Unknown
Ruth
Born about in England
Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
[spouse(s) unknown]
Father of
Esther (Ruth) Reynolds
Died [date unknown]
in England
Profile last modified
| Created 10 Jan 2014
This page has been accessed 428 times.
This profile lacks source information. Please add sources that support the facts.
The Birth Date is a rough estimate. See the text for details.
Contents |
Biography
Removed death date of 1559 as a daughter was born after that date.
Birth
- ABT 1554 Stamford, Fairfield, CT
Marriage
- ABT 1574 Stamford, Fairfield, CT
- Husband: UNKNOWN Ruth
- Child: Esther Ruth
- ABT 1574 Stamford, Fairfield, CT
Sources
Is Unknown your ancestor? Please don't go away!
Login to collaborate or comment, or
contact
a profile manager, or
ask our community of genealogists a question.
Login to collaborate or comment, or contact
a profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA
No known carriers of Unknown's DNA have taken a DNA test.
No known carriers of Unknown's DNA have taken a DNA test.
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
Categories: Unsourced Profiles | England, Unsourced Profiles | Estimated Birth Date
To me, at first glance, it appears this profile should be named 'Unknown Ruth (Roth) Unknown' or 'Unknown Ruth formerly Unknown aka Roth' but as it is currently, we seem to be either:
A) deceptively using her married surname in the database field for her first name at birth. That's not OK. Right?
OR if (A) is false, then:
B) We are currently telling the world we are 100% sure of two things (but lack any real sources proving) i) her given name was definitely 'Ruth' AND ii) her husband's LNAB was definitely Roth, and there is no ambiguity in what their daughter Esther's LNAB is. (Which that profile currently is unsure of.)
Either (A) or (B) means something is wrong with this profile as-is.
Since, it seems clear we have no idea (option C), we should make her 'Unknown Unknown' who m. Ruth/Roth.
Or even better, since we literally know nothing about this woman we can actually prove to Wikitree standards (gesturing at random Ancestry.com trees is not sourcing) then perhaps we should just delete this profile. And let her daughter rest as the last identified woman in this branch of our universal tree. If a primary source comes along later, great! In the meantime, I don't see how we justify publishing this hollow profile as factual history.