| || member for 2 years, 6 months, 21 days|
| [Add to MyFriends]|
|Bio and Links|
|I was bitten by the genealogy bug shortly after my grandfather died in the 1960s. Going through all of his paperwork and letters and documents as he worked to trace his family long ago was fascinating. Once software was available I was able to consolidate the information into a real family tree while my Mom and I worked on her side of the family. I'm fascinated by the inter-connections between descendants of the early New England settlers and work extremely hard to make sure my information is as accurate as possible. |
I am so startled by the inaccuracies perpetuated via FindAGrave, Ancestry and other sites in terms of duplicate memorials and inaccurate data and strive to ensure that my work is accurate before adding/changing information.
Please feel free to send me a note with any questions.
|Messages left for CAS56 (21)||[Leave Message]|
|LogicalGMW||RE: Abbie L West|
Cheryl, Thanks for reaching out. Abbie is indeed a Niles. She remarried on 4/19/1914 to Calvin S. West, widower. He died 1/29/1928 in Taunton and was buried with his first wife in Pembroke, MA. I have linked Abbie to both husbands and have corrected her name. As for the stone, it is consistant in style with other turn of the century burials in Melrose although it could just as easily have been new in 1945. There are other burials surnamed Niles in the immediate area includng the red granite stone partially visible in Abbie's gavestone picture.
|Michael Duffy||RE: Nathan Lord|
Forgot to send you Nathan's wife, Martha. Again, feel free to edit to your satisfaction.
|Daniel Maxwell||RE: John Hume b 1732 s/o George|
If you dont know who William Hume is then you most not be familiar with the Hume line. William is John Hume's brother. George Hume's sons are - George, Francis, John, William, James, and Charles. There is only one place where all sons are named - the estate inventory of George Hume in 1760. Both John and William settled in KY. I brought up William because the incompetent author John R Hume mixed up John's children and 'gave them' to brother William in his book. He didn't even know his own Hume line was completely wrong.
As for your comment about 'Just because someone published an article with the NGS in 1969 doesn't mean it's fact.'- Uuh, dont really know what to say about this. I told you that the two articles on brothers William and John are the most up to date research on the Hume family. I explained to you why the old Hume book was wrong and not to be trusted. The authors give all the sources they used for the information given in both articles - which are named - 'Tiger by the Tail !' (parts 1 and 2 - this covers William Hume) and 'John Hume of Culpeper Co, VA'.
What I am trying to tell you is that these articles destroy anything said about the William and John lines in the Hume book. There really is no room for error. John Hume's will names his children, and William Hume's will and other information allowed them to assembled 5 of his 6 children.
|Daniel Maxwell||RE: John Hume b 1732 s/o George|
There is no confusion. The old Hume book that everyone quotes is wrong. Yes, I realize so many people 'say' that those Hume men are sons of William but they are not.
Short story - the guy who wrote it sounds like he may have been bit of a charlatan. He 'traced' it only so much as he thought it allowed him to help prove descent from George Hume so his groups could then make claims on land in Scotland (there was another competing group doing the same thing).
The Hume family for John and William was corrected in 2 articles in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly in 1969 and 1970. These articles are still the current state of Hume research. I have both of them. The authors also said in one of the articles that they believe the Hume book was also wrong on James, but they did not research him. They thought the James Hume that appears in PA was probably an immigrant himself and not related to the Virginia Humes. The John Hume that appears in Maine was himself probably an immigrant and NOT the man who appears in KY. There is no time for him to appear in Maine - he is in Culpeper Co Va and within 3 years of his final appearance in recorsd there he is living in KY.
It was rather simple for the authors to untangle the children of William and John. The will of John Hume names all of his children, which include the sons that the are 'given' to William in the Hume book. William only names a couple of his children in his will, but explicitly says his '6 children'. The authors were only able to figure out 5 of the 6 - Stripling, Gabriel, Prue Benson (named for his father in law), Elizabeth Proctor (my line) and Joel B. Hume.
The author of the Hume book says at one point that his line is Williams, but again the authors show his line was in fact John's. I think what may have happened is that someone found the will and described it to him but misnamed which son of George it belonged to.
