User talk:DL

Welcome

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

• Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do
• Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial videos and learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors
• Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed
• Create a User Profile page to tell other people about yourself and the families you are researching
• Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior on a wiki
• Find other ways to get involved on the community portal
• Ask questions on our Support page

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 11:56, 27 March 2013 (EDT)

William Lamme [26 June 2013]

Hi Dave, got your message on William Lamb/Lamme who married Elizabeth Weir. I checked on Ancestry and there is a Member Tree showing that William Lam that married Elizabeth Weir and had son John Lam (1813-1880) was the son of James Lam and Elizabeth. I've added a James Lamme, who married Elizabeth Givens that appear to fit the general date range, that had a son William Lamme that appears to be an excellent candidate for your William. Unfortunately, I have no further information on this William, but hopefully this might give you enough information to continue your search.

Hope this helps, best regards and have a great week,

Jim:)--Delijim 13:29, 26 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks, Jim, but I'm still not convinced, though I have wondered about this possibility for some time, and it seems vaguely possible, though undocumented. You have now posted that William (b. 1777) may be the one who married Elizabeth Weir. I'd love to believe that, as it would make my research a lot easier, but I have to ask if you have any documentation for that, or if that is simply a "possible assumption"? I certainly agree that it is a possible explanation as to the origins of our William (m. Weir). The date of about 1777 is possible, though a bit earlier than we have assumed for our William (m. Weir)-- we had guessed 1785-1789, for various reasons, but it is simply a guess.

Another posting on another site presented evidence that James Lamme born 2 jun 1745 to William and Anne Paterson Lamme (note: not Anna Scott Lamme) in Stanton, Augusta County Va.married Elisbeth Givens 1775, who died 26 nov 1815 Clark Co. Ohio. He is buried on Lamme farm Ohio, near New Carlisle, Ohio (they had a son named James jr. b. 1787-married Sarah Mitchell d. 1853). It is this son James m. Sarah Mitchell who doesn't seem to fit. And, if he doesn't, then this may not be our James, and thus not our William. I really need to find some documentation which ties this James (m. Givens) to our William (m. Weir)-- (You know, a will which refers to "our daughter in law Elizabeth Weir Lam", or to "Our Grandsons John, James, and Matthias"). I can't find any wedding information for our William and Elizabeth, nor death records for either of them. Likewise, birth records for their known three sons (and maybe a couple of others) haven't been found either. If you have anything on them, I would be most appreciative. I have good information on the descendants of William and Elizabeth Weir, but I don't want to tie it to other trees until I have it clearly proven.

I have always assumed that the reference to William Lam in "Early Settlers of Augusta County" was referring to another William Lamme, the one referred to as "of the North Branch, Shenandoah River". If that is so, that reference would be to the father of James (b.1745) and grandfather of the William (b. 1777) we are looking at.

There are simply too many Williams, Elizabeths, Johns, James, etc. in this extended family.

Thanks for the help. I look forward to corresponding more with you on this one..... Dave--DL 14:15, 26 June 2013 (EDT)

Hi Dave, as I said, this is based upon an Ancestry submission (with no specific sources), so it obviously remains in the "unproven" category until records can be found otherwise.... I added the clue only as a help to interested researchers, such as yourself. Unfortunately, I have no further info on this family, they are just part of my Augusta County project..

Thanks and best regards,

Jim:)

OK, thanks. I appreciate your thoughts and assistance. I have also seen the Ancestry input, but agree that it is not proven. I'd sure like to prove it. Dave