I'm UNCERTAIN about the parents of these ancestors

Question

I'd like to add the new "uncertain" category to the parents of a number of ancestors.  This is something new at WikiTree, and people haven't ironed out the details of who should or shouldn't be included.  So... I'm going to be adding a number of "answers" to this initial post, each one featuring a different wikitree profile where either

(1) On a project-protected profile, I want to re-attach speculative parents that have been detached, now including the "uncertain" status; 

(2) On a profile that isn't project-protected, I go ahead and re-attach conjectural parents;

(3) I want to add the "uncertain" status to already-linked parents on a project-protected profile;

(4) I add the "uncertain" status to already-linked parents on a profile that isn't project-protected; or

(5) I create a new profile of a conjectural parent and mark it "uncertain."

As I get going with this, I'll try to include at least one example of all of those.  Please understand that what I'm doing is not necessarily the best idea -- I'm trying these out to help us weigh the pros and cons.  This is all new territory, and I'm doing this to elicit feedback from others about what is and isn't appropriate, giving fellow wikitreers a chance to talk about practical examples.

As a reference, here are some links:

Wikitree's current help page explanation of the "Uncertain" status: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Uncertain

The new draft explanation of "Uncertain": http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Uncertain_new

The G2G thread, "If reasonable genealogists disagree on circumstantial evidence, do you disconnect the parents or mark them as Uncertain?" : http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/140663/reasonable-genealogists-circumstantial-disconnect-uncertain

 

Comments

John, there's such valuable info in each of your "answers."  Seems a pity we can't attach answers to specific profiles so that this info would be linked to them.  In any case, they're each worthy of their own topic.

---

Jillaine, thank you for the good idea -- I'll start posting messages on the various profiles with links to this thread.

Answer 1

My first ancestor with uncertain parents is John Jenney, a PGM project protected profile, here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jenney-2

John's alleged parents Henry Jenney and Mary Smythe have been detached, with a "disputed origins" section on John's profile.  The question here is whether John Jenney, the 1623 immigrant from Leyden, Holland (and originally from Norwich, England) was the same as the John Jenney who was baptized in 1596 in Great Gressingham (or Gressingham Magna), Norfolk, England (not far from the city of Norwich).

Henry Jenney was the son of a John Jenney, but if this is the correct baptism for Henry's conjectural son the immigrant John Jenney then either (1) John was baptized at least a year after he was born, or (2) he was only 18 years old at the time of his marriage in 1614.

Are there any objections to reattaching and marking "uncertain" Henry and Mary as John's parents?

EDIT: My source for adding Henry and Mary back as John's uncertain parents is the "Royal, Titled, Noble, Commoners" website at http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p2331.htm#i70064, which  cites Family Group Sheets, Family History/Genealogy Center Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah

Comments

Anderson (GMB, p 1089-1094) identifies no parents for John Jenney, but does say that John's marriage record indicates he was from Norwich, England. Anderson references Mary Lovering Holman's Scott Genealogy, p 286, which says the same thing: No parents identified; Norwich origins on marriage record.

Also, Anderson estimates a birth year of 1589 based on John's marriage date.

What is the source for the purported parents Henry and Mary?

---

John, this is an excellent test of the new "uncertain" policy. Do we give an author-unknown, sourceless family group sheet, as much weight as the research of two highly renowned, published genealogists -- Anderson and Holman?

---

Although I think that Anderson and Holman are better sources of information than our-royal-titled etc database, I also think that the answers to the 2 questions posed could be Yes and Yes.  On that grounds John's parents could be marked as Uncertain.

However I did a bit of sleuthing on John Jenny baptised on 21 December 1596 at Great Cressingham, Norfolk (It is Cressingham, Gressingham is a totally different village in Norfolk, near East Dereham) via the FreeREG site

http://www.freereg.org.uk/cgi/Search.pl

John is the eldest of 6 children of Henry Jenny, Esq. and Mary, baptised between 21 Dec 1596 and 01 Dec 1605.  There are then another four children of a John Jenny Esq and his wife Temperance, also baptised at Great Cressingham between 19 June 1628 and 03 May 1638, which suggests that the John Jenny from Great Cressingham, stayed there and isn't the same as the John Jenney who went to Leyden, and then on to Plymouth.  There is a burial for John Jenny at Great Cressingham on 26 September 1656, but nothing to indicate whether this is the same person.  As an Esquire it is possible he inherited some estate or manor, and perhaps would be found in Visitations or other similar records?

Again it is all uncertain and FreeREG is a transcription site, but it is additional information that might help to make a decision on whether John Jenney should be connected to Henry Jenny and his wife Mary.

---

This site would only let me see a small section of the Visitation and I'm not exactly sure which edition of the Visitation this is from, but even though it doesn't site any sources, I think with this and the other information, the John Jenny of Great Cresssingham, is definitely not the John Jenney of Plymouth, Mass.

http://www.mocavo.com/The-Visitation-of-Norfolk-in-the-Year-1563-Volume-1/733073/148

So can we definitely disconnect Henry and Mary as John Jenney's parents, with an explanation of the reasons behind this decision, or should it remain uncertain because one (or many) online genealogies maintain this is correct?

---

John A., Thanks for doing the digging on this one. I would like to go back to the pre-researched example that John S. has offered though.

Let's say that you hadn't found what you found (evidence that John son of Henry and Mary went on to marry and die in England, so therefore could not have been the PGM immigrant).

I still want answered my question:

Do we give an author-unknown, sourceless family group sheet, as much weight as the research of two highly renowned, published genealogists -- Anderson and Holman?

(and sorry I did not understand which two questions you were referring to in your "yes and yes" response above-- John S's one and my one? Answering John's with yes and my question with yes seem contradictory. Or were you referring to some other questions? In any case please explain.)

Thanks.

---

John, thanks for your research -- perhaps this is an example of how the "uncertain" tag (or the suggestion thereof) can motivate clarification for the benefit of us all.  As far as I am concerned, it is now clear that the immigrant John Jenney was a different man from the John Jenney of Great Cressington.

---

Hi John,

 

Thanks for doing all this.

 

In my thinking, in just about all these examples the Uncertain indicator would be warranted.

 

The basic idea for the proposed standards of usage is that there is a low bar for adding Uncertain parents and a high bar for removing Uncertain parents that another good Wiki Genealogist wants to keep connected.

