From FrenchFamilyAssoc.com (aka FFA, a club separating the trees of unrelated families, different DNAs despite sharing the surname of French), a key line says regarding her spouse's tree:
"Proof of the Button line is based on Guilford land records mentioned in the Boston Transcript, 1910, that William Stone Sr. & Jr. of Guilford testified that "Hannah, Mercy, Deliverance, Sarah, Martha, & Ebenezer French are the children of Mary French and Thomas French and the reputed daughter of Lieutenant John Button of Boston. Oath was taken Nov 22, 1682."
Thus, testified in 1682, fifteen years after her death--
(1) She and her spouse were known otherwise to have had relatives in Boston.
In particular, she was reputed to be daughter of John, not the same as proven.
(2) Five daughters and one son, six total, not more than that.
Those found (allowing alternate names, the Puritan name of Mercy would be substituted for one of the two Marys in the family, when both were discussed)
"Hannah" b.???? Not attached by 2024. Other names could be Anna, Johana, etc
"Mercy" b.1640, attached as Mary, married name Evarts
"Deliverance" b.1648, married name Parks
"Sarah" b.1650, married names Parmelee, then Hayden
"Martha" b.1654, married name Dudley
"Ebenezer French" b.1658, married a Blatchley
(3) Too many are attached? Not on the above testified list of 1682, troubling, as of Jan., 2024. Still living at the time of the 1682 testimonial, their being omitted was not due to having already died:
*Elizabeth French Isbell.
b.1650 d. 1748, ID 159064915
Not bur. close-by, but at Killingsworth.
*John French.
b.1652 d.1727, ID 61366733
Bur. in New Haven County, at Madison, not Guilford.
John and Elizabeth are both in the "too common" category of names. Further causing confusion, that John's cemetery has two "sound-alikes" for Mary Button's testified children(an Ebenezer French who died 1758, a Mary with maiden name Parmelee, b.1682, who in 1707 married his son John the Jr. b.1680.)
NEEDED HAPLOGROUP IS TYPE G. Over 28 distinct and unrelated families with surname French are in the "surname study " supervised by the FFA at FamilyTreeDna.com.
Mary Button's in-laws left behind at Ipswich in Essex County had things solidly known, meaning documented, not merely alleged. Her mother-in-law was known to be Susan/Susannah Riddlesdale. They knew they came from the tiny town of Assington, inside Sussex, but barely so, maybe ten miles from the Essex border. The town's tininess meant no other Frenches left behind would be confused with them. They remembered they'd left behind a uniquely named Jacob French. Their immigrating males had names too common for the men immigrating, yes, Thomas and John have caused lots of wrong mergers of unrelated trees. These are what some genealogy people call "Frankensteins", a Thomas from here, a Mary from there, Johns and Elizabeths put in as "everybody has one".
Their unique male Dna was found in the FFA's table by searching for Assington. The FFA calls them Group 06 (over 15 male testers, most are not from Assington).
All in Grp. 06 are of "Haplogroup G". (G is also seen for Grp. 04, small, fewer testers, whose immigrants rarely went to New England. More characteristics than broad Haplogroup is then needed to separate 06 from 04.).
In contrast, most of males with surname French tested as Haplogroup R, with different subsets inside that. Note that R what's most common for Europeans.
SUMMARY-- As of 2024, Jan., five of six children seem to have been found, two more wrongly added. People studying the mistakes say people are confused by the too many Thomas Frenches, too many with wives called Mary, maiden names not often told.
Track ancestors best by focusing first on ones with unique names, noting rarer geographies as they move. Then look for proof that the person in Place A is indeed the same as the one in Place B, helped by finding a match in in-law name that is uncommon in both places. French was so common that over 20 male different DNAs immigrated here, a number of them in New England. Button proved to be rare.
Unknown descent is handled best by leaving some things empty, not by" fill-in-all-the blanks". Reputed relatives should be called that in bios, not by attaching people with unproven bloodlines or marriage ties.
Above From Findagrave contributor JB, 48697180 in 2024, on Feb.5
"Proof of the Button line is based on Guilford land records mentioned in the Boston Transcript, 1910, that William Stone Sr. & Jr. of Guilford testified that "Hannah, Mercy, Deliverance, Sarah, Martha, & Ebenezer French are the children of Mary French and Thomas French and the reputed daughter of Lieutenant John Button of Boston. Oath was taken Nov 22, 1682."
Thus, testified in 1682, fifteen years after her death--
(1) She and her spouse were known otherwise to have had relatives in Boston.
In particular, she was reputed to be daughter of John, not the same as proven.
(2) Five daughters and one son, six total, not more than that.
Those found (allowing alternate names, the Puritan name of Mercy would be substituted for one of the two Marys in the family, when both were discussed)
"Hannah" b.???? Not attached by 2024. Other names could be Anna, Johana, etc
"Mercy" b.1640, attached as Mary, married name Evarts
"Deliverance" b.1648, married name Parks
"Sarah" b.1650, married names Parmelee, then Hayden
"Martha" b.1654, married name Dudley
"Ebenezer French" b.1658, married a Blatchley
(3) Too many are attached? Not on the above testified list of 1682, troubling, as of Jan., 2024. Still living at the time of the 1682 testimonial, their being omitted was not due to having already died:
*Elizabeth French Isbell.
b.1650 d. 1748, ID 159064915
Not bur. close-by, but at Killingsworth.
*John French.
b.1652 d.1727, ID 61366733
Bur. in New Haven County, at Madison, not Guilford.
John and Elizabeth are both in the "too common" category of names. Further causing confusion, that John's cemetery has two "sound-alikes" for Mary Button's testified children(an Ebenezer French who died 1758, a Mary with maiden name Parmelee, b.1682, who in 1707 married his son John the Jr. b.1680.)
NEEDED HAPLOGROUP IS TYPE G. Over 28 distinct and unrelated families with surname French are in the "surname study " supervised by the FFA at FamilyTreeDna.com.
Mary Button's in-laws left behind at Ipswich in Essex County had things solidly known, meaning documented, not merely alleged. Her mother-in-law was known to be Susan/Susannah Riddlesdale. They knew they came from the tiny town of Assington, inside Sussex, but barely so, maybe ten miles from the Essex border. The town's tininess meant no other Frenches left behind would be confused with them. They remembered they'd left behind a uniquely named Jacob French. Their immigrating males had names too common for the men immigrating, yes, Thomas and John have caused lots of wrong mergers of unrelated trees. These are what some genealogy people call "Frankensteins", a Thomas from here, a Mary from there, Johns and Elizabeths put in as "everybody has one".
Their unique male Dna was found in the FFA's table by searching for Assington. The FFA calls them Group 06 (over 15 male testers, most are not from Assington).
All in Grp. 06 are of "Haplogroup G". (G is also seen for Grp. 04, small, fewer testers, whose immigrants rarely went to New England. More characteristics than broad Haplogroup is then needed to separate 06 from 04.).
In contrast, most of males with surname French tested as Haplogroup R, with different subsets inside that. Note that R what's most common for Europeans.
SUMMARY-- As of 2024, Jan., five of six children seem to have been found, two more wrongly added. People studying the mistakes say people are confused by the too many Thomas Frenches, too many with wives called Mary, maiden names not often told.
Track ancestors best by focusing first on ones with unique names, noting rarer geographies as they move. Then look for proof that the person in Place A is indeed the same as the one in Place B, helped by finding a match in in-law name that is uncommon in both places. French was so common that over 20 male different DNAs immigrated here, a number of them in New England. Button proved to be rare.
Unknown descent is handled best by leaving some things empty, not by" fill-in-all-the blanks". Reputed relatives should be called that in bios, not by attaching people with unproven bloodlines or marriage ties.
