Are there reliable sources showing that Robert Page-906 or 905 were children of Robert Page-175 & Lucia (Warde-23) Page?

Question

In English Ancestry of Robert Page, NEHGR, the children of Robert and Lucy Page are listed.  Several of the children named on the profiles of Robert Page-175 and Lucy Warde-23 are not named in the list in NEHGR. At the moment I am just focused on Robert Page-906 and 905, since children were often named after a parent.  I have not found any definitive sources that show who their parents were.  I am especially curious about Robert Page-906, who only lived two years. He was born in England and could have died before the Page family came to Boston in 1637, so he would not have been listed as a passenger on the ship as were the parents and their three oldest children. He could also have been excluded from the NEHGR list of their children since he would have died in England.  (If interested, other children NOT on the list are Martha Mary, Unknown Page, and Samuel. Have not found reliable sources for them either.)

Comments

Robert Page 1635-1637. Searched for bapt. record at Ancestry, Family Search, freeReg.org.uk - nothing.  All the Ancestry trees are unsourced.

Robert Page 1642-1679 the death year is the same as his father's, I suspect he and his father are dups. Several Ancestry trees say Robert (1642-1679) was m. to Lucy Ward.

Martha Page is probably Martha Unknown

Merge unknown away

---

There was a John Page born 1641Hingham, Plymouth, Massachusetts,

BIBLIOGRAPHY Haverhill VR 2:242, 453; 1978 Page g 19-22

Haverhill HR 1697; selectman 1669, 85; M Sarah Davis (1649- c1739) in 1663, 1 ch; farmer; had liquor license; will. One slave. He came to town about 1660. Fined in 1684 for selling liquor to Indians.

Citation: Massachusetts: Legislators of the General Court, 1691-1780 (Online database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2002), (Orig. Pub. by Northeastern University Press , Boston, MA. John A. Schutz, Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court 1691–1780 A Biographical Dictionary, 1997.) https://www.americanancestors.org/DB142/r/5851827

Samuel I'm not finding anything, but considering that Rebecca and Thomas were both bpt 1639, it seems odd there would be a Samuel b. 1639, although this was probably meant to be an estimate

Answer 1

According to John Brooks Threllfell in his well researched Fifty Great Migration Colonist, Robert and Lucy Page had seven children all born in England: Margaret, Francis, Susanna, Rebecca, Thomas, Hannah and Mary. There is no son Robert, Samuel or John. And no daughter by the name of Martha. I think these extra children need to be removed, or renamed and merged. 

Comments

Thanks for your information.  Hope others reply.  Not sure that Threllfell is correct when he says they were all born in England.  The passenger list for the ship to New England in 1637 shows Robert and Lucia Page and their three older children.  I think some of the children were born in New England.  Chamberlain's "English Ancestry of Robert Page" indicates that, too. But both agree on the number and names of the children.

---

Jeanie, one of the odd children Martha is managed by you, I've left a message, but it might actually make sense to look around a little more for her surname, although I'm certain she's not dtr of Robert.

---

Thanks Ann, I forgot she was one of mine. I removed her from Robert Page. According to the Hampton Lane Memorial Library Database, which is an excellent source, she is Unknown.

---

That formatted funny, I'm going to see if I can correct it.

---

Hi Gretchen: got your email... I'll respond here

QUESTION:  Is there a way to send to several people at once so we only have to send one email and others receiving the emails can see who else is getting them?

If you have our email addresses you can do that. But with the private messaging system, I don't think so. Messages sent to PGM (private or not) get sent to everyone in the google group, so Jeanie and I both got the message through the group too. In this case, you could just have made a comment right here. The way G2G works, Jeanie and I would both see the comment because she created the answer and I commented. Anyone else who had been in this particular answer thread would get notification of the comment too. And since I'm a PGM leader, notifying me notifies PGM also 

I am happy to make any of the following changes but don’t want to overstep.  Before making changes I would email each of the appropriate PMs to see if there were any objections and follow merging rules. Leaving comments on the profiles, should notify the managers, you don't have to email or message them all. I usually wait about a week after leaving messages.   

Genealogy Suggestions for Robert Page-175 
Remove the following as children of Robert and Lucia Page as there is no reliable documentation that they are their children.  And, there is a good source that names the children of Robert and Lucia Page and none of the following children are included.  I have posted a G2G question on Genealogy Help re: the two listed sons named Robert and so far no one has posted documentation that they should remain.  

1. Robert Page-906 remove as child of Robert and Lucia Page but leave on WikiTree as a person.

Page-906, I left a rather detailed comment on his profile, because he's complicated. I don't want to disconnect and leave him hanging. I'm in favor of the second.

2. Unknown Page-880 merge into Robert Page-906 as birth year is the same and the WikiTree profile contains no other information.  QUESTION: Is it better to merge before detaching Robert Page-906 from the parents? 

Unknown Page-880 merge him into Francis Page-264.  with a note about eliminating an extra child  

3. Robert Page-905 remove as child of Robert and Lucia Page.  There does not appear to be any reliable source for a Robert Page born in 1642 in Salem and dying in 1679 in Massachusetts.  Only sources are Ancestry trees that source each other.    QUESTION: Should he be merged into Robert Page-175 to eliminate an unsourced profile (other than Ancestry with links that don’t work) with little info or just left alone? Yes. disconnect Page-905 from Robert and wife. Remove his birth date and then propose a merge with Page-175. He's a case of mistaken identity. Suggested comment: Due to the fact that Robert and Lucy had no proven children named Robert and the death date (1679) is the same as his fathers, I believe this Robert is a case of mistaken identity. I suggest that he be disconnected from parents Page-175 and Warde-23 and then merged into Page-175. Objections?

4.  Samuel Page-908 Remove as child of Robert and Lucia Page.  Many Ancestry trees say he is the son of Robert and Lucia Page but no reliable sources.    QUESTION: Could he be merged into Thomas Page. Same birth year, erroneously listed as son of same parents, and a few ancestry trees show him with same wife as Thomas, Mary Hussey. Just trying to eliminate him as can find no Samuel Page born 1639 that died in New Hampshire, other than all of the Ancestry trees with Robert and Lucy Page as parents.  Or should he just stay in WikiTree as Page-908? Merging him with Thomas sounds like a good idea.   

5. John Page-900 Remove as child of Robert and Lucia Page. Merge him into John Page-201 since once parents removed, remaining info (year of birth and name) will match Page-201. That also sounds ok

---

Anne, thanks for your reply and suggestions.  I have started the process for each of children that are mistakenly attached to Robert and Lucia Page, except for Robert Page-906 since your comment on his profile has started the removal process for him.