 

On the other side (and this should be made clear somewhere), I think there should be a low bar for setting parents that someone else added as Uncertain and a high bar for marking them as Confident.

 

If John wants to add parents and mark them as Uncertain, but Jillaine doesn't want them connected at all, Jillaine would have a high bar.

 

If John wants to mark parents as Confident but Jillaine wants them marked as Uncertain, John would have a high bar.

 

As for whether they're profiles that fit within a project or not, I think the relevancy of that just regards who is making the decisions. If it's a PGM profile it needs to be someone like John or Jillaine. We're assuming that the person who wants to keep the connection is a member in good standing who communicates with others in the context of the PGM project, understands all the points of the Pre-1700 quiz, etc.

 

Chris

---

"uncertain" seems to work best to mean "unproved but unchallenged."  Once an unproved fact is challenged, then the high bar should be set for retaining it.  

Certainly, the benefit of challenge is illustrated in the John Jenny case above.  The two John Jennys existed as the imagined same person for a long period of time until -- in this case -- the need for an illustration -- forced it into consciousness.  Then the proper thing happened -- additional research was done, which made the conclusion pretty much unarguable.  

The WikiTree desire to connect everyone is an important driving force, and ultimately we ARE, of course, all connected.  That is not in dispute.  But WikiTree must be about showing how we are connected, and a connection in the face of a dispute is a premature connection.  The default status really needs to be disconnection until there is a reason to make the connection -- and the reason has to be stronger than the desires of one WikiTree member in the face of another.  We need to be documenting facts, not the strength of desire!

---

I'm slightly bemused by the idea that this is an adversarial thing between people taking both sides.

In general the internet swamp seeps into WikiTree by a process of osmosis, not by deliberate advocacy.  People who import gedcoms don't necessarily know what's in them.

But it seems like we're being told there are good reasons to keep connections that nobody is actually defending.

Should there be a Public Defender to defend uncertain parents who don't have their own attorneys?

---

RJ, I think you're really on to something.  I jumped through all sorts of hoops the first time I disconnected someone, fearing that there were legions of people wedded to the connection who would be traumatized for life at the violence I was about to do to their cherished family tree.  But facts compelled me to break the connection.  And what have I heard from all the traumatized legions?  Zip.  Nada.  Nothing.  Sounds of silence.  

Sometimes it may be a mistake to assume others care as much as we do!

---

I suppose I've had as much experience as anybody detaching bogus parents, and it's really unpredictable; sometimes nobody cares, sometimes strangers send "thank you" messages when I make the cut, and then there is the occasional person who is attached to imaginary ancestors.  If initial contact is handled carefully, it's usually not  hard to avoid a scene.  I've noticed that, since the implementation of the pre-1700 test, I've encountered much fewer people clinging to false lineages.

---

Based on a fascinating 2008 article by Matthew Hovious in The Genealogist (2008), I've added a different pair of uncertain parents for John Jenney.  Details on his profile.

---

Love those TAG articles. Nice work, John.

---

My maternal grandmother was Barbara (Jenne)(13)Shiltz , her father was Rev. Foster H Jenne.(12) Bert Ansel Jenne(11),Albert Kuder Jenne(10),Ansel Jenne(9),Ansel Jenney(8), Noah Jenney(7),Samuel Jenney(6),Job Jenney(5), Samuel Jenney(4)John Jenney(3) Samuel Jenney(2) John Jenney(1). I just wanted to share my Jenne(y) connection.  
Another pretty cool Jenne(y)  is Charles Frances Jenney whom is a 9th descendant of John Jenney and held the position of a judge in Boston,  Mass. I can't seem to find the link right now but when I Googled him I was able to find court records of his friends and colleagues remembering who he was and gave personal stories. It certainly is an interesting read and give more insight as to who he was.

Answer 2

My second ancestor with uncertain parents is Jane (Pearce) Rogers of Illogan, Cornwall (d. 1849), at http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pearce-1410.  This profile is not project protected, and I am the only manager.

I just reattached her conjectural parents and marked them as uncertain, per the evidence discussed in the profile.  Basically, my conjecture is that Jane was a nickname for Honor, and the Jane Pearce who married Henry Rogers was the same as Honor Pearce, daughter of Henry Pearce and Elizabeth (Chaple) Pearce.

What do people think about "uncerrtain" parents in this case?

Comments

I also have a family member born in St Breward in Cornwall in about 1828, who is baptised as Honor, but seems to be the same person referred to as Jane in all other records.  Perhaps it was a Cornish thing?

---

That creaking sound is the floodgates opening.

---

Indeed, RJ -- this lineage leads straight to the Prideaux and Grenville families, with multiple Magna Carta connections.

---

Don't you just love the sound of rushing water?

---

> this lineage leads straight to the Prideaux and Grenville families

Not what I meant.

---

Hee hee RJ, I got what you meant -- with my Pearce lineage I added back a plausible conjecture (courtesy of the new "Uncertain" status), following the lure of a Magna Carta ancestry.  Do you think anybody else might be motivated to do that, perhaps with less attention to details?  CREEEAAK!!

---

My first question would be "do we know that "Jane" was used elsewhere as a nickname for "Honor"?  Without a fact like that, the connection isn't even speculative, let alone uncertain, it's simply wrong!

---

Hmm...  John Atkinson has given a similar example, but does this indicate a typical pattern at the time?   Beyond that, we have the conundrum with no baptism record for a Jane Pearce in the required time frame either in Illogan (the town where she was married) or in neighboring towns; but we DO have a baptism record for "Honor" in the right time frame, and there is no marriage or death record for Honor.  I paid a researcher in Cornwall to go through the old records; I'm not just relying on the IGI here.

As a general rule, in late 18th-century English records, people don't just disappear!   And when you think about it, a natural diminuitive of Honor is "Hon," which is close to Ann or Jane.

Furthermore, the child Honor had siblings named Grace and John, and the adult Jane named her eldest daughter Grace and her marriage record was witnessed by a John Pearce.

However, when all is said and done, does this merit an "uncertain" tag here at WikiTree?  That's the type of question that this whole thread is meant to discuss: Where to set the bar for attaching parents as "uncertain"? Perhaps it will be decided that the evidence for this particular example is too week, so Jane Pearce should be detached from her uncertain parents.  If this example qualifies as a logical speculation that merits further research, is that enough to keep the "uncertain" tags for Jane's parents?