Above From Findagrave contributor JB, 48697180 in 2024, on Feb.5
From FrenchFamilyAssoc.com (aka FFA, a club separating the trees of unrelated families, different DNAs despite sharing the surname of French), a key line says regarding her spouse's tree:
"Proof of the Button line is based on Guilford land records mentioned in the Boston Transcript, 1910, that William Stone Sr. & Jr. of Guilford testified that "Hannah, Mercy, Deliverance, Sarah, Martha, & Ebenezer French are the children of Mary French and Thomas French and the reputed daughter of Lieutenant John Button of Boston. Oath was taken Nov 22, 1682."
Thus, testified in 1682, fifteen years after her death--
(1) She and her spouse were known otherwise to have had relatives in Boston.
In particular, she was reputed to be daughter of John, not the same as proven.
(2) Five daughters and one son, six total, not more than that.
Those found (allowing alternate names, the Puritan name of Mercy would be substituted for one of the two Marys in the family, when both were discussed)
"Hannah" b.???? Not attached by 2024. Other names could be Anna, Johana, etc
"Mercy" b.1640, attached as Mary, married name Evarts
"Deliverance" b.1648, married name Parks
"Sarah" b.1650, married names Parmelee, then Hayden
"Martha" b.1654, married name Dudley
"Ebenezer French" b.1658, married a Blatchley
(3) Too many are attached? Not on the above testified list of 1682, troubling, as of Jan., 2024. Still living at the time of the 1682 testimonial, their being omitted was not due to having already died:
*Elizabeth French Isbell.
b.1650 d. 1748, ID 159064915
Not bur. close-by, but at Killingsworth.
*John French.
b.1652 d.1727, ID 61366733
Bur. in New Haven County, at Madison, not Guilford.
John and Elizabeth are both in the "too common" category of names. Further causing confusion, that John's cemetery has two "sound-alikes" for Mary Button's testified children(an Ebenezer French who died 1758, a Mary with maiden name Parmelee, b.1682, who in 1707 married his son John the Jr. b.1680.)
NEEDED HAPLOGROUP IS TYPE G. Over 28 distinct and unrelated families with surname French are in the "surname study " supervised by the FFA at FamilyTreeDna.com.
Mary Button's in-laws left behind at Ipswich in Essex County had things solidly known, meaning documented, not merely alleged. Her mother-in-law was known to be Susan/Susannah Riddlesdale. They knew they came from the tiny town of Assington, inside Sussex, but barely so, maybe ten miles from the Essex border. The town's tininess meant no other Frenches left behind would be confused with them. They remembered they'd left behind a uniquely named Jacob French. Their immigrating males had names too common for the men immigrating, yes, Thomas and John have caused lots of wrong mergers of unrelated trees. These are what some genealogy people call "Frankensteins", a Thomas from here, a Mary from there, Johns and Elizabeths put in as "everybody has one".
Their unique male Dna was found in the FFA's table by searching for Assington. The FFA calls them Group 06 (over 15 male testers, most are not from Assington).
All in Grp. 06 are of "Haplogroup G". (G is also seen for Grp. 04, small, fewer testers, whose immigrants rarely went to New England. More characteristics than broad Haplogroup is then needed to separate 06 from 04.).
In contrast, most of males with surname French tested as Haplogroup R, with different subsets inside that. Note that R what's most common for Europeans.
SUMMARY-- As of 2024, Jan., five of six children seem to have been found, two more wrongly added. People studying the mistakes say people are confused by the too many Thomas Frenches, too many with wives called Mary, maiden names not often told.
Track ancestors best by focusing first on ones with unique names, noting rarer geographies as they move. Then look for proof that the person in Place A is indeed the same as the one in Place B, helped by finding a match in in-law name that is uncommon in both places. French was so common that over 20 male different DNAs immigrated here, a number of them in New England. Button proved to be rare.
Unknown descent is handled best by leaving some things empty, not by" fill-in-all-the blanks". Reputed relatives should be called that in bios, not by attaching people with unproven bloodlines or marriage ties.
