Thomas Curtis-are parents now proven?

Question

The US Presidents Project would like "opinions" from the community on the following:

On 4 Aug 2021 Thomas Curtis wrote on Curtis-1662:

Thanks for cleaning up this profile and including the evidence that I provided. Now please take the time to review the evidence I presented that Mitchell and Phebe (Peet) Curtis are the likely parents of Thomas Curtis. I believe the evidence they are his parents is at least as solid as the evidence that Lee Christensen presented that Thomas and Eunice (Peet) Curtis are the parents of William Curtis, the grandfather of Vice President Charles Curtis, and you should evaluate and accept it according to the same standards. Supporting information for my analysis is the 1800 census records for Trumbull, CT, (known as North Stratford, a part of the town of Stratford in 1790) which lists several Curtis heads of households, all of which are included in the Curtis genealogy supplement. (The 1790 census records appear to have missed North Stratford / Trumbull as known residents of that area are not found in the census records of either Stratford or adjacent Huntington.) I also looked at other Curtis families known to be in North Stratford in the 1700's based on the Curtis Genealogy supplement. I will be glad to provide any other information from my analysis that will help you with your evaluation. The first paragraph under research notes appears to be a cut and paste from the famouskin.com website, adds nothing, and should be deleted. The Mayflower passenger theory is entirely baseless. The North Stratford Curtis families have well documented Connecticut (primarily Stratford) pedigrees and to my knowledge none of them include a Mayflower passenger. As for Nathaniel and Mary Curtis being the parents of Thomas Curtis, the basis appears to be this less than definitive statement under Nathaniel Curtis on page 34 of the Curtis Genealogy supplement: "Perhaps a fourth child was that Thomas Curtiss of N. Stratford who m. Oct. 21, 1790 Eunice Peet." The entry for Nathaniel Curtis also states "d. 1791. Court at Bridgeport Mar. 14, 1791. His son Everard Appointed administrator." It is more than strange that a person who lived in North Stratford five months earlier would not be clearly mentioned in his father's will. You perhaps should include those entries in the Research Notes with this observation noting that it is very unlikely Thomas is Nathaniel and Mary Curtis's son. For your perspective, I am a great-5-grandson of Nathaniel and Mary Curtis and a great-4-grandson of Everard Curtis. While it would be nice to be able to claim VP Charles Curtis's likely great-grandfather Thomas Curtis as Nathaniel and Mary's son, the evidence pushes my connection to him two generations backwards. I look forward to your response.

Comments

Hello, Robin.

It was a bit more annoying than I thought it should be to find out some basic information--due entirely to my own unfamiliarity, I'm sure--so I'd like to provide a link and comments here.

As the dense narrative above says, William Curtis was apparently/presumably ancestor of Vice President Charles Curtis, Curtis-1647.  Charles Curtis was Vice President to Herbert Hoover.  (Offhand, I don't see on his profile where the name of the President he served under is included.  Seems to me that would be a good addition.  Sorry for the digression, and I apologize if the information was staring me in the face and I just didn't see it.  Maybe this is all irrelevant to the question at hand.  I'll leave it to someone else to pursue the question, which I still find quite confusing in spite of my own Curtis ancestry.)

Answer 1

Obviously this isn't my area of expertise, genealogically speaking, so this is just my assessment of what is written on the profile and in the comments.

I can't see that any more evidence has been provided to confirm that Mitchell Curtis and Phebe Peet are his parents, instead of Nathaniel and Mary Curtis or Thomas Curtis.

Interestingly the Research Notes, use extensive use of the same or similar names appearing in the children of Mitchell Curtis, to prove his relationship to Zachariah Curtis, yet none of those names appear in the children of Thomas Curtis.

My assessment would be that Mitchell Curtis and Phebe Peet as the parents of Thomas Curtis, is another theory but not proven.  More primary sources may of course change that.

Comments

Totally agree with John. The gap in child bearing argument is frequently used to slip in an inconvenient profile but I can think of a multitude of reasons why there was a long gap in live births. If we don't know then we just don't know. Theories belong in the biography, not in the vitals.