---

I would also like to know the answer to this question. Thanks John for these series of cases against which to test the proposed policy. I continue to see lack of agreement about how to apply "uncertain"

Answer 3

My third ancestor with uncertain parents is Rhode Island immigrant John Peckham at http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Peckham-4.  I would like to mark his parents as "uncertain," but I just project-protected his profile, so now I shouldn't do that without discussing with the other managers first.  I've left a note on his profile.

I think that the string of conjectures tying John Peckham the immigrant to purported father Henry Peckham of Boxgrove, Sussex is not only plausible but likely.  However, there is room for disagreement here.  There is an old G2G thread regarding this issue here: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/57874/the-origin-of-john-peckham-and-his-second-wife-elinor

Comments

Clearly there should be two profiles, one for the immigrant and one for the Earl's chaplain.  The good Reverend is fully entitled to have his own existence properly treated, without somehow being submerged into some immigrant who had nothing to do with him.

If a merge is proposed, it should be rejected.

I don't see how the Uncertain flag is applicable here.  The parents of the Rev can't sensibly be the parents of the immigrant, unless grounds are found to merge the two.

---

RJ, I just re-read the entire Peckham G2G thread. There was a case made in the 1920s that the immigrant and the Earl's Chaplain may have been the same man. Actually the 1920 work concludes they were. John S pointed out that this 1920 work, however, used questionable sources that should be checked. It doesn't sound like the author of the 1920s work sufficiently researched what happened to that chaplain. He wrote that the chaplain disappeared from family pedigrees. But did he disappear from other records in England?

if it was my ancestor, I wouldn't be satisfied with the conclusion that they were one and the same based on what has been presented so far.  But John is testing the new draft "uncertain" policy.

And we are all waiting on Chris W -- at least I am -- to weigh in on how these examples do or do not reflect his intent with the new policy.

---

Descendants with brick walls do tend to be glass-half-full people, don't they.

Point is though, if you have a single profile for the chaplain and the immigrant, the parents follow.  Your profile may be a real person or a fictional invention, but either way, it makes no sense for the parents to be anybody else.

The only way to introduce any uncertainty of parentage is to dismantle the chaplain/immigrant story and say the immigrant's previous career is unknown.

But then I want a separate profile for the chaplain.  He's not unknown.  And I'll have the parents, thank you very much, they're mine.

---

Mm... I'm not seeing the appropriateness of the "glass-half-full" comment, but perhaps I'm not understanding your intent, RJ. John S is attempting to test Chris's new "uncertain" policy with a bunch of real cases.

Are you saying that you are not in support of including the chaplain's parents as parents of the immigrant and marking them (on the immigrant's profile) as "uncertain"?

Related: Would you, in this case, mark the immigrant and the chaplain as unmerged matches? Or perhaps better worded: how would you handle the theory that the immigrant and the chaplain might be one and the same?

Thanks.

---

In this case I think the correct procedure is to have two profiles and flag them as Rejected Matches, on the grounds of insufficient evidence to merge.

If the theory that the two men are the same is thought to be plausible, but unproved, I don't think we have any way of representing that, and I don't see how the Uncertain flag can sensibly be used.

If something has to be done, then I suppose we could link the immigrant as the "brother" of the chaplain, with Uncertain parents.

I don't see how merging the two men and then marking the parents Uncertain can be the right answer.

(As it happens, I think the "case" is no case at all and the two men are unlikely to be the same.  But that's a different issue.)

---

Thanks for the clarification, RJ. You and I are more in alignment (about the new uncertain policy) than either of us may have thought. I am curious to hear how Chris W would address this issue given the new draft policy.

 

Note: I only use "Rejected Match" when I'm certain that the two are different; this may be another thread to pursue elsewhere-- when to use Unmerged Match and when to use Rejected Match-- sounds like people are using these differently-- I believe this came up between you and me elsewhere recently on g2g...

Second note: RJ, I encourage you to share your thinking about the Immigrant and the Chaplain here:

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/57874/the-origin-of-john-peckham-and-his-second-wife-elinor

---

RJ, there seem to be two problems with your suggestion (of two separate profiles).  First of all, the only snippet of evidence that John Peckham (b. 1595) was an ordained minister is a note on a 17th-century Peckham family pedigree chart cited in the 1922 Peckham genealogy.  That's it -- we (currently, at least) have no other scrap of information on the career of "Rev." John Peckham.

However, there are three slivers of data that suggest that John Peckham (b. 1595) was the same as the immigrant:

First of all, John the immigrant had enough money to buy large quantities of land, fitting the supposition that he was a second son of a landed aristocrat.

Second, John was one of the original proprietors of Little COMPTON, Rhode Island, and Compton was the name of a Peckham estate in Sussex, where John (b. 1595) came from.

Finally, as discussed in the Peckham genealogy, the supposition that the immigrant John was an ordained minister fits the fact that John Peckham's name doesn't appear on the Massachusetts list of supporters of Ann Hutchinson who were disarmed, because he didn't have a gun because ordained ministers didn't have guns.

For whatever it's worth, the 1922 genealogy is the closest thing we have to an authoritative study of the Peckham family.  Is it good enough to justify keeping John linked (with "uncertain" status) to his supposed father Henry?

---

According to a Chris's response above, yes.

---

Chris is avoiding the issue.

Peter Mallory was lord of the manor of Shelton, Beds, and his parents were quite clear.

Then he got dubiously claimed as an immigrant of that name.

Then the evidence was deemed inadequate, so he got detached from his parents.

So what happened to the lord of the manor?  He's disappeared.

And if we recreate him, he'll just get converted to an immigrant with Uncertain parents.

---

When I've seen that happen, I've found or recreated (equivalent of) the manor son and marked him as rejected to the immigrant and added a bold merge notice or other warning at the top of each profile.

But what I think you're saying is that Chris's new policy would tend to favor keeping two unrelated individuals connected and not having two separate profiles. I concur with that concern.

