Foote mess, English ancesters of Nathaniel Foote [closed]

+6 votes
291 views

According to the Foote association, John Foote of Royston b. 1530 is the earliest documented ancestor of Nathaniel Foote, but he has parents, Sir John "Baron of Stockport" Foote b. 1496 and Helen (Warren) Foote b. 1500.  John 1530 also has a wife named Helen (Warren) Foote b. 1527, with different ancestry.  Is mother Helen b. 1500 a different person?  She is unsourced, as is Sir John.

1) John Foote 1530 should be detached from his parents.

2) Sir John 1496 and his wife Helen should be disposed of somehow.  Are they real people, or are they Ancestry.com fantasies?

http://www.footefamily.org/ancestor.htm (See "English Generation No. 1")

http://www.footefamily.org/helenwarren.html (This includes a nice family tree which is helpful in sorting all of this out)

WikiTree profile: John Foote
closed with the note: I think there is still work to do to bring the profiles into line with the discussion here; however, the discussion is  complete.
asked in The Tree House by Patricia Hawkins G2G6 Mach 1 (18.6k points)
closed by Patricia Hawkins
What is the relationship between Nathaniel Foote and ////Elizabeth Deming?  Did they have a son Thomas who changed his name to Welles?   The dates are way off but the names all match.  Foote family seems very confusing.  Umpteenth Grandparents and would like to get them in order.  Thank you.

Elizabeth, wife of Nathaniel Foote (and who *might* have been born Deming), married second Thomas Welles. So it wasn't a son, but a husband.

 

Patricia,

Has this issue been handled to your satisfaction? If so, please CLOSE this thread. Otherwise, let us know what else needs to be done.

This helps the PGM project track its g2g posts. Thanks so much!
Can someone please direct me to the proper destination for making sure my husband's Foote lineage is accurate? I am working on a 15 generation chart for my son, to be duplicated for a wall chart. Thanks!

Hi, I think the Foote family association's chart is as good as anything else I can point you to. 

They seem to follow the research quite closely, although they don't always cite their sources, and sometimes paste source content into profiles wholesale.  I find I can usually track down their unsourced stuff with google; it's often on archive.org, so adding site:archive.org to the google search useful.

If you turn up wild differences between their tree and ours, please let us know!

However, if you want to get professional advice or work done on it, or want to do serious research on the tree yourself, I suggest the New England Historic Genealogical Society.

They have a terrific library and online databases, and can give you advice or refer you to researchers.  Not free, but well worth it for doing New England ancestry research.

Thanks Patricia!

2 Answers

+8 votes
 
Best answer

More importantly than the Foote Family Association, the Foote family has been been studied by some of the most able genealogists of the last century including Henry F. Waters, Mary Walton Ferris, and Donald Lines Jacobus.  The English ancestry of the Foote's were also published in the American Genealogist in two articles in 1977 and 1978.

The parents are clearly an error and if you look at the death dates of the supposed father you will see John Foote-269 is supposed to be the same person as John Foote-43, and not his father.

  1. You need to disconnect both parents.
  2. Merge John Foote-269 into John Foote-43
  3. I would not bother merging Helen Warren-194 into Helen Warren-949.  Who ever she is, Helen Warren-949, with parents of Lawrence Warren and Margaret Legh, is incorrect.  Her parents are Richard Warren and Beatrice - her wikitree page is inexplicably in error since it quotes the relevant research article (TAG vol. 58 p. 165).
The dates are fantasy - just correct them.
answered by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (162k points)
selected by Darlene Athey-Hill

Thank you!  As for Warren-194, I haven't found real sources, but based on commentary on Geni, and a number of (unsourced) family trees, she appears to be Ellen Warren who married Roger Downes-289, and should be merged with Warren-5879.

With a strong comment that she isn't the Helen Warren who married  Foote-43, as this seems to be a common error.  

The Geni comment references Earwaker, J P. East Cheshire: Past and Present: Or, a History of the Hundred of Macclesfield, in the County Palatine of Chester. from Original Records. London: The author, 1877.     See: https://www.geni.com/people/Helen-Foote/6000000010113329599, search on Earwaker.

I don't find that on archive.org. but Earwaker seems to have had a passion for original records, based on his other publications.

+3 votes
According to this article: George E. McCracken, "Nathaniel Foote's English Relatives", The American Genealogist, October 1977, Vol 53, pages 193-206, John Foote-43 was probably the brother of Robert Foote, the father of Robert Foote-35 and John Foote-72.

I just found an addenda to that article, in The American Genealogist in 1978, Vol 54, pages 99-101, 118-119, by Janice Green Valore, "More on Nathaniel Foote's Ancestors". It says that, "after considerable study of this Foote Family," "it seems highly probable that the earliest ancestors of Nathaniel Foote known were John Foote[-43] and his wife Helen or Ellen Waryn or Warren." and that brothers Robert Foote-35 and John Foote-72 were their sons.
answered by Kay Wilson G2G6 Pilot (151k points)
edited by Kay Wilson
Kay,  The first TAG article also needs to be read in conjuntion with the followup which corrects a confusion regarding Robert Foote and John Foote.

Janice Greene Valore, "More on Nathaniel Foote's Ancestors" in The American Genealogist (April 1978):99-101.

Other followup articles:

Valore, Janis Greene, et al. “The Brookes of London: Maternal Ancestors of Nathaniel and Joshua Foote. (1979):193-206.

Myrtle Stevens Hyde. “Ancestors of Nathaniel Foote – Warren Line.” in The American Genealogist Vol 58 (1982):165-167.

Myrtle Stevens Hyde and Paul L. Child. “Child-Foote-Goddard Connections” in The American Genealogist Vol 63 (January 1988):17-28.
Thanks, Joe! I found at least one of those after I added my answer.
So I'm having trouble deciphering the results of the TAG 54:99-101. It doesn't match my reading of McCracken's 1977 TAG article.

I  started to compile the family here

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Space:Research_Notes_-_Foote_Ancestry&public=1

But need help (it's open for editing). I'd like to see the outline accurately and use it as a guide to fix the profiles.
Nice, thank you!  I just posted a link to a graphical family tree that the Foote Family Association puts up on individual profiles -- useful for marking up.
Warning: I don't think that free space page I've set up is accurate yet.

Related questions

+2 votes
3 answers
90 views asked Apr 13, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Patricia Hawkins G2G6 Mach 1 (18.6k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
+6 votes
1 answer
71 views asked Sep 20, 2015 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+5 votes
3 answers
273 views asked Apr 13, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Kay Wilson G2G6 Pilot (151k points)
+4 votes
1 answer
71 views asked Dec 27, 2016 in The Tree House by Patricia Hawkins G2G6 Mach 1 (18.6k points)
+1 vote
1 answer
+7 votes
3 answers
54 views asked Aug 24, 2015 in Genealogy Help by Sandra Shannon G2G6 Mach 1 (10.2k points)
+4 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
4 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...