A Pre 1700 merge has been approved. I would be much

Question

happier and so would WikiTree be if an experienced person took on the task.

They are Beaumont-1059 and Beaumont-819.

Thank you

Jean Price

Comments

These profiles represent two different people and shouldn’t be merged. 

Both Williams are married concurrently to two different people and procreating in two different places. (And they both have a child baptised in 1677, in different countries. See Colonial William’s son, William, on Wikitree, and Yorkshire William’s daughter, Jane https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6829-2DGY?cid=fs_copy

(Also mentioned here https://landedfamilies.blogspot.com/2022/07/519-beaumont-of-bretton-hall-and-bywell.html?m=1 )

 The William who stayed in England can be found in various sources as the child of the attached parents. The older William, who married & had children in Virginia, is not found in any sources related to the parents and probably should be detached. The Darton family is pretty well documented. 

Without sources to show where any of the info came from, it appears to be a typical piggy-backing of a person of unknown origin onto a known family on the basis of a name.

To merge would be a mistake.

 

Answer 1

Jean, I took a look but I don't feel sufficiently qualified to do this either.  The thing I saw is that although birth/death dates are close enough and places are identical - all in England, the wives are different, with 1 marriage occurring in the colonies (or whatever the US should have been called then).  That looks very out of place, but there is a source for that marriage, however it is much too vague to be of any use - 

• Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s, Author: Gale Research Publication: Online publication - Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2009. Original data - Filby, P. William, ed.

So, I'm going to leave it for someone more accustomed to working on profiles of this time period to resolve.