---

Sir John Peckham is my 8th great-grandparent. I have in my file for him this, amongst other references: ''Sir John PECKHAM was christened 8 Apr 1595 in Boxgrove, West Sussex, England. He died after 6 Jan 1681 in Newport, Newport County, Rhode Island. Source: LITTLE COMPTON FAMILIES, pub. by Little Compton Historical Society from Records compiled by Benjamin Franklin Wilbour, 1967.'' The same is claimed in '''Vol. III, pp. 1155-1158 of Hudson-Mohawk Genealogical and Family Memoirs, edited by Cuyler Reynolds (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1911''. I think that the above mentioned baptismal record is the source for the names of our John Peckham's parents, is it not? Does anyone know whether there are primary sources that state, that our John Peckham was born abt 1595 and came from Boxgrove, in order to make the link to that baptismal record? It seems unfortunate to me, to lose John's parents - now that they are already connected to his profile - without proof that our John Peckham was not the same as the one baptised in 1595 in Boxgrove. When creating a profile myself, I try not to add uncertain or spurious parents, but when i adopt or merge or link to profiles created by others, i leave the parents be, with a note in the biography saying that they are uncertain, or, in some rarer cases, seem to be invented ''ex nihilo''.

---

Albertus, my understanding of the challenge is proving that the man christened in 1595 in Boxgrove (with named parents) is the same man as the immigrant who settled in Rhode Island.

---

Edit  comment as answer on thread about John Peckham

http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/57874/the-origin-of-john-peckham-and-his-second-wife-elinor

 

 

 

Answer 4

My fourth ancestor with uncertain parents is Thomas Weaver, father of PGM immigrant Clement Weaver.  Thomas's profile is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Weaver-250

I just added the "uncertain" status to his parents.  The rationale here is easy: the old Weaver genealogy clearly states that Thomas's parents, while likely, have to be considered unproven.  See http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=15239

Comments

John, could you point to the page in the above-linked reference? Thanks.

---

FYI, I tried to find more recent published research than the 1928 work, without success (through americanancestors.org).

---

Sorry, I had an extensive photocopy but now only have the summary on page 50.  That's a good place to start (indicating the assumed identity of Thomas Weaver, son of John of Presteign and Thomas Weaver of Glastonbury, father of Clement). What I cited is in Chapter 4, in the section dealing with the Weavers of Glastonbury.

---

Here are excerpts. This 1928 work is woefully lacking in source citations, although it appears evident in some places that the author is referring to original records. SUCH a pity that most authors from that time period were not more explicit about their sources. 

Weaver, Lucius E.. History and genealogy of a branch of the Weaver family. Rochester, N.Y.: DuBois Press, 1928.

pp 50-51

41. THOMAS WEAVER (son of No. 40) was born about 1560-65. He is supposed to have married Margaret Adams… Being the second son, we would have no interest in his father’s estate and hence it was natural that he should seek his fortune elsewhere. … There are no Weaver records in Glastonbury earlier than the time when Thomas lived there, which indicates that his ancestors lived elsewhere. He is supposed to have had other children besides Clement, but their names are not known and he did not take the trouble to record them in the Parish Register.

42. CLEMENT VEAVER [sic] (son of No. 41). He is No. 1 in the record of Chapter Seven. He was born about 1590-1582. Some authorities think he was born in London, but his name is not in the Parish Registers. His father lived in Glastonbury as early as 1590 and hence it is probably that he was born there.

Then from page 55:

“… we find our ancestor in Boston in 1640,-- a householder in Weymouth, Mass., in 1643, next door to his brother-in-law, Thomas Holbrook,-- and settled in Rhode Island about 1650.” [Lucius had earlier stated that Thomas Holbrook came to New England in 1635 “but Clement Weaver appears to have come earlier” but doesn’t say why he thinks this…. Later, on page 60, he writes: “Mr. Nash, the historian of Weymouth, was of the opinion that he was among those who came after 1630 and before the coming of Hull and his followers [in 1635].”]

Page 60:

“Clement Weaver… came to America from Glastonbury, Somersetshire, England, where he was united in marriage May 19, 1617, to Rebecca Holbrook, daughter of William Holbrook of that town. The entry of this event in the parish register of St. John’s Church reads: ‘1617 Menso May Clementus Weaver duxit in uxorem Rebecca Holbrook 19 Maij prdict.’ “

“From it we may judge that he was born not far from 1592…” (and reference to parish records not including baptisms from this time period)

…

“… Dec. 11, 1625, his father-in-law, William Holbrook, made his will, naming ‘Clement Weaver ye elder, Thomas Tyly, and my sonne Thomas Holbrook’ as overseers.” Bequests included a piece of land to “my three grandchildren, Clement Weaver the yonger, Edmund Tyly and Thomas Holbrook ye yonger’

P. 61: Clement Weaver Sr AND Jr appear on list of freeman in Newport RI this year…. “[From surviving Newport land records, we] learned that Clement Weaver Jr owned land on ‘a highway leading to the Milne of Newport’ March 27, 1653-4.”

p. 62: “letter written Oct. 20, 1683, by Samuel Hubbard of Newport to William Gibson of New London, Conn., we find this sentence, ‘Old Weaver is dead near an hundred years old.’ “

“So far as diligent search has brought to light only three children seem to belong to Clement and Rebecca. There may have been others. Richard Weaver sailed for Virginia July 4, 1635 in the Transport of London. There was a Richard among the Glastonbury Weavers and this name appears very early in the New England records. [where?] His descendants have not been located, but it is highly probably that he was a son or a brother of Clement1.”

“Children of Clement1 and Rebecca (Holbrook) Weaver:

I.               Clement2 born in England, before 11 Dec., 1625—perhaps about 1620; married Mary Freeborn of Portsmouth, R.I.

II.             Elner baptized at St. Benedict’s, Glastonbury, England, Sept. 10, 1623. There is little if any doubt that she was the Eleanor who became, by 1648, the second wife of John Peckham of Newport and became the mother of at least nine of his twelve children…

III.           Elizabeth born probably in one of the years of which the registers of Glastonbury are missing, as her name does not appear on Mr. Bartlett’s chart; or perhaps she was not born until the family had come to New England. She married Thomas Dungan, son of William Dungan and his wife Francis, daughter of Lewis Latham.

