Help with a twice rejected merge

+3 votes
244 views
I believe other genealogists are needed to look at these two profiles

The merge was twice rejected that I know of, stating these are separate people, after the 2nd merge the person rejecting it left a message on the profile of to change the birth date, and later changed the birthdate/place of  McDaniel-576

Please someone look at these?  Thanks in advance

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McDonald-9288

in

to

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McDaniel-576

(merge notes added to this profile)
WikiTree profile: James McDaniel
in Policy and Style by A Smaltz G2G4 (4.2k points)
edited by Maggie N.
I understand how it works now, again thanks
The proper solution to this is NOT removing all information from https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/McDaniel-576 , including the images of his will.

4 Answers

+7 votes
I think they both need better sources, especially McDonald-9288. In cases like this where conflation is suspected, one has to be very careful about how one connects different data points. I would recommend holding off on a merge until all the primary sources are ferreted out. You can't rely on secondary sources in this type of situation. IMO, death records are the easiest way to deconflate people. As I once read in a will, "it is fated for each man to die but once."
by Anonymous Buckner G2G6 Mach 5 (52.1k points)

A couple things - the date of "death" used in McDaniel-576 is apparently the date of the writing of the will. That's a really bad assumption. I've seen wills written decades before the death. The probate date is a much better upper bound, but always say "before [probate date]." Probates could often be delayed and it was pretty rare for probate to occur on the exact day of death. I figure a week to a month is normal, but in colonial America, courts could be especially distant and irregular. Like I say, this is what happens when you just copy secondary sources and don't look at the primary source. Most secondaries are horrible. Don't trust them to understand things like probate dates. This "Twentieth Generation" source is especially dicey.

Second, I think the main sticking point for considering these two James McDaniels to be the same person is this 8 Jul 1716 birthdate, which they both claim. There's no primary source cited for this, only this "Twentieth Generation" website, and I would say it's an open question whether this 1716 birth (parish register?) is for sure the same person in the 1774 will.
 

+7 votes
People work backwards, naturally.  They have the child and a name for the parent.  They look for the parent and find marriage, death, other kids.

Then they have to look for the birth of the parent.  This is the hard part because the birth record won't say anything about the person's future life.  It's not easy to know you've got the right one, and frankly there's often no proof.

And often the birth record doesn't exist.

This often ends with the same birth (and so parents) being claimed for two different people.  Cases of that happening are all over the internet, but they don't become obvious until combined into a single tree.

What you've discovered here is that one of these Jameses needs to have the birth and parents removed.

(Ignore the siblings, they aren't real - they come automatically with the parents, and disappear when you take the parents off)
by Anonymous Horace G2G6 Pilot (570k points)
+5 votes
These are two distinct different people. When I get to my information later today I will post the DNA information that proves it.  I had actually emailed Mrs. Smaltz information from a person that has already done the DNA research. Regardless of DNA proof, there's already information out there showing that  the James who married Katherine Justis was in Delaware at the same time the other James was a Maryland.  If it's not already on that profile I will add it later when I get to my research.

The information regarding James of Maryland's date and location of birth are not supported.  I had actually remove this the other day to help avoid any confusion or issues. So it's kind of disappointing to see false information added back to James of Maryland.
by Eric McDaniel G2G6 Mach 4 (40.9k points)
+4 votes

Ok so there's a gentlemen that has been doing the DNA research for the past few years, but he doesn't have a large online presence.

Short Answer-

Descendants of James McDaniel that have taken a YDNA test have the R-M222 haplogroup/genetic marker which is gaelic instead of norse (which those descending from the Lords of Clan Donald are of norse descent).  Descendants of Lt. Brian McDOnald and his son Bryan Jr. are in the R-S951/R-Z3000 haplogroup.  SO there's a hick-up in the alleged lineage of Lt. Brian, as they also do not descend from the Lords of Clan McDonald. (http://www.peterspioneers.com/colla.htm).  James Sr. of Maryland is actually related to the O’Flaherty clan and descends from the Uí Briúin, descendants of Conn Cétchathach of Connacht, Ireland.

For the distinction between the profiles- The birth date that is often used for both profiles belongs to the Delaware James (who married Catherine Justis).  He is noted in the same church and in documents involving his father and other relatives in Delaware before he moved to Virginia (following his father). 

New Castle, Delaware, Deeds, Book Q, Pg. 221, 494, 497-98

Archivum Americanum-Swedish Churches on the Delaware, Pg. 26

Here's another example of a source, showing he was at the same church as Bryan Jr.- "Delaware Births and Christenings, 1710-1896," database, <i>FamilySearch</i> (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F7HD-QX1 : 10 February 2018), James Mc Donald in entry for Rebecca Mc Donald, 21 Mar 1752; citing ; FHL microfilm 908,217.

Regarding James- I see that the profile was raided.  Thank you for those who are trying to restore it.  I'll do some further edits to bring it up to speed.  Too bad the background and Will were deleted.. doesn't look like we can get those images back easily without going back to copying from familysearch.  As for his date of birth, we don't have any information on it to be precise.  The gentlemen that I've been working with estimates it was around 1708, given that when he made his Will he named 2 of his grandchildren to receive land.  When you add up the years it gets to approximately 1808- You had to be 18-21 to receive land (grandchildren), and also 18-21 to be married w/ children (William), and then 18-21 to be married w/ children (James).  Additionally there was an old record mentioning that James married Rebecca in 1726 (unconfirmed source, but lines up with the dates).  Side note- there is not record of Rebecca's maiden name, and it is assumed to be Redman.  There was a "Redman MackDaniel" that was "transported" to Maryland in 1681 and there is a theory that the Redman name passed down through the generations is actually a male name, not as a response to Rebecca's maiden name.  The leading theory is that James was born in America as there are a few McDaniel's noted to also be living in Frederick, Maryland, but there is the possibility that he could have been born in Scotland or Ireland.  To the point of other McDaniels in Maryland, in Jame's estate it refers to a Francis McDaniel as Kinsman.  There is no record of a Francis being associated to Lt. Brian McDaniel's family.

I've been working on a introduction to add to this profile and other locations to help avoid any other confusion or mis-association with Lt. Brian.  I'll be posting that on the page soon and I'll also work on the profile.  If anyone wants more information regarding the DNA specs, I can give them.

Thank you.

by Eric McDaniel G2G6 Mach 4 (40.9k points)
edited by Eric McDaniel

Related questions

+7 votes
4 answers
+7 votes
4 answers
+6 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
2 answers
+2 votes
2 answers
126 views asked Dec 17, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Johnny McDonald G2G Rookie (190 points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
5 answers
228 views asked Jan 17, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Sandy Edwards G2G6 Mach 7 (73.2k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...