Is this a valid source for adding parents to Daniel Abbott's profile?

Question

I've posted this as a comment to the referenced profile, but also wanted to solicit the views of the broader PGM group.    

RC Anderson says in his profile for Daniel Abbott in "Great Migration Begins" that "the proposed English origin and ancestry of Daniel Abbott set forth" at p. 975 in L.A. Abbott's "Descendants of George Abbott" "has no documentary basis and should be ignored."  The WikiTree profile for Daniel Abbott seems to treat this statement as conclusive evidence that Thomas Abbott is NOT Daniel's father, as L.A. Abbott's disputed pedigree asserts, but I wonder if Anderson's assertion is an overstatement.

The disputed pedigree Anderson refers to is here: https://archive.org/details/descendantsofgeo02abbo/page/974/mode/2up 

It's true that L.A. Abbott does not provide documentation for this pedigree, but the first step in it -- showing Daniel Abbott as born in Bildestone in 1584, and the son of Thomas Abbott -- is consistent with the entry for a "Daniell Abbott" in the Ancestry database "England & Wales, Christening Index, 1530-1980" (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1351/) , citing the "British Isles - Vital Records Index," an index of baptismal and marriage from the British Isles that is available on CD-ROM at FHL and in a repository in the UK (see: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/742262, and https://www.worldcat.org/title/vital-records-index-british-isles/oclc/866546943). I've only accessed the online Ancestry database at this point, but at least that database states that the original church record shows a Daniell Abbott, baptized in Bildeston, Suffolk, England on 7 Jun 1584, the son of Thomas Abbott and his wife Rebecca. Of course it is possible that this is not the same Daniel Abbott who emigrated to America in 1630, but the ages and names are consistent and that region was the origin of many PGM migrants. That seems to me to be at least some documentary evidence for the first step of the pedigree published in Abbott's book, contrary to Anderson's claim. Unless I am missing something, it seems like this is a reasonable basis for tentatively concluding that Thomas and Rebecca Abbott are likely to be the parents of the Daniel Abbott who emigrated to America in 1630, and that that Daniel was born in Bidleston in about June 1584, as stated in L.A. Abbott's pedigree and notwithstanding Anderson's statement that this pedigree should be ignored. At a minimum, it seems like it is enough to justify adding these parents to his WikiTree profile, noting that the connection is still "Uncertain" while we try to verify that these two Daniel Abbotts are in fact the same person.

I am brand new to the PGM project, so I don't want to muck up the profile until I am sure I am not missing something, so I welcome any input from those with more experience on these old New England lines.  Thanks!

Answer 1

Not an expert, (but with a strong opinion ),

When Anderson says there's "no documentary evidence" he's not saying that the baptism is invalid, but that it doesn't document that Daniel Abbott the immigrant was born in 1584 in Biddleston to those parents. While the fact itself needs to be verified, if it's for the wrong person it's not really relevant. A fake baptism and a real baptism for the wrong person are both wrong. (Also, I'd say while not impossible, the date might be a little early to be immigrant Daniel...in fact its early enough that Daniel bp 1584 could even be the immigrant's father.)

We all want to find the answers and fill in that empty spot on our tree.  So confirmation bias is strong.  You have to actively work against it. 

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  Keep in mind...for any given baptism in England at that time, its more likely that person died young or stayed in England.  Indexed online records are so helpful, but they are isolated from their context.  I've seen quite a few coincidental baptisms used as a source to connect parents, only to have a corresponding burial record for the same child turn up once the full parish records are examined. (And yet those relationships persist on online trees).

Some questions to think about when evaluating the likelihood that is Daniel the immigrant's baptism record:

How many parishes existed in East Anglia in that 25 year range (1585-1610)?  How many of those parish registers were destroyed?  How many are available online?  How many have been indexed?  How many births of that time went unrecorded?  How many deaths went unrecorded?

How common is the name Abbott?  Is it geographically isolated or widely distributed? How common is "Daniel" at that time?  How common is Daniel within Abbott families?

Are there any clues in the immigrant's record that would indicate class or a better estimate for his age?  

You could certainly create profiles for the parents and research their family. Perhaps a will or a deed will turn up within the extended family and provide some indication either way. But keep in mind that there's a good chance you're researching an unrelated family. (But could be helpful to someone else).  Be sure to document evidence that proves and disproves the theory.  

Comments

Clarification: when I say create profiles for the parents, I mean as a separate family, not connected to Daniel Abbot the immigrant.

Answer 2

Hi Scott, I'm not a pgm expert, but I do know that the "British Isles - Vital Record Index" is not a very reliable source.  It takes information from a variety of sources, and some of those can include submitted genealogies, which might actually be based on the book by George Abbott.

I would advise trying to confirm the baptismal date of Daniel Abbott from original parish sources, preferably with an image.

Comments

Thank you, that's exactly what I was worried about.

Answer 3

Quite a few of these old books seem to grasp at someone with the same name born at about the right time in England  and link an emigrant family to them. Sadly it seems that they always want to join on to a family of gentry. A baptism  of someone with a similar name  isn't a sufficient source to attribute parents and  a place of origin.Check the burials, check nearby parishes .The big problem with these indexes is that there are far fewer burials indexed.  

I had a look for this family in the visitation of Suffolk but couldn't find them.

What I did find  was a set of wills from Chelsworth. (purely on a google search, it came up because I linked the abbot name with Bildeston, ) Chelsworth is adjacent to Bildeston just 1.5 miles by modern road but their respective  parish churches are far nearer than that.   https://chelsworth.org.uk/village/history/archivesnav/ewExternalFiles/Chelsworth%20wills.pdf?iframe=true&width=1000&height=1000

There are wills for many Abbots though these are not gentry; husbandmen/yeomen.

Corresponding to the pedigree there is a John Abbot  with a  will probated in 1588 .He had several sons including James and Thomas.These names  match the two sons named in the pedigree as of course does the date of the will.

In the pedigree,  Thomas Abbot  is named as the father of Daniel b 1584  and Thomas is said to have died in 1618. The baptism found for Daniel in Bildeston was in 1584 thus matching the pedigree. This Daniel  was the son of Thomas and Rebecca.

  The  will of  Thomas  Abbot  probated in 1618 mentions one son, an Isaac three daughters Susan, Elizabeth and Mary. The daughter's names match  daughters  of Thomas and Rebecca Abbott also baptised in Bildeston  (Mary 1581, Susan 1588, Elizabeth 1590).There is no Isaac in the index but there is  a son  Israel (1593).(I suspect a transcription error in either the index or the will)

If we accept that these matching names  are not pure coincidence  then this would appear to be the will of Thomas,  the father of  Daniel Abbot,a  baptised in Bildeston  

Daniel certainly 'disappears'  but this occurs long before the 1630 emigration. The fact  that he is not mentioned in this will suggests to me that he has died. I think it extremely odd that a living, elder  son would not be mentioned without at least  the proverbial shilling.

Comments

I agree Helen.  The usual and obvious interpretation of Daniel not being mentioned in the will of his father is that he was dead by 1618.  Thank you for taking the time to look up these wills.

Answer 4

Thanks to all of you for your responses -- all very helpful and a great education.  I am glad I asked and grateful for the insights.