Comments after the jump.
No matter the century, a man becoming a father at the age of 61 is not unheard of. However, a woman giving birth at the age of 60 in the 18th century has only slightly better odds than a woman giving birth 23 years after her death. Yet this woman did both. Amazing.
As for the records, the Millenium File is "a compiled source and is similar in form to other linked databases, such as Ancestry World Tree." That should be enough to give anyone pause. A note in the "about" section of the SAR collection states, "...please be advised that many older SAR applications are not sufficiently documented pursuant to current SAR genealogy standards." Also, there is no indication that the collection only contains approved applications.
For the last two records I wanted to give the tree owner the benefit of the doubt. I thought it was possible the 1830 census and Civil War record were just attached to the wrong person but on this tree there is only one person with the Chandler surname and she died in England in the 16th century. So much for benefit of the doubt. I cannot think of any reason those two, 19th century, Georgian records would be attached to someone 1) whose name isn't remotely similar, 2) who lived in Rhode Island, and 3) who died in the early 1700s. Any theories?
Thanks to Shirley for the link to this profile ;-)
If you have a profile to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.
PREVIOUS POST: Photo Friday: Ahead of Their Time
NEXT POST: No Hardin Fast Rules
Esther Richmond
B: 1669 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
D: 12 Nov 1706 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
SPOUSE & CHILD
Thomas Burgess (1668-1743)
✿ Nathaniel Burgess, B: 17 May 1729 in Connecticut
RECORDS
✿ Millennium File
Name: Esther Richmond, female
Born: 1669 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
Died: 12 Nov 1706 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
Spouse: Thomas Burgess
Child: Edward Burgess
✿ U.S., Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970
Name: Esther Burgess (no maiden name or dates)
Spouse: Thomas Burgess (1668-1743)
Child: Nathaniel Burgess (1729-1793)
✿ U.S. Civil War Soldiers, 1861-1865
Name: W. J. Chandler
Side: Confederate
Regiment: 56th Regiment, Georgia Infantry, Company H
Rank: Private
✿ 1830 U.S. Federal Census
Name: Wyatt Chandler
Residence: Gwinnett, Georgia
Free white males: 1 age 30-39, 2 age 10-14, 1 age 5-9, 2 under 5
Free white females: 1 age 30-39, 1 age 10-14, 1 age 5-9, 1 under 5
B: 1669 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
D: 12 Nov 1706 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
SPOUSE & CHILD
Thomas Burgess (1668-1743)
✿ Nathaniel Burgess, B: 17 May 1729 in Connecticut
RECORDS
✿ Millennium File
Name: Esther Richmond, female
Born: 1669 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
Died: 12 Nov 1706 in Little Compton, Newport, Rhode Island
Spouse: Thomas Burgess
Child: Edward Burgess
✿ U.S., Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970
Name: Esther Burgess (no maiden name or dates)
Spouse: Thomas Burgess (1668-1743)
Child: Nathaniel Burgess (1729-1793)
✿ U.S. Civil War Soldiers, 1861-1865
Name: W. J. Chandler
Side: Confederate
Regiment: 56th Regiment, Georgia Infantry, Company H
Rank: Private
✿ 1830 U.S. Federal Census
Name: Wyatt Chandler
Residence: Gwinnett, Georgia
Free white males: 1 age 30-39, 2 age 10-14, 1 age 5-9, 2 under 5
Free white females: 1 age 30-39, 1 age 10-14, 1 age 5-9, 1 under 5
ⓑⓐⓡⓚⓘⓝⓖ ⓤⓟ ⓣⓗⓔ ⓦⓡⓞⓝⓖ ⓣⓡⓔⓔ
No matter the century, a man becoming a father at the age of 61 is not unheard of. However, a woman giving birth at the age of 60 in the 18th century has only slightly better odds than a woman giving birth 23 years after her death. Yet this woman did both. Amazing.
As for the records, the Millenium File is "a compiled source and is similar in form to other linked databases, such as Ancestry World Tree." That should be enough to give anyone pause. A note in the "about" section of the SAR collection states, "...please be advised that many older SAR applications are not sufficiently documented pursuant to current SAR genealogy standards." Also, there is no indication that the collection only contains approved applications.
For the last two records I wanted to give the tree owner the benefit of the doubt. I thought it was possible the 1830 census and Civil War record were just attached to the wrong person but on this tree there is only one person with the Chandler surname and she died in England in the 16th century. So much for benefit of the doubt. I cannot think of any reason those two, 19th century, Georgian records would be attached to someone 1) whose name isn't remotely similar, 2) who lived in Rhode Island, and 3) who died in the early 1700s. Any theories?
Thanks to Shirley for the link to this profile ;-)
If you have a profile to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.
PREVIOUS POST: Photo Friday: Ahead of Their Time
NEXT POST: No Hardin Fast Rules
No comments:
Post a Comment