Jane Shinn was born in 1642. Jane Shinn Webb passed away in 1712. [1]
Research Notes
Place of birth has been changed from Soham, Cambridgeshire to England until stronger sources are added. There are no baptisms for a Jane Garwood or similar names in Soham, Cambridgeshire, England between 1631-1644.[2]
Her mother's profile has a Joan, daughter of Edmund Garwood baptized in Ipswich, Suffolk, but is it proven she belongs to the parents currently attached?
"Joan christened 11 Apr 1642 in Ipswich, Suffolk, England"[3]
Sources
↑ Entered by Edward Nelson, Monday, August 12, 2013.
↑ The Cambridgeshire History Society: Transcriptions of the Parish Registers of Soham (Cambridgeshire, England) http://www.cfhs.org.uk
↑ "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NRHR-Q9J : 30 December 2014, Edmund Garwood in entry for Joan Garwood, 11 Apr 1642); citing SAINT NICHOLAS,IPSWICH,SUFFOLK,ENGLAND, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 0991948 IT 7, 12, 599889.
See also:
Judith M. Olsen, LIPPINCOTT 5 Generations of the Descendants of Richard & Abigail LIPPINCOTT" (Woodbury, NJ, Gloucester County Historical Society, 1982)
WikiTree profile UNKNOWN-86646 created through the import of Cogan Moore Stiles Wiley_2011-07-09.ged on Jul 9, 2011 by Eileen Cogan.
This profile includes the import of pshinn geneology 2011-6-7.ged on Jun 11, 2011 by Paul Shinn; and the import of Watkins.ged on 04 April 2011
Is Jane your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or contact
the profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Jane by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Jane:
Garwood-200 and Garwood-10 appear to represent the same person because: same spouse-discrepancy with dates though, same parents which also need to be merged
Garwood-200 and Garwood-10 are not ready to be merged because: Until birth and death dates are reconciled; as well as place of death, I propose we postpone. My informain comes from the Shinn family bible which is in the possession of my brother, Robert. I do believe these two records represent the same person. Ed Nelson