cited, as the only source for the birthdate, the Reading VRs, which means she saw a birth of Sarah daughter of Robert, and assumed it was the Sarah that married John Southwick, not realizing it was another Sarah born to another Robert. But since she was covering the Southwick family, not the Burnap family, there is no reason to think she was aware that

1. this made Sarah over ten years younger than any other child of Robert Sr.
2. there was a niece with the same name also born to a Robert (i.e., Robert Jr.)
3. there was a the deed (cited above) which proves Robert Sr.'s daughter Sarah was born sometime before 1650 (incidentally, she had a daughter b. 1672 which suggests born 1630 or later)
4. the niece's own child b. 1679 realistically says she was born by 1660 or earlier, in normal practice, i.e., very feasible she is the one b. 1653
5. while Sarah's birth record does not distinguish Robert Sr. or Jr., it is the first in a series of births to this "Robbart" spaced 2 years apart, strongly suggesting they are all one family, and that perhaps Robert Sr. was not living in Reading, or not having children, at the time, so the town clerk felt no need to distinguish between Sr. and Jr.

Nor did she point out the big incongruity that this assumption of hers caused in her own presentation, namely that a not-yet-16 old girl is supposed to have married, as his third wife, a man 28 years older than her.

The deed is proof that Sarah, daughter of Robert Sr., was born some years before 1653. The rest is just circumstantial. The whole is overwhelmingly convincing. The birth date of 1653 does not belong to this person. --Jrich 23:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

On 19 Jul 2022, user Jrich chose to defer resolution of issues on this page, including the issue "Born after mother was 50". 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: The wrong birth date is given for Sarah, see the discussion above.