TWO trees today.
Comments after the jump.
Comments after the jump.
TREE #1
SARAH LAYNE
Born in 1720
Married WILLIAM SHANNON (b. 1845) in ????
One child
William, b. 1772
William, b. 1772
Married JAMES SHANNON (b. 1773) in 1778
Three children
Elizabeth, b. 1780
Elizabeth, b. 1780
Jane, b. 1782
Nancy, b. 1783
TREE #2
SARAH LAYNE
Born in 1720
Married THOMAS SHANNON (b. 1760) in ????
One child
Layne, b. 1784
Layne, b. 1784
Married JAMES SHANNON (b. 1773) in 1778
Nine children
Nancy, b. 1747
Nancy, b. 1747
William, b. 1773
Elizabeth, b. 1779
Jane, b. 1782
Nancy, b. 1783
James, b. 1787
Layne, b. 1789
John, b. 1792
Cornelius, b. 1799
ⓑⓐⓡⓚⓘⓝⓖ ⓤⓟ ⓣⓗⓔ ⓦⓡⓞⓝⓖ ⓣⓡⓔⓔ
TREE #1So let's put this in a narrative timeline. In 1772 Sarah, at the age of 52, gives birth to William. Seventy three, 73!, years later William's father is born. A year after William's birth Sarah's second husband is born. He and Sarah marry 5 years later. She then gives birth to three girls.
Mother's age Father's age
Elizabeth, b. 1780 60 7
Jane, b. 1782 62 9
Nancy, b. 1783 63 10
"One of these things is not like the other..." Sorry, I have that running through my head as I'm typing. Only only one of these children is born during what would be typical child bearing years. And on top of that the person that created this tree is saying their ancestor is either a bigamist or cheated on her husband.
So here's Sarah's life according to this tree...
Sarah's age Event
27 Daughter Nancy is born, husband's age is -26. That's NEGATIVE 26.
40 Her lover/other spouse is born.
53 Husband is born, as is their son William.
58 Marries her husband. His age? 5.
58 Marries her husband. His age? 5.
59 Daughter Elizabeth is born, husband is 6 years old.
62 Daughter Jane is born, husband is 9.
63 Daughter Nancy is born, husband is 10.
64 Son Layne is born, lover/other spouse is 24.
67 Son James is born, husband is 14.
69 Son Layne is born, husband is 16.
72 Son John is born, husband is 19.
79 Son Cornelius is born, husband is 26.
Someone really thinks that this woman gave birth at the age of 59. And continued to have children until she was 79. SEVENTY-NINE!!! And that a man married a woman 53 years his senior?!!?
The number of trees with Sarah (b. 1720) marrying James (b. 1773) in 1778 is astounding. Maybe the lack of logic and common sense is genetic.
The number of trees with Sarah (b. 1720) marrying James (b. 1773) in 1778 is astounding. Maybe the lack of logic and common sense is genetic.
I love it! It took me a few months to convince a few people that my sister-in-law's mother did not have an 18 month old husband when my sister-in-law was born. A few people kept the information online as they still thought it was good information.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a link to one of those trees send it to me and I may use it in a future post ;-)
DeleteI'm sure a man would be happy to marry a woman 53 years his junior. It's his marrying a woman 53 years his senior that defies logic... And isn't that really the issue here?
ReplyDelete