Is Richard Blood son of James Blood?

+4 votes

The profile of James Blood (c 1605-1683) lists five children of which several are absent documentation of parentage. One is born in the colony, the others perhaps in England. Two years ago the parentage of son Richard (b 1617) was marked Uncertain on his profile but without comment as to reason.

Anderson places arrival of James Blood as 1640 but includes none of the Blood children in the GMD. Great Migration Newsletter includes citation of birth of daughter Mary in 1640. Richard Blood, without mention of parentage, is found in tangential references in 1670 and 1680s (Immigrants to New England IV:193-94, subscription).

Are the children, other than Mary, found on the profile speculative based on surname?

WikiTree profile: James Blood
in Genealogy Help by T Stanton G2G6 Pilot (204k points)
I'd urge some caution in making lineage decisions based on DNA information when the subjects are 400 years in the past. I'm not a DNA specialist but I have seen so many erroneous assumptions made that aren't actually supported by the results of those tested.
I agree. I provide it for completeness of information only. It might answer some question for someone. For my parts it’s interesting but irrelevant. Even if true, clearly Richard’s father didn’t know and we can assume Richard didn’t either, otherwise I doubt he’d have the surname to begin with.
First, T is correct about DNA that far back. I've taken a class with Blaine Bettinger, as well as DNA classes with our local genealogy society. I did my mtDNA & manage my brothers Y700 DNA (this goes beyond genealogy to migration patterns). However, Donn Devine, a CG who died about 2 years ago, a wonderful person, organized the Baldwin surname DNA on FTDNA as his wife was a Pennsylvania Baldwin. I am now working with our DNA SIG to track the CT Baldwins and MA Baldwins to their common ancestor (likely Henry and Alice Kinge Baldwin) using the DNA supplied by these current Baldwin descendants on FTDNA. This is not easy, but we believe it will help clear up some of the confusion about the various Baldwins, particularly all the "John" Baldwins.

It sounds like Joe Blood is doing something similar on FTDNA. So, I would encourage you to do your Y DNA at FTDNA and get any and all brothers and Blood cousins to do so. Do at least Y67 as you get more markers. Hopefully, then, Joe could look at 'patterns' to help determine 'lines' as Donn Devine did with the Baldwins. That will help for about 5 generations, 7 with any luck.

Separate from this, I am going to send you an email and give you mine. It would be most appreciated if you would send me ALL the information on Robert, Richard and John, including birth and death dates, birth and death locations, wives names and their birth and death dates/locations, years of marriage and documentation. List the documentation as completely as possible and if you have links to these send the links. If there is a tree started for Robert, send his Wikitree 'handle' (like I am Baldwin-3428). Let me know the relationship between Robert with Richard and John (sons? brothers?) and if you have parents for Robert, Richard and John if they are brothers. When you send all of this info, I will set up their basic Wikitrees. You can then see how I do biography with 'inline' sourcing in the edit section.

The other thing I would strongly suggest, especially given that the Bloods were from England, is to join the 'England Team.' They have a program called the 'Orphan Trail.' You start out with a profile from between 1850 - 1920 and work on that person (it's assigned). When you have completed that one, then you are assigned 1750ish to 1849. This one might be a relative of your first orphan. When you complete that, you get assigned a person from 1650-1750. I think they do a fourth now that starts in the 1500s and goes to 1600. Personally, I found this to be the best way for me to learn how to do proper biographies with sourcing, navigate Wikitree, learn Julian calendar, etc. changes, determine a year based on the king and the time and his reign and so forth.

We don't have anything like this for the US as all work done is unpaid and people generally work on their trees, or volunteer as greeters, etc. Once I am done with your three Bloods, you can see what I did in the 'edit' section, then start adding descendants from one of these Bloods until you 'catch on' to the Wiki way.

There are wonderful people who will help you along the way, especially catching errors, providing feedback. Persons like T Stanton, Jillaine, a woman named Anne B, and two other guys, Joe Cochoit and Chase Ashley, who helped me find proper sourcing for a misnamed/ mismatched ancestral line to Franklin Roosevelt. They helped greatly with finding sources, then I did the line with all the corrections. It took about two months, but between us we got a great corrected line with biographies and sources. There just isn't anyone who can take on a given individual's tree, though, and do all the work. Everything is voluntary.

It does take a bit of time to figure out how to 'wrangle' Wikitree, but it is well worth it. I joined in 2018 and am adding my family person by person because I do not want to screw up any trees with 'GEDCOM junk.' Plus, I can check my sources and make them look nice. And, as you can tell from your first comment, you already have help along the way with T and Jillaine. OK, I'm sending a quick email now for your info as I have a zoom conference in 1/2 hour.

Oh, and Welcome to Wikitree!
Carol, thanks for the offer to work on this, but  profiles already exist for most if not all of these persons. And it looks like Garry (who has done the bulk of the actual recent research)  is taking on the next steps with Todd's support. Let's follow their lead at this point.

Todd and Garry, if you need specific help with specific items, let us know.
Hi Jillaine,

I received a kind and informative email from Garry. I had given him kudos to his work on his sourcing and searches and indicated that I will help/support where I can at his (and Todd's) convenience and request. I see some profiles exist and mentioned to Garry that Richard Blood-147 is my 10th GGF. He mentioned that he 'revisited' Richard Blood after reading the Lakin will. I am curious as to how Richard Blood-147, now disconnected from James, who would have been 12 y/o at Richard's birth might be related to James Blood-141 and his sons Robert and James. Perhaps an uncle? I will look forward to seeing how this unfolds as Garry and Todd work on the Blood tree. Thank you!
Just to clarify where we are here Carol, Robert is likewise not a son of James. James' only proven, undisputed son is James Jr. There is not one shred of primary evidence even implying that James is the father of Robert, and the fact Robert (and brother John) were born at least 5 years before James' first marriage is nearly as much of a show-stopper as James only being 12 when Richard was born. Uncle? Possible, but a long shot. I'd expect some form of cousin. 'James' was not a Ruddington Blood name and 'Richard' was not a Nottingham Blood name, so all evidence points to them being from separate branches. And James was undisputedly of the Nottingham branch.
Hi Garry, I follow. This family is not unlike a Phelps line. There are two Phelps ancestors from two regions in England. They are likely related, perhaps distant cousins; however, folks related to George get confused with William. We have a FB Phelps family and now use the DNA haplogroup for our specific William Phelps from Crewkerne line (vs. George Phelps). Not suggesting DNA or anything else. Just a similar comparison of two Phelps lines akin to the Blood lines (no pun intended). I know that you will do a great job on this family and Todd is very knowledgeable and a terrific helper. I envy your ability to keep these lines all straight!
Adding an addendum to my own comment here. I now have severe doubts as to whether or not James was truly a Nottingham Blood. I am beginning to suspect he was a Ruddington Blood that had apprenticed in Nottingham, and was still living there in 1630/31 when we first hear of him. 'James,' it turns out, is in fact a Ruddington Blood name and not a Nottingham Blood name if we discount this James. I'm starting to think 'uncle' may be the more likely association between him and the brothers Richard, Robert, and John.
What's the status of the various profiles on wikitree. Have the gross errors been corrected?
Other than the new topic raised by Garry, yes, the major changes to the various profiles connections were completed a few months ago.

1 Answer

+3 votes
Richard was not the son of James. James' only proven son was James Junior. The fact Richard was born when James was at most 12 years old is a hard one to overcome. The most probable relationship was that Richard, Robert, and John were the sons of the Richard Blood active in Ruddington from 1611 to 1637, who was mentioned in the 1633 will of William Lakin. James, from Nottingham, was probably an extended family member, but one known to the three brothers. I doubt he was any closer relation than a cousin.
by Garry Blood G2G Crew (750 points)
edited by Garry Blood
Garry, this is helpful. Can you expound on your research and, if possible, give us the citations to the information you reference?  Thanks.

Related questions

+5 votes
3 answers
329 views asked Jun 30 in The Tree House by Diana Tyree G2G Crew (760 points)
+9 votes
1 answer
190 views asked Dec 30, 2020 in The Tree House by Susan Smith G2G6 Pilot (497k points)
+1 vote
0 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
211 views asked May 20, 2013 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+4 votes
2 answers
+8 votes
2 answers
68 views asked Oct 5, 2020 in The Tree House by Bonnie Blood G2G1 (1.4k points)
+4 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright