Arborist required please

Question

Need to get Huston-531 640 990 merged into Huston-197, which is unavoidably the final ID.

The variations are easily disposed of, as the dates are impossible.

Comments

Until the  parents are reconciled, Huston-640 and -197 should not be included. I agree that 1705 birth dates for the mothers are impossible, but that alone does not eliminate them. What if they are the wrong birth date?

---

She's defined by her descendants.  Her ancestry is all but unknown.  Cumberland Co was virgin territory then, not even a county yet, just a few hardy pioneer families, and even they didn't know where they came from.  Janet married John and founded a clan.

The trick is to find all the profiles that are supposed to be her, pick the final ID, and merge the others into that one.

If they're merged in the wrong order, you still end up with 197 as the final ID, but with chains of redirections.

---

Is anyone looking into these profiles? I'll take it on if nobody is.

Answer 1

Please, this is the perfect example of where profiles should be set as unmerged matches.

Answer 2

From what I can tell the birth dates for all the family profiles connected with Huston-197 plus Janet herself are incorrect.

I have found several sources but not enough make any changes yet.  BD of Janet SB 1705 not 1717.  Parents appear to be John Huston and Mary Stewart but I have no definitive source yet to disprove the other parents suggested.

Comments

All merges have been initiated none of the parents listed could be the parents of Janet.  At this point, I have not been able to find a source for Janet's parents only sources that disproves all of the parents proposed by the various profiles.

I have a lot of good sources yet to add once the merges are complete. Looks like we will have to wait a month.