Above From Findagrave contributor JB, 48697180 in 2024, on Feb.5
"Proof of the Button line is based on Guilford land records mentioned in the Boston Transcript, 1910, that William Stone Sr. & Jr. of Guilford testified that "Hannah, Mercy, Deliverance, Sarah, Martha, & Ebenezer French are the children of Mary French and Thomas French and the reputed daughter of Lieutenant John Button of Boston. Oath was taken Nov 22, 1682."
Thus, testified in 1682, fifteen years after her death--
(1) She and her spouse were known otherwise to have had relatives in Boston.
In particular, she was reputed to be daughter of John, not the same as proven.
(2) Five daughters and one son, six total, not more than that.
Those found (allowing alternate names, the Puritan name of Mercy would be substituted for one of the two Marys in the family, when both were discussed)
"Hannah" b.???? Not attached by 2024. Other names could be Anna, Johana, etc
"Mercy" b.1640, attached as Mary, married name Evarts
"Deliverance" b.1648, married name Parks
"Sarah" b.1650, married names Parmelee, then Hayden
"Martha" b.1654, married name Dudley
"Ebenezer French" b.1658, married a Blatchley
(3) Too many are attached? Not on the above testified list of 1682, troubling, as of Jan., 2024. Still living at the time of the 1682 testimonial, their being omitted was not due to having already died:
*Elizabeth French Isbell.
b.1650 d. 1748, ID 159064915
Not bur. close-by, but at Killingsworth.
*John French.
b.1652 d.1727, ID 61366733
Bur. in New Haven County, at Madison, not Guilford.
John and Elizabeth are both in the "too common" category of names. Further causing confusion, that John's cemetery has two "sound-alikes" for Mary Button's testified children(an Ebenezer French who died 1758, a Mary with maiden name Parmelee, b.1682, who in 1707 married his son John the Jr. b.1680.)
NEEDED HAPLOGROUP IS TYPE G. Over 28 distinct and unrelated families with surname French are in the "surname study " supervised by the FFA at FamilyTreeDna.com.
Mary Button's in-laws left behind at Ipswich in Essex County had things solidly known, meaning documented, not merely alleged. Her mother-in-law was known to be Susan/Susannah Riddlesdale. They knew they came from the tiny town of Assington, inside Sussex, but barely so, maybe ten miles from the Essex border. The town's tininess meant no other Frenches left behind would be confused with them. They remembered they'd left behind a uniquely named Jacob French. Their immigrating males had names too common for the men immigrating, yes, Thomas and John have caused lots of wrong mergers of unrelated trees. These are what some genealogy people call "Frankensteins", a Thomas from here, a Mary from there, Johns and Elizabeths put in as "everybody has one".
Their unique male Dna was found in the FFA's table by searching for Assington. The FFA calls them Group 06 (over 15 male testers, most are not from Assington).
All in Grp. 06 are of "Haplogroup G". (G is also seen for Grp. 04, small, fewer testers, whose immigrants rarely went to New England. More characteristics than broad Haplogroup is then needed to separate 06 from 04.).
In contrast, most of males with surname French tested as Haplogroup R, with different subsets inside that. Note that R what's most common for Europeans.
SUMMARY-- As of 2024, Jan., five of six children seem to have been found, two more wrongly added. People studying the mistakes say people are confused by the too many Thomas Frenches, too many with wives called Mary, maiden names not often told.
Track ancestors best by focusing first on ones with unique names, noting rarer geographies as they move. Then look for proof that the person in Place A is indeed the same as the one in Place B, helped by finding a match in in-law name that is uncommon in both places. French was so common that over 20 male different DNAs immigrated here, a number of them in New England. Button proved to be rare.
Unknown descent is handled best by leaving some things empty, not by" fill-in-all-the blanks". Reputed relatives should be called that in bios, not by attaching people with unproven bloodlines or marriage ties.
Above From Findagrave contributor JB, 48697180 in 2024, on Feb.5
Gravesite Details
Time and weather had erased the location of this grave when part of the cemetery was moved
Family Members
Advertisement
Records on Ancestry
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