Answer 5

My fifth ancestor with uncertain parents (acutally, only an uncertain mother), is Sarah (Davis) Mead.  Her profile is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Davis-19676

Sarah named a son GRAVES, and if her father William Davis of Pittsylvania County (starting in March 1779) is the same as William Davis of Culpeper County (ending December 1778), then Culpeper and Spotsylvania land records show that William Davis's wife was named Sarah, presumably the sister of the Graves brothers who are repeatedly connected to William Davis.

I just created the profile of Sarah Graves, uncertain mother of Sarah Davis, and connected her as the uncertain daughter of John Graves, Jr.

Answer 6

So... how certain do you have to be before you can dispense with the "uncertain" status?

Susan Jellison's profile is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Jellison-80

Susan was the daughter of Phebe Doty (with a proven Mayflower lineage) IF Phebe didn't die between 1820 (when her son Doty was born) and 1829 (when Susan was born).  If Phebe survived until 1836 (the simplest explanation) when her husband Robert married his third(?) wife, then she was definitely the mother of Susan.

Does the hypothetical possibility that Phebe died before 1829 and Robert married yet another (unknown) wife who bore children in the 1830s -- does this possibility require adding "uncertain" to Susan's mother Phebe?

Comments

In the absence of (1) a birth or baptism record that names Susan's mother, (2) a birth or baptism record naming Phebe as the mother of a subsequent child, (3) a death record for Phebe, (4) other documentation confirming that Phebe was or was not alive in 1829 or was alive later, or (5) a marriage record for another wife between 1820 and 1829, I believe most of us would treat Phebe as the mother of Susan, but we would document the fact that there is no evidence to confirm the relationship -- and we'd keep looking for one of those records.

Unless and until you've made an exhaustive search for these kinds of documentation, I would be inclined to hold off on adding the "uncertain" status. This is because I've discovered that once a relationship has been tagged "uncertain," removal of the tag requires you to affirm the relationship as "confirmed," and that's a stronger claim than I sometimes want to make.

However, I am commenting from the perspective of someone who is not interested in joining a lineage society, buying an ancestral coat of arms, or otherwise claiming special distinction based on my ancestry. (I don't much care who my distant ancestors were; I'm just curious to know who they were.) It's far easier to deal sensibly with these kinds of situations when nobody feels like something important is riding on the resolution!

Answer 7

My seventh ancestor with uncertain(?) parents is Phebe (Doty) Jellison's mother, Sarah (Rickey) Doty, here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rickey-109

The old Doty genealogy (which has been accepted as authoritative by the Mayflower Society.  This volume states that Phebe's father Zebulon Doty married Sarah, daughter of Col. Rickey.  This could only be Col. Israel Rickey,and Zebulon Doty did indeed have a son with the unusual name Israel.

However, Israel Rickey's daughter Sarah (by his third wife) was too young to have been Phoebe's mother, and this daughter Sarah married someone else.

My conjectural solution: Sarah (Rickey) Doty was the daughter of Israel Rickey's first wife Hannah Roy, who died six months after her marriage.  This would mean that Hannah actually died giving birth to daughter Sarah, and that Hannah had been three months pregnant with Sarah at the time of her marriage.

I've marked Hannah Roy as the UNCERTAIN mother of Sarah (Rickey)  Doty. Question: Should Israel Rickey also be marked as Sarah's uncertain father?

 

 

Answer 8

On the way to the Mayflower...

Everybody knows that Zebulon Doty was the son of Patience Sutton, but there were two Patience Suttons -- one was a sister of Zebulon Sutton and the other was a daughter of Zebulon Sutton and Mary (Doty?).

Patience (Sutton) Doty's profile is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sutton-2430

I think, based on the argument on her profile, it is obvious that Patience, mother of Zebulon Doty, was the daughter and not the sister of Zebulon Sutton -- so there is no need to add the "uncertain" tag.  However, purists might disagree...

Answer 9

Another step to the Mayflower...

If Patience Sutton was indeed the daughter of Zebulon Sutton, then she was presumably also the daughter of his wife Mary.  And here is where it gets interesting... according to the Mayflower Silver Book, researchers used to think it likely that Mary was the daughter of James and Phebe (Slater) Doty, (with Mayflower lineages through both her father's and mother's ancestry), but modern researchers think it is unlikely (without any further discussion of evidence) -- perhaps because this connection would make Patience Sutton the first cousin once removed of her husband Zebulon Doty.

In my book, "likely" plus "unlikely" equals "uncertain."  What do you think?

Here is the uncertain profile of Mary (Doty) Sutton: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Doty-1014

Answer 10

Let's go to Kentucky, where the Gash surname is exceedingly uncommon.  Actually, the Gash surname is exceedingly uncommon everywhere.

Is there any reason to doubt that Thomas Gash (d. 1826) of Mercer County was the son of Thomas Gash (d. 1817) of Mason County?  Actually there is -- Thomas Gash (d. 1817) didn't mention a son Thomas in his will, but he DID mention an underage GRANDson "Thomas Gash, Jr."  This just seems weird, because there weren't any other Thomases in this family, UNLESS...

My pet hypothesis is that Thomas Gash (d. 1826) was the only child of the unknown first wife of Thomas Gash (d. 1817) , who died in childbirth.  Then the senior Thomas granted a portion of his estate to the younger Thomas upon adulthood, so there was no reason to mention him in his will.  Sounds uncertain to me!

The profile of Thomas Gash (d. 1826) is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gash-173

Answer 11

This one's dear to my heart... William Wallace of Tennessee (d. 1823), whose fraudulent Scottish ancestry I disproved when I was a teenager: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Wallace-4016

But what about William Wallace's real parents?  As detailed on William's profile, there was a 2004 article in a South Carolina journal claiming that William Wallace (d. 1823) was the son of Joseph Wallace of York County, South Carolina.  Unfortunately, no back-up documentation, BUT!!!

We know from census records that William Wallace (d. 1823) came from South Carolina.

We know that William's family followed Scottish naming traditions, and William named his eldest son Joseph, giving credence to the supposition that his father was also named Joseph.

We know that a descendant of William Wallace (d. 1823) has a y-DNA match with a descendant of a Lt. William Wallace of North Carolina, and this Lt. William had a brother McCasland Wallace who lived in York County, South Carolina and also had a brother Joseph.

All the snippets point securely in one single direction, but I am inclined to add the "uncertain" tag to this one, at least for now.