The Hume book has a ton of other problems - he gives William Hume 2 earlier marriages which are fictional. So are the 'children' he gives William from these 'marriages'. William probably only had one wife. He is also probably not the same William Hume who married a Sarah Baker in 1782 - the son named Prue Benson Hume was born ca 1780 and its not likely William would name a son after a father in law he didnt yet have.
If you have any other questions about the Hume line, let me know. There is alot of bad information on this family as a result of poor earlier research.
|Michael Duffy||Nathan Lord|
I'm transferring Nathan Lord to your management.
I'm also a direct descendant but know little about the Lord family. The information I've added is by no means ironclad. I don't even recall the source(s).
You're welcome to edit the memorial, including the bio, to your satisfaction.
|Heather Pascarelli||Stoyle, Central Cemetery Randolph Mass|
hi! I think I managed to transfer them all. Double check and let me know if anyone is missing :D Glad I could help!
|Robert DeVowe||RE: Daniel Goodwin or Maine|
I do no have anything on a second wife. There may have been because there is no death date recorded for (Ann Amy)Tompson. His will mentions a wife but not by name. However, it would seem odd to me that his wife was to get the bulk of his estate if she were a recent and not the mother of his children. Just my thinking. Or, Ann and Amy are the same.
As for The History of the Goodwins of Berwick Maine, unless the author provided some evidence then what he wrote is questionable.
The word Proof or Proven as far as I an concerned is a very misleading term. There is no proof, there is speculation (guess) based on the found evidence. That is not positive proof. The use of the word really bothers me. After working with the records of Quebec, you would know what I mean.
|Marilyn Pederson||Rebecca Elizabeth (Nutter) KIng|
Hope I can explain this,here is what we know: Marilyn
REBECCA ELIZABETH NUTTER.8,(GRAFTON NUTTER Jr.7, GRAFTON NUTTER Sr.6, VALENTINE NUTTER.5, HENRY NUTTER.4, ANTHONY NUTTER.3, HATEVIL NUTTER.2, EDMUND NUTTER.1) born: 1808, Tuftonborough, Strafford County New Hampshire, died; before 1846, Illinois, daughter of; GRAFTON NUTTER Jr. and ELIZABETH "Betsy" RICHARDSON, married: 9 May 1836, Alton, Madison County Illinois, JOSEPH S. KING, born: about 1801, Vermont or New Hampshire, died: aft 1870 Pike County Illinois, buried; Perry Cemetery, Perry, Pike County Illinois, Children: HOWARD M. KING, ANNA ELIZABETH (KING) STAATS (Mrs Edward Staats).
JOSEPH S. KING, married second: 7 June 1846, Pike County Illinois, REBECCA MERTZ, born: abt 1809, Maryland, Known Children: JOHN M. KING, CHARLES W. KING
Confusing to say the least thats the Rebecca we find in the Census reports,what are th eodds he would marry another woman named Rebecca?
Source; Illinois Statewide Marriage Index, 1763–1900
KING, JOSEPH S., NUTTER, REBECCA E. 05/09/1836, 006/0033, 00000286, MADISON County Illinois.
KING, JOSEPH S., METZ, REBECCA, 1846-06-07, I106, PIKE
Source; Pike County Illinois, Deed book #15, #7604
Mortgage of property by JOSEPH KING, to Hugh L. Sulphine, dated: 5 August 1839, listing includes Mortgage of 964.10, held by King on property of GRAFTON NUTTER, showing payment of 482.05 is payable 1st. January 1840, and another payment of 482.05 payable 1st. January 1842.
|Saratoga||112027376 Richard H. Stoyle|
You wrote me about a memorial saying it was a duplicate of one I had memorialized. Did you write the other person who was the one who duplicated it? My memorial was done almost a year before 112027376.
Added by Saratoga on Oct 31, 2014 12:40 PM
|Bill Paschal||Duplicate memorials|
Hi Cheryl, thanks again about the info about the duplicates. I have contacted the other contributor because they have duped several in this cemetery, but have had no response. Because the two that you have mentioned have added info and I misspelled the first name on one, I will delete mine. Thanks for your info. Bill P
|[View all messages...]|
Privacy Statement and Terms of Service