"United States Census, 1810," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XH2J-GSC : accessed 23 September 2020), Prise Boothe, Hillsborough, Orange, North Carolina, United States; citing p. 799, NARA microfilm publication M252 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 41; FHL microfilm 337,914.
"United States Census, 1820," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHL7-GKZ : accessed 23 September 2020), Presella Boothe, Orange, North Carolina, United States; citing p. 390, NARA microfilm publication M33, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 82; FHL microfilm 162,798.
Is Priscilla 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.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Priscilla 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 Priscilla:
Tapley-632 and Tapley-142 appear to represent the same person because: both profiles are for wife of Daniel Booth. Although they don't agree on birth year, I think maybe a compromise could be c1750? Regardless of date, they should be merged. Thanks!
this site has some excellent source information - http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/r/e/Phillip-Grey-TX/GENE3-0001.html - but seems to add a generation (Daniel Booth Sr m Priscilla Ruth, with 1801 will attributed to him)... or maybe the Daniel named in the will is the Daniel who married Priscilla Tapley (but that doesn't take into account the Tapley Booth named in the will).
Tapley-632 and Tapley-142 appear to represent the same person because: both profiles are for wife of Daniel Booth. Although they don't agree on birth year, I think maybe a compromise could be c1750? Regardless of date, they should be merged. Thanks!
edited by Liz (Noland) Shifflett