Comments

How many Wallaces have matching yDNA?

---

The Wallace surname DNA project is here: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/WALLACEDNA/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

The above-mentioned Wallaces are in Group 5, and these two are the only Wallaces in this group who differentiate from the rest of the group with a "14" marker (instead of "15") toward the end.

Answer 12

Let's try to get examples from widely diverging geographical areas...

Here's my ancestor Richard Enos (d. 1748) of Newcastle, Delaware: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Enos-40

As detailed on Richard's profile, the old Enos genealogy records the "general family belief" that Richard was the son of John and Mary (Dibble) Enos, who migrated from Connecticut to New Jersey around 1690.

It seems to me that "general family belief" qualifies as "uncertain," yes?

Comments

I suppose.  Though unless John and Mary were famous, it's hard to see how such a tradition would be invented.

But are they known to have had a son called Richard?

---

No -- John and Mary Enos, immigrants from Connecticut to New Jersey, were not famous, an they are not known to have had a son Richard.  The published "general family belief," coupled with proximity (southern New Jersey and Delaware) of the relevant members of this family with an extremely rare name, are the only factors supporting retaining this "uncertain" connection.

Answer 13

Here's one from the 16th-century minor gentry in England.  This seems to be a no-brainer: add the "uncertain" tag to the father of Richard Tilden, per the discussion (already on the profile) in the 1968 study of the Tilden ancestry, revising the earlier accepted lineage while acknowledging the lack of certainty for the new conclusion.

Richard Tilden's profile is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Tilden-7

Comments

So who was born Oct 15 1520 at Benenden?  And who wrote the will posted on the profile?

---

The will was that of Richard Tilden.  The birthdate on the profile seems to be bogus  -- the whole profile is a mess.  I'm following the 1968 Tilden research, of which I have an incomplete photocopy.

---

Which Richard Tilden?  Aren't there supposed to be two of them, cousins?

---

The will is of Richard Tilden, father of Thomas and grandfather of Nathaniel the immigrant to America.

The uncertainty in this line is about the identity of Richard's father, which was once assumed to be another Richard, but is now considered to be that Richard's brother John.  Either case makes Richard Tilden-7 the grandson of Robert Tylden-2.

---

Looks to me then like there are two Richards, with known parents, and it's Thomas whose parents are Uncertain, because there's been a change of plan about which Richard to make him the son of.

A common dilemma.  I have a case of two cousins called John.  I've got two baptisms and two adult life stories and no clue which belongs to which.

But I don't think it's correct to say "my John" has uncertain parents.  "My John" isn't an identified person, he's a shorthand for "whichever John it was who...".

---

Well, years ago as I digested the argument for revising this lineage, I formed this basic summary in my mind:  It used to be presumed that Robert's son Richard was the father of Richard whose will mentioned son Thomas and the Biggs (the presumed in-laws of son Thomas).  However, the 1968 study concurs wth a conclusion that it was actually Richard's brother John who was the father of Richard of the will, and that Richard (son of Robert) did indeed have a different son Richard in a different parish.  If you have any reason to doubt that conclusion, please explain.

The Oct. 15 1520 birthdate is a clear sign of either fabrication or incompetence somewhere along the line of mindless copyists who have been doing their part to consume internet bandwidth.

Answer 14

And at the other end of the plausibility spectrum, there's Edward Hawes-177, freshly deparented in the process of badging his "father" and "brother", the accepted gateway Edmund Hawes-23.

Not a smell of a case, no evidence of any Edward in the family.  But he's got these parents on loads of websites, including Ortnaca (no source cited, not even the LDS Family Group Sheets).

Comments

I would ask him for his sources for the parental connection, give him another chance to collaborate.  If he has no sources except his self published hypothesis, proceed with the disputed parents directions:  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Disputed_parentage  

If it is as you say, the connection is clearly not "generally accepted to be true".  

---

I don't know that this one has any traceable point of origin.  It might be just a general internet fantasy.  It could have started with a mistake - somebody confused Edward with Edmund.  There are lots of other cases of immigrants being confused with each other and acquiring each other's data.

But once these things get out there, they acquire a life of their own and never go away.

---

I know that is true. Humans tend to want to fill in the genealogy blanks, even if it lacks support. That is why a WikiTree profile is never "done". We never know when a new tidbit of information may be uncovered that may prove, support or disprove a connection.

---

But Kitty how long should we wait for answers that tend to never come? Where do we draw the line? There are simply so many false links in genealogy. If we put them all in wikitree we reverse an enormous amount of effort and basically make wikitree worthless. There is no shortage of proposed links on the internet, but more a shortage of genealogists who really work through the evidence and summarize what the evidence really says. What should our priority be? Should we bias towards more and more links, even though we know most are wrong, or should we bias towards being evidence based?

---

I have been impatiently awaiting help on Elmer-195. The research just hasn't come about. Unfortunately for me, my wife found new evidence disproving the connection between Edward and Bishop John Aylmer 1521-1594, dang her. Apparently the son of Samuel, son of John, married a woman named Ann, rather than Elizabeth, as I had supposed. I'm rather glad I hadn't made the false connections, awaiting further research.

There is hope now that Edward may be the son of Theopholis, son of John. So a connection may be imminent. Time can be a good thing. Evidence is a good thing.

---

Hi Andrew, I kind of lost my train of thought on this thread from April. :$  

How long should we wait to proceed with the uncertain parents? I think I would wait a week, but I defer to the information here:  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Disagreements_about_Certainty

How long should we wait to consider a profile finished or complete? A WikiTree profile is never finished or complete.  In April, we discovered information connecting yDNA tests with church records that had never been connected before.  Those church records begin 400 years ago and we just realized that the records support and verify the yDNA relationships.  So you never know when a tidbit will come along that will improve a profile. We always need to be on the lookout for new information and sources for the WikiTree profiles.  

Answer 15

Perhaps we could call this one the Carpenter Kings: Zimmermann = Carpenter and König = King.  If the plausible reconstruction of this extended family is correct, my great-great-grandparents Jacob Zimmerman and Barbara Zimmerman were third cousins on their father's sides, descendants of common ancestor Christian Zimmermann of Denzlingen: see http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Zimmermann-227.  However, the two sons of Christian Zimmermann through which Jacob and Barbara descend should probably be considered uncertain.

AND it appears that my pair of Zimmerman great-great-grandparents were second cousins through the König family, as two uncertain daughters of Christian König of Obernimburg (see http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/K%C3%B6nig-200) married Zimmermanns, one from each of my two Zimmermann lines.  I'm planning to mark as uncertain at least one of these uncertainties (Christian König as the father of Anna Maria; whose sister-in-law's husband was also apparently her brother Christian).  But the question occurs to me, how far should I go in spreading around "uncertain" tags?

Furthermore, Christian Zimmermann of Denzlingen and Christian König of Obernimburg were both sons-in-law of Christian Ropp; and it seems likely (but not certain) that this pair of fathers-in-law named Christian Ropp were actually one and the same person. 

And finally, just because, the Zimmermann, König and Ropp families all go back to Steffisburg, Switzerland.  These families were all Amish.

 

Comments

I do not think we should be making real links to represent "plausible reconstructions". I think these should be discussed within articles.

---

If you have discussion or questions regarding the evidence supporting the Konig/Carpenter connections, you're welcome to share them.  Otherwise, it might be best to defer to researchers who have worked on these families.

---

John, again, you posted a series of examples with one theme, not one example. And once you post a community forum the discussion you can not generally demand that the community are not allowed to take the discussion where they think it logically leads. I replied on topic concerning the approach you propose to take, and which you asked for feedback about.

---

Huh?  I'm sorry, but your most recent post doesn't seem to connect logically to the previous discussion

Answer 16

I have just added Baudouin de Lannoy of Tourcouing as the uncertain father of "Gysbert" de Lannoy, originally from Tourcoing, and grandfather of Philip Delano, 1621 immigrant to Plymouth Colony.

The old Delano genealogy conjectured, based on an old coat of arms granted by the Heraldic College of the Second French Empire, that Gysbert had actually been the son of Baudouin's elder half-brother Jean, with a royal lineage through Jean's mother.  But Jean was the lord of Molembais, not Tourcoing; Baudouin was the lord of Tourcoing.  

The old Delano genealogy concludes that it is certain that Gysbert was the grandson of Philippe de Lannoy,  Is that, plus the discussion that I have put on Gysbert's profile, enough to connect Baudouin as Gysbert's uncertain father?

Gysbert de Lannoy's profile is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Lannoy-6

Comments

John,

While all these are great test cases, if your intent is to get Chris to comment on each one, I think you'll be disappointed. His response above appears to be trying to address all the cases up to that time and unless I'm misunderstanding, he's saying keep them all connected to their parents and mark them as uncertain. You might want to check with him directly.

---

Hi Jillaine, it is not my intent to get Chris to comment on each case.  Rather, as I go about establishing my own personal base-line for using the "uncertain" tag, I invite discussion from the wikitree community at large.  If serious disagreements emerge, then at that point perhaps Chris will have to consider fine-tuning the wording of the help page explanation.

---

Well, I hope he's paying attention...

---

I just discovered two very good articles on the family and possible ancestry of Guilbert de Lannoy -- both in The Mayflower Descendant, 2007.  One of them, after exhaustive discussion, concluded that, of the Tourcoing family, Baudouin was the only possible father of Guilbert, but it wasn't likely, so I detached him as Guilbert's father.  The other article, which produced an actual Tourcoing baptism record for Guilbert's son Jean (father of immigrant Philippe), opined the likelihood that Guilbert was descended from Baudouin's great-great-grandfather Guilbert de Lannoy-21.

Answer 17

Here's the Weaver connection to Magna Carta baron Henry de Bohun.  I'm inclined to think that this connection is certain, proven by the identical coats of arms born by Gilbert de Bohun (known son of Humphrey Weaver) and a younger Gilbert de Bohun, whose daughter and heir married into the Weaver family, whose arms are shown quartered with the Bohun arms in the 1568 London heraldic visitation.

If anybody thinks that this connection should be marked "uncertain," please share your thoughts!

The younger Gilbert de Bohun is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bohun-150

The elder Gilbert de Bohun is here: http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bohun-11

Comments

I'm not an expert in heraldry but I think I would want a bit more 'proof'.

The coats of arms, aren't exactlly identical, the Bohun arms in the St George's Roll, all have the six lions rampant, which the one in the Visitation of London, doesn't appear to have.

The genealogies in Visitations can be unreliable in the early generations as they were often given to the Heralds by the family themselves, either from memory or from genealogies they had drawn up themselves.

I'd also want some indication of the change from Irish lands to Shropshire (though it's possible that Gilbert inherited them from his wife Margaret Wastneys)?

It probably doesn't help that Marguerite (not sure why she has the French version of Margaret) Wastneys, is attached as the wife of both Gilbert senior and junior in Wikitree.

---

Thank you John for your sharp eye.  I got so excited by the scallops that I missed the absence of the lions on the younger Gilbert's arms.  This probably indicates that the younger Gilbert  was a younger son -- we know from Richardson that the elder Gilbert had a son Oliver.  In any case, I've added "uncertain" to the connection between the two Gilberts.

I just adopted the abandoned profile of "Marguerite" Wastneys.  Two days ago I adopted the abandoned profile of Gilbert Bohun, in which the elder and younger Gilbert had been conflated.  Then I created a new profile for the younger Gilbert.  I'm still sorting things out; these profiles have plenty of room for improvement.

---

Regarding Irish lands, if the younger Gilbert was a second son (as suggested by the arms), then he might not have received any land.  In addition, the elder Gilbert or his heirs may have lost all of the Irish lands in one of the upheavals that punctuated the first half of the 14th century; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland_%281169%E2%80%931536%29#Norman_decline_.281300.E2.80.931350.29 ; and this might have been cause for catastrophe in this branch of the family.  Imagine the elder Gilbert's elder son Oliver dying in one of the Irish plagues or rebellions as the family lost the only land it held.

The younger Gilbert married an heiress; perhaps hers was the only land that he held; and if her family were sub-tenants who didn't hold land directly from the King, there wouldn't be any Inquisitions post mortem.  I did a cursory check for IPMs for the Weavers in the 14th  century and didn't come up with anything, so the Weavers in any case don't appear to have held land directly from the King.

