Unmerged match Mary Page Chiles and spouse

Question

Recently a few apparent duplicate profiles were identified for Mary Page Chiles, Walter Chiles and some of the surrounding family and some merges were proposed. then the proposed merges were set as unmerged matches.

There are some apparent unresolved issues with the content of the matching profiles,

I have tried to communicate with one of the profile managers, but have received no response.

I was wondering if anyone is more familiar with the families of Page and Chiles in the colonial Williamsburg area and would be willing to look at the profiles.

Answer 1

The profiles are clearly meant to be the same woman, same dates, same parents, same spouse (another duplicate).  They should be merged.

Answer 2

Could be a duplicate and very likely.

It was rejected as an 'unmerged' match possibly due to the date of death being different and having no sources on one profile

The problem when you merge is which is the correct details and which do you choose, suggest more sources need to be added to the profile with none and see if a more accurate date of death can be found

Comments

The issues surrounding the differences between the profiles are not insurmountable, however the lack of communication makes things difficult. It may be nearing the time to ask to have the profiles unlocked for lack of response.

---

Mary's date of death is uncertain, but 1669 seems more likely since husband Walter had remarried and fathered a son before his own death in 1671.  This difference should not stop the merge.  Very little is known about Mary, she doesn't seem to appear in many documents.  John Page, Mary's father named her children, John and Elizabeth,  in his will.  

Here is one source:  

W. B. Cridlin. “The Chiles Family in Virginia (Continued).” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 19, no. 2, 1911, pp. 211–215. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4243134.

---

Katie that's great have you added it to the unsourced profile?

The one responsive manager isn't rejecting the merge, they are concerned due to the lack of sources on the other profile and therefore placing it in unmerged match.

---

I posted a comment on her profile and PM’d the manager.  I am really baffled why the issue of no sources on one profile matters when these are clearly the same woman, same parents, same place, same spouse (although he’s also a duplicate).  I don’t think it’s a good use of my time to flesh out an unsourced profile just to get rid of it in a merge.  Why not focus on the accurate profile?

---

At the moment one responsive manager has put it in the unmerged match tray, let's just say they agree and say 'match', what will happen next?

The merge will not be allowed to take place until the other manager either makes a response of 'match' or thirty days,

After thirty days either it will just stay there as a match but no-one will merge due to the information of basic information being different, OR they will merge incorrectly and therefore alter the dead of death etc, OR it will be placed in the unmerged match tray with a comment place of birth and time of death differ more research needed.

Have a look at the the Pending merges - There's some in there from some time ago possibly due to the above reasons

---

In this case there are at least two people who would like to improve this line and get rid of the  duplicates  but we are prevented by the dreaded unmerged match which puts it all in limbo.

---

unless some interested party invests their time in properly sourcing the unmerged match and  place of birth and date of death is then acknowledged as the proper and correct one

---

Mary's date of death is unknown as is the date of her husband's second marriage.  The only certain date is her husband's death date.

---

Hi Kathie, I went looking for possible sources for Mary in England or United states and found a very nice date of birth only 19 miles from the reported place of birth of her parents (Some sources suggest that Mary left England with her Parents) Then I noticed the recurrence of Chiles through Her Mother - She had previously been married to a Walter Chiles.

So Walter Chiles whom married Mary Page would have been Step siblings, I know this is frowned upon in some religions but not sure about the legality, so fine.

Then it gets even murkier because both Walter Chiles (husband of Alice Lucken) and John Page (husband of Alice Lucken) appear to be both alive, Walter reportedly doesn't die until 1671 and John Page until 1698.

Maybe the Walter Chiles she married prior to leaving England is a different one and maybe the families were therefore already related.

Or maybe the Alice Lucken(s) were different people but have been merged and therefore are now one

I have no answers I am afraid.

Sources do state whilst The Chiles Grandchildren are mentioned in Johns Pages Will - some sources suggest Giles they are not mentioned in Alice's!

So does in fact John Page marry Alice UNKNOWN and Mary Page is then a child from this relationship

That's when I gave up and decided to leave it to the descendants of this line

---

The Walter Chiles who came to Virginia in 1638 brought with him his wife Elizabeth and young sons William and Walter. Walter was probably born about 1630. Mary Page was born about 1648.  Her mother's parents are unknown.  Alice had a coat of arms engraved on her grave so her maiden name was definitely Luken, but she has not been definitively attached to any of the Luken/Lukyn families in England.  Mary and Walter were not step-siblings; it's possible they were cousins of some kind but I have never seen that suggested anywhere.

---

Kathie take a look at the tree on here , it states Alice Luken was married twice!

Walter Chiles and John Page

If that's not correct then it needs to be altered

---

Heather, you have identified the problem we are dealing with, but have not really assisted in a resolution. We are dealing with an unresponsive manager who created a number of duplicate, and in reality, unsourced profiles.

We are seeking input from fellow wikitree members who may be more familiar with these individuals to assist with getting the most correct information.

---

Ok you want a solution?

Change EVERYTHING from the unresponsive manager to match the responsive manager , the responsive manager should then have no problem with the merge and will accept, the unresponsive manager will continue to be unresponsive  and therefore after 30 days the merge will be complete

---

I removed the unmerged match, coreected the estimated death date on the second profile and re-proposed the merge.  If it’s not blocked again should go through in 30 days.