Does "tradition" make the grade? Katherine Birdseye, wife of Joseph Hawley, is she Unknown?

+8 votes
As much as I hate losing the surname of another female ancestor. There is nothing to support the surname for Katharine Birdseye except some "tradition in Stratford Connecticut" in 1886, 200 years after her death. Further the so called immigrant parent left "zero" footprint in New England.

I've laid this out on her profile and think she should probably be unknown. Do others of her descendants have thoughts on this?

Should we decide to stick with tradition, she needs to be disconnected from the her mother, who I've never heard of before, especially since her alleged father has never been located. Even his first name is not known with certainty.
WikiTree profile: Catherine Hawley
in Genealogy Help by Anne B G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
edited by Anne B

2 Answers

+11 votes
Best answer
Neither do I like loosing the surname of another ancient great grandmother, but as honest amateur genealogists, we have to go where the research takes us.  

After reviewing your excellent update of her profile, Anne, I think we need to state clearly what the traditional surname is - at the beginning of the bio - then make her surname unknown in the data.

Yes, after reveiw, I agree the mother needs to be detached and the father's given name should be changed to unknown, with notation in the biography.

Thank you for your work on these profiles, Anne.
by Cheryl Skordahl G2G6 Pilot (240k points)
selected by Carol Baldwin
Please do as necessary - my mother’s maiden name is Hawley but I have so many projects of the go,

I hear that some of the Hawley ancestors in America may or may not be related to each other and none may have established connections to the other side of pond

On the other hand, I hear much of the assumption of the Norman orgins and the name structure is very suggestive of that

also there are a considerable number of lines in England

Shockingly, I have no Hawley DNA matches as our Canadian side hasn’t done any - or if so are on ancestry where I am not
+1 vote

An explanation for the Holly/Birdsall match but no match (so far) for Katherine Hawley.  Also the Birdsall/Holly match is a big item in Seneca Falls, NY. 

Rev Sylvanus Holly was born 9 Sep 1760  in Sharon, Litchfield County, Connecticut.  Rev Sylvanus Holly is fourth generation descendant of Capt John Holly born ~ 1618 in Shoreditch, Middlesex, England.

Rev. Holly married Mary Hannah Birdsall Holly 26 Sep 1790 in Washington County, NY.

Rev. Holly died 3 Jun 1820 in Whitehall, Washington County, NY

* Mary Hannah Birdsall (aka. Hawley) was born 13 Jan 1769 in Sharon, Litchfield, Connecticut, Mass Bay Colony. Shemarried Rev Sylvanus Holly 26 Sep 1790 in Washington County, NY & died 30 Mar 1840 in Orangeville, Wyoming, NY, USA
Any descendant of Mary Hannah Birdsall Holly may well be Katherine "Birdseye" Hawley. 
Unfortunately, shows no descendants named Katherine.
by Richard Schamp G2G3 (3.9k points)

Related questions

+8 votes
3 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
0 answers
134 views asked Sep 14, 2019 in Genealogy Help by Lois Tilton G2G6 Pilot (144k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
3 answers
274 views asked Aug 26, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Cheryl Skordahl G2G6 Pilot (240k points)
+2 votes
2 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
2 answers
132 views asked Nov 3, 2020 in The Tree House by Stephen Heathcote G2G6 Mach 3 (39.8k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright