Is this entire Rhode Island Angell family line false?

Question

Working upstream from Charles Angell (1736 - 1776 North Carolina) there appears to be a rather fantastical line of Angells in Rhode Island commencing with a John Angell (1609-1698) for which I can find not a shred of documentation. Of course these people may be found in Ancestry trees.

Can some of the other Rhode Island project members have a look. There seem to be small bits and pieces of real data but they have been sliced, diced, and comingled to the point I can't even sort ou twho the profiles might be.

I noticed that Torrey cites something he simply refers to as Angell. I'm not finding what it might be. Does someone know to what he refers?

I see notes here and there on some of these profiles from various people such as Kay Wilson and Robin Lee asking questions on some of these but I wonder if the entire line is fiction.

Comments

This calls to mind the book The ancestry of Emily Jane Angell, 1844-1910, by Dean Crawford Smith, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1992. I wonder if that book (which I don't have access to) has any content about mythical accounts of the origin of the Angell name.

---

Ah, the page says Anne B has a copy. Anne, would you peek and see if any of the folks in the line linked above appear in the book? 

Some interesting names in the legitimate part of this line in more recent times including Americus Vespucius Angell (great grandfather of the descendants I know) and his sister America Columbia Angell.

---

Here's what Torrey refers to: Angell: Angell, Avery F., Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Angell Who Settled in Providence, 1636 (A. Crawford Greene, Providence, 1872)

You can find list of all Torrey's sources here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Sources-Torrey

Answer 1

The Roger at the top seems to have existed, though his name might have been Robert

https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/angell/772/

There are several lines of descent out there, e.g.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/De_Angeli-1

In fact all the Angells in the world seem to be claiming descent from him.

Comments

There's an Angell Hall at Brown University, and I've run into a lot of Angells while looking in Providence VR's for other people.

Answer 2

"The Ancestry of Emily Jane Angell" Smith and Sanborn does not have any of the wives (Joseph back to Rodger) listed in it's index. I checked some of the more obscure Angell names listed (Constance, Jesse) not listed.

There are some references to a shadowy figure of Roger Angell as father of a Robert Angell (1490-1566) of Peakirk. Smith and Sanborn say the the name Roger is never seen in this Angell family and there is no Roger found in the early Peakirk records.

None of the various records listed in the book could possibly refer to Roger the progenitor of this group of profiles.

The other Angell book is https://books.google.com/books?id=bzYxAAAAMAAJ&dq=Abiathar+Angell&source=gbs_navlinks_s It's the same line as presented in the newer book.

I haven't read every page, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain this line.

The legitimate RI line https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Angell-26

I don't think you can prove any of that by Arnolds RI Vital records either.

Comments

Thanks, Anne. I scanned the book at the link last night or earlier today and found nothing which reflects the lineage from the current John Angell (1609-1698) downstream. The lineage checks out (and can be well-documented) downstream from the Charles Angell (c 1736-1776) in North Carolina all the way to the Charlie Angell (1882-1927) who invented the one-way plow. 

What's the best protocol to follow with what appears to be an entirely false line between John b 1609 and Charles b circa 1736? We can make John 1609-1698 into the John who he is probably meant to be with different dates but at least the given name of the wife is correct. Neither PM has been active for some time (one almost two years, the other longer). Should we try to merge the other Angell's into other Angell profiles or work toward disproven existence? I can't find these people in any Rhode Island records or any of the literature at American Ancestors. They appear to only exist in Ancestry trees (and I assume Geni and some others).

---

Since the manager has not been active, I would suggest going through the Unresponsive manager routine. Then you can do what you think is best with them

---

If these non-people get recopied a lot from Ancestry to Genii and so on, it's probably wiser to take the Fictive Person route with them, so anyone trying to recreate them will find the match and the documentation.  AND people googling them will also find them.

Here's a nice example of a fictive person profile:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Belcher-161

---

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Uncertain_Existence help page.

---

Filed the unresponsive manager reports yesterday requesting that the line up and downstream be put up for adoption. (Manager inactive in excess of a year.) One of the PMs on a couple of profiles did add me to Trusted List and OK'd the corrections/changes which need to take place.

---

Thanks, Anne and Patricia. 4 of the involved profiles have been become Uncertain Existence as they might get otherwise replicated. The latest England profile and all upstream profiles have been put in g2g request for England Project to take over the orphaned profiles. All downstream profiles not marked Uncertain Existence have been merged away or otherwise corrected to reflect known people (two of those are pending merges). I believe this clears up this fictional line of Angell descendants in Rhode Island.

---

Thank you.

---

I have this book and have read it through twice. On pg 28 is a Stephen Angel who fathered 12 Angell children, one of whom is Charles b 12 January 1732. I have found people in other genealogy sites using this birthdate which I now know is irrelevant to the Charles you seek. Not to mention this Charles never left RI. As a matter of fact most Angells of the times did not,  although as you read you will find some off to New York, Wisconsin and others. But none and I do mean none go further south than Maryland.

Think we bought a useless book? Please don't.  Go to page 175. Very fascinating information.  I think if this section could be redone here in the digital age we would easily see where the various arms of Angells reached. I know already [and this is where it can get dangerous for a genealogist] that my family is descended from Capt Roger Angell [which was Angelli originally]. But you can't/should not try working from the top down. This book has the king as Henry III...no. The king in 1485 was his father, Henry VII. This is the person who literally brought the Angell name to England. Once young Thomas Angell went to America they mostly stayed near each other...however not all names of some families were recovered. Not all the information is perfect. It seems they wanted to truly cover all the people and generations but time and memories and bibles full of information we need go the way of all else.

I think all we can do keep going. The information is somewhere. Don't give up.

Answer 3

I see Thomas Angell John Smith Stephen Warman, Roger Grosse of Rhode Island

THOMAS ANGELL.

FRANCIS WESTON

RICHARO. WATERMAN

Narragansett Massachusetts Roger Grosse