Parents of Robert Day? Richard and Anna

+8 votes

A question concerning the parents of Robert Day was presented to Puritan Great Migration

There are two Robert Days. (left Stansted Abbots, settled Ipswich Mass (left Unknown, settled in Hartford

and a set of Parents. Richard Day-724 and Anna Kirby-237. The parents are currently attached to Robert of Hartford. Both bios claim the couple as Roberts parents, with no sources. The parents have no sources.

Anderson's Great Migration articles on each Robert assigns no parents.

Unless there is a source for these parents, I suggest a disconnect, and a === Disputed parents === section for each profile.

Sources anyone??
WikiTree profile: Robert Day
in Genealogy Help by Anne B G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
thanks for digging into this, Anne.

Give me some time to research Robert Day's Parents before deleting them.


Keith have you had a chance to look at these parents?

3 Answers

+5 votes

Hi Anne, 

The Great Migration files on American Ancestors shows two Robert Days.  One born about 1605 (he was age 30 in 1635) when he came in the Hopewell from Stanstead to Ipswich. His wife was Hannah. 

The other was born in 1604, came in the Elizabeth, settled in Cambridge and married twice, once to Mary (Unknown) and again to Edith Stebbins.  

I don't have time this evening to comb through the details, but on the surface they seem to me to correspond with the 2 profiles you found. Message  me if you need more info.

I hope this helps!

by Laurie Giffin G2G6 Mach 9 (94.4k points)
Yes that is the two Roberts. Anderson doesn't give either parents.
You're right, and I apologize for the Duh moment.

With fresh Saturday eyes I've looked at Day-812 - I checked the sources noted in the profile, and in Torrey (only one was wait-listed), and I agree that none of the literary sources make reference to parents.  

So your conclusion does appear to be logical.  I am speculating that the mis-information migrated from one or more of the family trees noted in the sources, I do see these parents on several family trees on Ancestry, and one on FamilySearch (which cites Ancestry family trees as as source).

I'm not sure if the misinformation should be completely removed, though.  Since it might come back to haunt us, maybe it would be a good idea to leave a note in the bio?

Do you have or want the Torrey reference?
I have Torrey references yes. And yes I would add a disputed parents section to the profile. I'll also ppp both profiles, so parents don't keep getting added back. I've been trying to get back to the Roberts, to give their profiles updates if need be. I have a window full of sources open somewhere on my desktop.... :?)
Good plan!  I've not gone as far with Day-268, but already reaching for a pipe-cleaner. Personally, I prefer the footnote style references, so I can see what facts are supported by which sources.  In this case, its not only that its not clear how the sources are related to the information, he doesn't seem to appear in the Cutter (New York) source at all.

As far as I'm concerned, you're on the right track. Since you seem to have a handle on the research, I'll avoid complicating your desktop.  Don't hesitate to let me know if another pipe-cleaner would be helpful in some way.  I still have scores of duplicates on my ancestors suggestions, but its nice to take a break sometimes!
+3 votes

For Robert Day born 1605 in Stanstead-Abbots, Hertfordshire, it looks like he was conflated with the Robert Day born 1604 in Kilburne, Yorkshire, since at least the two parents claim to be from Kilburne, Yorkshire.

So, disputed parents or mistaken same-name identity for Day b. 1605.

For Robert Day b. 1604 with parents from Kilburne, Yorkshire -- I adopted the father Richard, but don't know of source for Kilburne. I will look up what I can find because Day b. 1604 - (can we call him Hartford Day?) has believable ancestors on both sides for a couple generations that are all from Yorkshire (not all from Kilburne). It has the flavor of a line copied from a book. I'll see if I can find the source.

I wouldn't call them disputed (since the Stanstead-Abbots Day can have no claim on Kilburne!) but they are unproven and only one grandparent is document -- with Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire,

Good work Anne and Laurie. This is why it is so great to have a whole community to look at each profile!

by April Dauenhauer G2G6 Pilot (116k points)
April, PGM project uses the phrase "Disputed Origins" on profiles where someone (usually a set of unsourced family trees or subsequently disproven 19th century "genealogies") made/makes a claim about origins that conflicts with Anderson (or later published authoritative works).  We add these sections to profiles in an effort to draw attention to the problem and discourage the (re)adding of the "bad" parents.
Thank you Jillaine.
+1 vote
I have a copy of source number 2 A Genealogical Register of the Descendants of the Male Line of Robert Day of Hartford Connecticut who Died in the Year 1648. It is a PDF file and I have not read it thoroughly. I will send by email a copy to any one who wants to check it out. My email is
by Vickie Spear G2G Crew (620 points)
Does it cite any sources?
Unfortunately it does not cite sources. It does have the will of Robert Day and of at least one of his sons - Thomas Day. Good point. Thanks, Vickie

Related questions

+2 votes
1 answer
149 views asked Sep 14, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Jennifer Sternberg G2G Rookie (240 points)
+4 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
1 answer
92 views asked Apr 18, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Brian Penske G2G6 Mach 6 (61.4k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
32 views asked Nov 26 in Genealogy Help by Nancy Thomas G2G6 Pilot (102k points)
+2 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
+1 vote
1 answer
91 views asked Feb 8 in Genealogy Help by Dianne Semmens G2G3 (4.0k points)
+10 votes
1 answer
79 views asked Dec 4, 2021 in Appreciation by Toni Boone G2G6 Mach 1 (17.4k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
61 views asked Jul 1, 2021 in Genealogy Help by Dianne Semmens G2G3 (4.0k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright