Is this "Bethia" Hubbard

+6 votes

In my efforts to resolve duplicate profiles so merges can be completed I found this profile. 

I believe is be "Bethia Hubbard", daughter of Samuel Hubbard (Hubbard-199) and Tacy Cooper Hubbard (Cooper-651) with Bertha as a typographical error.

There is a Bertha Hubbard as follows:

Bertha L Hubbard
B 12/21/1877, Westminster, Windham, Vermont, United States
Mother - Jennie L Saunders
Father - Samuel Hubbard

Vermont Births, Marriages and Deaths to 2008. (From microfilmed records. Online database:, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2013.)

This would be the lowest number merge for Hubbard-305 and Hubbard-782 with corrections if appropriate. 

I will post on Hubbard-305 ad Hubbard-782 with comments for reference.

WikiTree profile: Bertha Clarke
asked in Genealogy Help by Elizabeth Townsend G2G6 Mach 1 (19.7k points)

1 Answer

+1 vote
Hi Elizabeth,

Yes, I think you are correct.  This Hubbard-303 is Bethia Hubbard, and this would be the lowest numbered profile with the correct last name at birth.

I am going to add the other spelling "Bethia" and "Bethiah" of her first name to help.

Good eye!  Thanks!
answered by Cynthia B G2G6 Pilot (124k points)
Hi Cynthia,

I wouldn't do it that way myself.  Elizabeth has a good source for the name, and the only source listed on the profile is a user-submitted Ancestry tree with a now-broken link.  The tree has likely been taken down by the user, or possibly it's private.  Whatever the case, the link leads to nothing.

I suspect that "Bertha" is a transcription error, perhaps made by the person who submitted the tree to Ancestry.  I would suggest contacting the PM with the source and getting the first name corrected, rather than adding the correct name as a nickname and leaving what I assume is an error in the first name field.  If the PM has better support for Bertha, that can be looked at.  Otherwise, I'd change the first name.
Yikes!  Never mind...

I just noticed; The record Elizabeth cites is for a Bertha born about 200 years later in Vermont.  Hopefully, she has support for Bethia, b. 1644(?), Massachusetts.

And it gets stranger...

NEHGS ( has only a single Mass. birth record and it reads:

BIRTH: 1646.

LOCATION: Springfield, Hampden, Massachusetts, United States

VOLUME: Springfield - V1 
PAGE: 11

Bethiah Hubbert the Sone [daughter?] of Samuell Hubbert borne 10 mon: 29 day 1646./ about sunsett & baptized 11 mon: 3 day 1646

The part in square brackets is a comment, not in the original record (Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850).  I've definitely never heard of a male named Bethiah (or Bethia), but who knows in 1646?

Related questions

+9 votes
2 answers
+5 votes
4 answers
0 votes
2 answers
0 votes
0 answers
+3 votes
2 answers
73 views asked Aug 16, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Charles Nichols G2G1 (1.9k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
2 answers
462 views asked Oct 15, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Steph Meredith G2G6 Mach 6 (68.7k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright