Possible solution to the Andrews-181 and Andrews-153 problem!

Question

Alright, so in Alfred Andrews book Genealogical history of John and Mary Andrews​ on page 58 it mentions that Abraham Andrews was commonly called Cooper to distinguish him from an other Abraham Andrews (Which I think is Andrews-1659) who was thought to be his first cousin. His grandfather's page on The Navarres (At least believed to be) show's his children as William Andrews, Francis Andrews and John Andrews. John Andrews on the Navarres matches Andrews-153 (besides the debated birthdate). Same for Francis. The relation would be 1st cousins, as Alfred's book says. I can't verify the source that they use, but this is also referenced in Donald Lines Jacobus's book History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield​ on Francis's article. 

 

So, I would like to talk about this before we do anything, but I really think we are going to set Thomas Andrews(Andrews-4819) as John Andrews(Andrews-153) father. I want to go ahead with it, but I also know there is no concrete evidence of this.

Thanks guys!

Comments

Hi

Please do not connect if no substantial sources.

Answer 1

If there is no concrete evidence, then do not connect profiles. One of the basic tenants of a shared family tree is provide good source info. If you add the tag PGM to your question it will be flagged for the Puritan Great Migration researchers.

Thomas Andrews-4819 is a profile with NO sources cited. He supposedly died in 1614 in England. It would make sense to update Thomas Andrews-4819 profile with source info before assigning him as a father. Your sentence "His grandfather's page on The Navarres" seems contradictory. Do you mean that Andrews-4819 is the father OR grandfather of John Andrews-153 ? The link to "page on Navarre" requires membership so it does not provide helpful info. It makes no sense to assign a father circa 1614 without solid sources.

"History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield" pg 18-19 states "Francis may have been brother of William of Hartford and John of Farmington." It does not provide the name of their father.

Profile of William Andrews-1045 has an extensive quote from Robert Charles Anderson book "The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England," which also does not identify a father.

So let these Andrews rest with their unknown father. Best regards.

Comments

There is a guest account on the Navarres.. Username: guest:Password:OFGPguest

In John V. Beck's book Elisha S. and Lavina (Locke) Andrus their ancestors and descendants​ also talks about it a little bit on page 17.. apparently in Robert Porter's family tree, they are brothers, but I think that is only assumption. 

In my personal research, I researched the wrong John Andrews(181), and traced his ancestors, and they reconnect at Thomas Andrews. So that would mean the two John Andrews (181 and 153) are third cousins twice removed. 

 

 

I think it's crazy that you just want to leave it without a father, as a fellow descendant, I would love to connect him to Thomas. If everyone believes that Francis and John are brothers, then it must be true. Even if, we can mention it on the profiles, that there is no concrete evidence of it, but it most likely is true. 

 

EDIT: Sorry! I was meaning to refer to Abraham when I said "his". Thomas is who I think is John and Francis's father.

---

I disagree with your statement that "if everyone believes that Francis and John are brothers, then it must be true."

Just because people believe something to be true, without sources, it is only a belief - not a genealogical fact.

Please don't connect Thomas as his father without quality sources for the information.  Perhaps you could add a note on John's profile with the disputed information, but if you do, you need to provide a quality source for that supposition.