Detached spouse on protected profile [closed]

+2 votes
121 views
Bishop-188 and Bishop-179 are protected profiles

Suggest Dusabel is only the spouse of Bishop-179
WikiTree profile: Dulsabel Bishop
closed with the note: Thanks to Pat, Anne and Ellen for all assistance.
in Genealogy Help by Beryl Meehan G2G6 Mach 1 (18.3k points)
closed by Beryl Meehan

I've banged out a brief incomplete bio for her, to help prevent future misattachments, or at least make them easier to disentangle.   But I don't have access to all the sources.  Could one of you who has seen them fill in the sections in curly braces, and paste it in?  


Dusabel first appears in the New England record in 1635, as the wife of [[Bishop-179|Richard Bishop]] of Salem, and widow of [[King-440|Richard King]], also of Salem, with the remark: "There is administration granted [June 2, 1635] to Richard Bishopp (in the behalf of his wife) of the goods & chattells of Richard King, deceased."  

We know she was Richard King's wife and not his sister or other relative because... { probably something in Anderson. } She later appears in 1654, where the testimony of "Dulzebella Bishop and Mary Bishop," is cited,  "one aged about fifty and the other about twenty years," in a case involving "Elizabeth Dew, Mrs. Endicott's maid," giving her an estimated birthdate of 1604. 

She had no known children {unless Mary above is a possible child, is she?}

She died in Salem, Massachusetts about 23 August 1658 {how the heck do we know this? And if we don't know, why is it so exact? Should it be "before"?  Or "after"?} 

(Of course if someone wanted to make this nicer and more narrative, I'd have no objection.  As I said, I banged it out.)
I've given both Dulsibel and Richard King bios. And now I understand what the initial question was. I thought the implication was that she was only the wife of Richard Bishop not of Richard King. But I can see now the proper connections.

Pat, Just so you won't be curious all day. Mary was the d/o Richard Bishop before he m. Dulsibell. And the 1658 death is in the Salem vital records, which are online.

2 Answers

+3 votes
 
Best answer
I removed the connection to Bishop-188.  It's clear from the biographies that he's a different Richard Bishop from the one she married.
by Ellen Smith G2G Astronaut (1m points)
selected ago by Bobbie Hall
Thanks, Ellen.  As you know, I'm actively searching the English parish registers...just now coming upon a new discovery on these Bishops...just added a new profile [[Bishop-14079]] - marriage entry is same page as that of [[Bishop-997]] so I'm thinking brothers...

on to finding Richard's children now...
+2 votes
OK, So I will do the detach.  Been several hours searching Wiltshire register again...now stumbled upon a marriage for a Duliceb Kingman 24 Oct 1620 to a Richard Bishop in Granvilles Wootten, Dorset.
by Beryl Meehan G2G6 Mach 1 (18.3k points)
OK, now I can't do the detach as profile is PPP BISHOP-179
Beryl, At the moment neither profile supports a wife Dulsibel. Neither profile supports Wiltshire or Dorset as a place they lived. Neither profile supports much of anything.
Well she certainly didn't marry the career criminal in Plymouth/New Jersey.  Whether she married the others doesn't need to be answered.

The marriage is just a mistake.  We have zillions of those.  It's OK to make mistakes.  It says so somewhere.

And we have zillions of PPPs strewn around like confetti on loads of profiles with bad connections.

And now only a handful of people who can fix any of them.

I think the future is, a lot of people complaining that they can't do what needs doing because of PPP, until they get fed up of complaining, and then it's all OK.
RJ, its not only Leaders who can edit relationships on PPP profiles. The profile managers of the PPP profile and badged Project Coordinators also can make these changes.
But they won't.  They'll leave it to the Leader.
RJ, cite your sources! (It's in the honor code.)

;-}
Whenever anyone contacts me with a PPP'd profile I'm a manager of that needs spouse, parents or children added, I do it immediately.  I consider that common courtesy.  Since I've created over 10,000 profiles, I've had to minimize the number of profiles I manage.  It's caused a lot more work for project coordinators.
In this instance, the erroneous spouse had been connected to a minimal profile that was identified as a duplicate and got merged away. The erroneous spouse could have been removed without difficulty before the merge was done, but it could not be replaced with the correct spouse except by a person who could edit the correct spouse's PPP profile, it could not be removed by anyone during the merging process, and after the merge was completed it could only be removed by a person eligible to edit the PPP profile.

I think all of us who work around PPP profiles need to start paying more attention to the profiles that are connected to the profiles for which we are proposing or completing merges.
This reminds me of another recent story.

A certain man had two profiles.  One was a righteous profile, it told the truth and only the truth.  The other had a junky bio and sources and several kids that weren't his.

But the good one had the higher ID number.  So the request duly appeared, the PPP was removed, the merge was done.

Now there's only one profile, and it has the junk and the spurious kids.

No PMs were involved in this process.

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
76 views asked Dec 4 in Genealogy Help by Beryl Meehan G2G6 Mach 1 (18.3k points)
+4 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
1 answer
1.9k views asked Apr 23, 2014 in Genealogy Help by GeneJ X G2G6 Mach 4 (49.8k points)
0 votes
2 answers
+1 vote
1 answer
+3 votes
3 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...