Richard Stockton

+5 votes
140 views
Okay. So my ancestor, Richard Stockton is listed under the new netherlands project. I have sent all of the project managers proof of his wifes last name & parents and not one profile manager has gotten in touch with me. Now I am considering adding another Richard Stockton with his proper wife and ancestors. What is your opinion on this? This seems to be a recurring problem with mine and my grandkids ancestors on here so I'd like some feedback, thanks.
WikiTree profile: Richard Stockton
in The Tree House by Teresa Obst G2G4 (4.2k points)
retagged by Ellen Smith
This man was a settler in New Netherland and his profile was project-protected by the New Netherland project a couple of years ago, presumably to protect the LNAB. However, the project profile hasn't been added to the Trusted List (nor the list of managers), so the project didn't receive your private message and has been blissfully unaware of whatever concerns you expressed in your message.

Considering that there are 12 people on the Trusted List and many descendants, and this man is in the scope of two active projects (both the New Netherland and Quaker projects), G2G is a good place to discuss the profile where everyone who's interested can participate. You have everyone's attention now, so what is it that you would like to discuss?

Coming to G2G to discuss your concerns is one of the best ways to approach this situation. One of the worst ways is to violate the Honor Code by creating a new duplicate profile -- please don't do that.
I didn't create a new profile. I came here. I didn't even find a place where I could be on the trusted list. I didn't make changes, just waited. This is a site for collaboration after all.
Thanks, Teresa. I'm glad you didn't follow through on your thought about "adding another Richard Stockton with his proper wife and ancestors."

2 Answers

+4 votes
Also, he was a Quaker. He is in the wrong project. He was born in England... went to the netherlands for religious freedom along with many other english quakers. He's also a notable?
by Teresa Obst G2G4 (4.2k points)

He's definitely a New Netherland settler. New Netherland was in New York and New Jersey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Netherland Richard is part of the reason that the Quakers were accepted in New Netherland as he signed the Flushing (Flushing, New York) Remonstrance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flushing_Remonstrance

He's also my ancestor. :)

+5 votes
Put the information here and cite your sources, - documents, not ancestry trees, MyHeritage, et .
by Eddie King G2G6 Pilot (361k points)

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Unknown-198551

The source is South Jersey: a history 1664, to 1924

The source gives his wifes name as Abigail Bloomfield. But actually Bloomfield is her married name from her 1st marriage. She was born Abigail Hunt. Her parents are Richardus Hunt (1608 - 1686) and Sara Grimsditch. 

Also UK, Extracted Probate Records, 1269-1975 for Richard Hunt gives his daughters name as Abigail Stockton. Between those two sources I am confident that her maiden name was Hunt.
Is "UK, Extracted Probate Records, 1269-1975" a database on an online site? Which one?
Name Hunt, Richard
Dates 1686
Place General, England
Book Year Folio
Collection England: Canterbury - Wills proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1686-1693
Text Hunt, Richard, cit. and fishmonger of Lond. 1686 130

 

Its from Ancestry. an index to uk probate records. but YEARS ago we proved the name, through the Shinn Historical Society (he's a shinn ancestor) I would have to search through old paperwork to find more info 

The text of Richard's profile discusses the maiden name of his wife. It says:

The 1694 deed record and Richard "The Emigrant" Stockton's will prove his wife's given name was Abigail, unfortunately, her maiden name is not known. Abigail's maiden name is now shown by most researchers as unknown, however, some researchers show her maiden name as Bloomfield and other researchers show her maiden name as Hunt. There does not appear to be any evidence that either of these possible maiden names are correct. The Stockton Family in England and the United States, by William Francis Cregar, 1888, shows Richard Stockton's wife as Abigail, but does not show a maiden name for her. The Stockton Family of New Jersey and Other Stocktons, by Thomas Coates Stockton, M.D., 1911, "The given name of Richard Stockton's wife was Abigail, but her family name has not been learned." The maiden name of Bloomfield does not appear to be a historic name that has been passed down through the generations. It appears to be a recently added name presented without any evidence it is correct.

The "South Jersey" source you cited above appears to be a local history publication that repeats genealogical information derived from works such as the genealogies mentioned in the text I quoted above. (It doesn't seem to cite any sources.) It doesn't look like a source that would be accepted as proof of this woman's name.

https://archive.org/details/southjerseyhisto00hest

Here's the actual book at internet archives. Are you saying that books are not acceptable sources? If that is the case then there are a lot of profiles still unsourced. I actually found this book to be very well written and I will find the publication from the shinnston historical society re abigail. I have it somewhere and they cited sources.

She is also listed in the Genealogy of the Stokes family and the History of the Shinn family in England & America. Both well sourced books.

I do agree books are not a 100% source but sometimes its our only lead and if you do not consider the possibility you never break down those walls. I match with DNA to Hunts. I know its right, whether its on here or not correctly.

American Marriage Records before 1699 says 

Name: Richard Stockton
Spouse: Susanna Witham
Parents: Richard Stockton, Abigail Bloomfield
Birth Place: MA
Birth Date: 1654
Marriage Place: Chesterfield, NJ
Marriage Date: 8 Nov 1691
Death Place: Piscataway, Middlesex, NJ
Death Date: Jul 1709

http://politicalfamilytree.com/samples%20content/members/signers/Stockton-NJ-1.pdf

She is also listed in the descendants of Joseph Loomis. (I am still combing)

 

There is nothing wrong with citing books as sources, but the fact that information was published in a book -- or even a dozen books -- doesn't prove that it's valid. Many of the old published genealogies and local histories are highly derivative -- that is, they got their information by copying from somebody else. And even when we can figure out who the compiler copied from, who that person copied from, etc., it's often not possible to discern where their information originated, and occasionally the original source turns out to have been fraudulent (see Category: Frauds and Fabrications). This is one reason why primary sources have been emphasized in the pre-1700 certification quiz. We will never satisfactorily settle disputes about genealogy by arguing about the superiority of two different secondary sources that don't show or describe the original primary-source information they used as a basis for their conclusions. (Who's to say that my book is better than yours, if we can't tell where either book got its information?) So we can cite those books (particularly if we have no better sources), but we need to seek better sources.

Please don't think that I'm trying to trash your information. It's just that when there's been consensus that a woman's maiden name is unknown, there needs to be more than a minimum of proof to change her from "Abigail Unknown" to Abigail with a definite last name. Today I was reminded that I had said ‚ÄúCollaboration on our shared ancestors encourages us to share information and to hold each other to high standards‚ÄĚ and I do believe that's true -- when we collaborate on an ancestor's biography, we all need to accept the same information, and gaining that acceptance often requires a high standard for information quality.

You say that the will of "Richard Hunt, citizen and fishmonger of London 1686" identifies "Abigail Stockton" as his daughter. That's a promising clue, but is there anything in the will that indicates that his daughter Abigail Stockton was living in America? I can't claim much experience with English wills that identified heirs in America, but the ones that I've seen did explicitly identify the heir as living in America (the one I remember best described the heir as living in "Watertown in New England").

You cite "American Marriage Records before 1699" as showing that Richard Stockton, son of Richard Stockton and Abigail Bloomfield, married Susanna Witham. I think this is another Ancestry database. If so, I think it's one that contains information gleaned from a variety of sources, ranging from original marriage records (occasionally) to (far more often) some unidentified person's Family Group Sheet or pedigree chart. Can you tell where this particular information came from?

And what sources and rationales do the Genealogy of the Stokes family and the History of the Shinn family in England & America cite as their basis for giving Abigail the last name of Hunt?

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
0 answers
+3 votes
0 answers
+20 votes
3 answers
131 views asked Apr 28, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Corissa Toop G2G Crew (730 points)
+2 votes
0 answers
56 views asked May 30, 2013 in Genealogy Help by anonymous

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...