Regarding the questionable reliability of the visitation pedigrees in general, John Atkinson's point is well taken.  The Weaver pedigree appears to be an excellent example of the use of heraldry as genealogical evidence.  The whole purpose of the Heraldic Visitations was to verify the claimed right to bear arms.  In the case of the Weaver family, their arms were quartered with those of the prominent Bohun family, which must have been a point of pride.  It is hard to imagine the Weavers fabricating this connection, because such an innovation would have stood out like a sore thumb, inviting ridicule and criticism.  But clearly much more research is needed on this lineage.

 

---

John the type of pedigree innovation you mention as being hard to believe would happen was unfortunately very common, and some heralds seem to have encouraged it. We are still dealing with it. Many famous cases were written up by John Horace Round and others, and it is important for genealogists to realize what can go wrong. Two in my family tree are the Stywards of Norfolk claiming a connection to the Scottish Stewards, and the Smiths of Cressing Temple and their famous "Carrington Imposture". These had to involve real fraudulent creativity, but also could never have become so widely published without a lot of collaboration from heralds (some innocent, some less). Sometimes these innovations were more good-intentioned attempts to solve a quandary such as how a family came to hold a particular manor or have a particular quartering in their arms. Once such "uncertain links" get registered though...  IMHO Wikitree should try to avoid repeating history. :)

---

I don't think that your examples fit this situation, and they certainly don't qualify as evidence regarding the Weaver lineage.  The Weavers weren't a newly-rising family trying to forge an illustrious pedigree to match their new status.  If you have any evidence suggesting that the Weaver pedigree or coat of arms involves a forgery, you're welcome to share it.

---

John, your wrote, concerning "visitation pedigrees in general" (not only the Weaver pedigree specifically): "such an innovation would have stood out like a sore thumb, inviting ridicule and criticism." The examples I gave show that this is a questionable judgment. This general assumption can not be made and we need to look at the specifics of each case.

---

You are entitled to your opinion.

Answer 18

I am worried by some of what I am reading here. Perhaps my concern can be encapsulated by me saying I see very little definition of any kind of case where we can NOT simply re-attach our favourite claim to a famous family and call it uncertain. Where do we draw the line? I see a lot of people seemingly arguing for the line to be drawn as liberally as possible in each case. Even in cases where published arguments have been made against a connection, Wikitree editors are now being encouraged to publish the connection anyway? Most of the examples are also, very worryingly, to do with such famous connections, "gateways". It seems obvious what this can lead to. Most editors are unfortunately not as careful as the people in this discussion. To me it seems one of the biggest tasks on wikitree is to delete more connections. (With an appropriate level of caution of course, but I don't see Wikitree suffering too much from excessive deletions or lack of such caution?) There are already lots of websites where we can find every theory under the sun. I thought Wikitree was trying to do something different?

Comments

Andrew, when I said "specific examples," I was referring to your vague disapproval of "things that you read on this thread."  I wasn't suggesting that you bring in discussion of other profiles not already mentioned here.  However, others may be interested in responding to the issues and examples that you bring up.  Please keep in mind that I started this thread when I was a WikiTree leader trying to promote effective implementation of a new option on WikiTree profiles, in the midst of vigorous (and sometimes heated) discussion on other threads.  That conversation is over, and I am no longer a WikiTree leader.  In general, I think that discussion of when to label "uncertain" parents for Euroaristo profiles will typically follow consensus standards that have developed among profile members.  You might want to consider starting a new thread devoted to handling "uncertainty" in EuroAristo profiles.

---

I am not sure how you can tell me the discussion is over? You asked for feedback on a thematic question, not only specific questions. I gave some. The examples I gave, like yours, can be read as relevant to that. Take it or leave it, but please don't try to smother my good faith responses with any kind of implication that I have broken a rule?

---

???
I don't think you're responding to what I actually said.

---

Andrew, my interpretation of the 'uncertain' guidelines is that where there is definite evidence that no relationship/individual exists, despite any number of online genealogies that say they do, then that change can be documented and acted upon.

However where the relationship/individual is uncertain, than it remains uncertain, unless more evidence is brought forward to uphold one or the other position.

For many of us, the archival records are out of reach for any number of reasons, and we have to rely on secondary sources.  There is probably a tier of how you rate sources, but to my thinking, sources that themselves refer to primary sources (Richardson books, Complete Peerage, Gen-Medieval discussion group, Cawley's Medieval Lands, Scots Peerage etc) are to be preferred over those sources that rely on other secondary sources, or cite no sources.

---

John A, I wish that was the way the new policy worked but in another thread about the policy, Chris W responded to my own questions about the policy that if someone like Robert Charles Anderson concluded there was insufficient evidence for a parental connection, we should still retain the relationship, tag it as uncertain, so that people expecting to see that relationship could find it in a search and to indicate a place where DNA evidence might help with further research.

---

Well Jillaine I am a long time genetic genealogist and proponent of using DNA in genealogy, but I do not think any normal DNA tests can prove exact relationships between people who are not already very closely related (brothers, sisters, etc.) and even then there are often several options possible. I have terrible feeling that not only the "uncertain" option, but also the DNA evidence options, are being set-up on a wrong understanding of reality, and without clear thinking about how a whole community of amateur volunteers are going to use them all in different ways. There seem also to be much higher priorities to work on if we want wikitree to be good for quality of genealogy, and not just creating a quantity of traffic.

---

Jillaine, I remember your hypothetical question about Anderson, and I remember thinking: Insufficent evidence for a parental connection = uncertain, (If there isn't enough evidence to be certain, then it's uncertain!)  Then it seems that you either misunderstood Chris's reply, or he misunderstood your initial question (which may have been poorly-worded).  In any case, that confusion is what prompted me to start this thread in the first place, providing real examples instead of hypothetical "what ifs" that could be misunderstood or misconstrued.

---

John surely we need tools which match the normal use of the English language. Do you truly not see the difference between telling someone the following: (1) A is the father of B, but there is some uncertainty (which applies to 99.99999% of all father-son relationships to some extent) and (2) A might possibly be the father of B? Jillaine's point is very clear and simple and Chris's words are pretty clear also. The difference between (1) and (2) is obvious and clear, and very meaningful in a genealogical context.

---

Andrew, it appears that you are simply being quarrelsome.

---

John you have already made it clear you do not like the discussion, but please don't make such accusations unfairly.