↑ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900 Yates Publishing Ancestry.com Source number: 94.000; Source type: Electronic Database; Number of Pages: 1; Submitter Code: JAM1
↑ U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900 Yates Publishing Ancestry.com Source number: 94.000; Source type: Electronic Database; Number of Pages: 1; Submitter Code: JAM1
Is Elizabeth 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 Elizabeth 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 Elizabeth:
If Elizabeth was born in 1699 and married William Simpson in 1719 (which makes sense), it would be difficult to believe she had three children out of wedlock and at the age of 13 (or two if Mary Simpson and Mary (Simpson) Hamby are the same person). Can anyone provide clarification or confirmation of these birth years?
Appears that we need to research for more sources for the "known children" her birth and marriage record are from the Transcriptions of the Register. If you click on the image and then into the comments you can get into the Register and turn the pages or also check the 2 indexes in the book of 1164 images. If I can help further please just hollar
Thanks! It appears the dates for Elizabeth Prebble/Preble's birth and marriage are well supported, but the dates for the first three (or two) children are in serious doubt. If you can get that resolved, we would be in your debt.
Seems we might need a 'purge' rather than a 'merge'.
Unless we raise Liz 61 from the dead, no matter how attracted to
Will she may have been, she could hardly marry Mr Simpson in
1710 or 1714 if she died in 1693. I recommend we do a post-humus
divorce.
Also it looks like her name at birth may have been Prebble (two 'b's)
which would make her actually a different 'surname at birth'.
Therefore, given the above and that the two Elizabeths are
a generation apart, it seems reasonable to reject the merge and
edit the Preble-61 profile.
Unless we raise Liz 61 from the dead, no matter how attracted to Will she may have been, she could hardly marry Mr Simpson in 1710 or 1714 if she died in 1693. I recommend we do a post-humus divorce.
Also it looks like her name at birth may have been Prebble (two 'b's) which would make her actually a different 'surname at birth'.
Therefore, given the above and that the two Elizabeths are a generation apart, it seems reasonable to reject the merge and edit the Preble-61 profile.
Tom