Answer 2

I suggest breaking the question down into pieces.

First, I suggest the complete information concerning Thomas Curtis's marriage to Eunice Peet be included in his biography:

"Thomas and Eunice Peet, both of North Stratford, were married on October 21, 1790, in the Congregational Church of Huntington, Connecticut."

It is important that you include his residence in North Stratford as it is very relevant information to determine the identity of his parents.

Then the first question is what Curtis families lived in North Stratford in 1790 who could be his parents?

The answer is a few Curtis families who are ALL descendants of Widow Elizabeth Curtiss (and her husband John Curtis) who were among the earliest settlers of Stratford about 1639. This family was the only Curtis family in Stratford and the adjacent Connecticut coastal towns at that time. As the population grew, families moved inland and settled areas such as the northern area of Stratford known as North Stratford in 1790. Not surprisingly, Curtises are found among the families of North Stratford. While other families moved into the area, no other families named Curtis are documented in North Stratford by 1790. The Curtis families in the 1800 census of Trumbull (the name North Stratford was given when it became a town in 1797) are in fact all documented descendants of John and Elizabeth Curtis. Consequently, I suggest the biography include the following:

"All of the documented Curtis families who lived in North Stratford in 1790 are descendants of John and Elizabeth Curtis. Consequently, Thomas Curtis is very likely the son of one of these Curtis descendants who lived in North Stratford."

Voluminous historical records of the Stratford and North Stratford area validated by the 1800 census records support this. Plus, it is very relevant to the identification of Thomas Curtis's specific parents.

Final question is which Curtis family is Thomas Curtis's parents?

First, I suggest you rewrite the Research Notes from the historical perspective and include the following accurate description:

"When Harlow Dunham Curtis compiled his 1953 Supplement of the Curtis Genealogy (ref), he included the following under the entry for Nathaniel and Mary Curtiss on p. 34:

Nathaniel and Mary had only three children of record. [Charity, Andrew, Everard.] Perhaps a fourth child was that Thomas Curtiss of N. Stratford who m. October 21, 1790 Eunice Peet.

Nathaniel and Mary Curtiss are one of the known Curtis families who lived in North Stratford in 1790. Harlow Curtis did not document why he listed Thomas Curtis under this particular family and his use of "perhaps" indicates relatively low confidence in his choice. At the time, Thomas Curtis had no known descendants so it was not that important who were identified as his parents.

Since that time, Lee R. Christensen identified Thomas Curtis as the likely Curtis great-grandfather of Vice President Charles Curtis. He also recommended that others take a closer look at the likely parentage of Thomas Curtis now that he has likely descendants. [ref]

In 2021, a descendant of Nathaniel and Mary Curtis also named Thomas Curtis analyzed the existing information about the Curtis families of North Stratford based on the 1953 Curtis Genealogy Supplement. Based upon observed family naming conventions and gaps in births, he came to the conclusion that Mitchell and Phebe (Peet) Curtis are the most likely parents of Thomas Curtis. An excerpt of this analysis follows: [Text currently provided in Research Notes.]"

This includes the original association of Thomas Curtis as the child of Nathaniel and Mary Curtis, its consistency with Thomas Curtis's North Stratford residence in 1790, and the degree of confidence in his choice. I don't think it is necessary for you to reference other genealogy sites that are likely just basing their placement on his choice. I don't think it is necessary for you to include theories that don't address Thomas Curtis's North Stratford residence in 1790 but if you do you should note that major flaw.

Regarding 'proof,' I don't think it is wise to use 'proved' or similar words particularly when conclusions are based on likelihood. Using words such as 'most likely' will better attract constructive future efforts towards improving likelihood rather than efforts focused solely on disproof.

I request that you connect Thomas Curtis to his most likely parents among the very few possible North Stratford families. Leaving him disconnected, along with the current version of the Research Notes, leaves the impression that we have no idea who his parents could be. That's far from accurate.