|
Ok so this is cool.quote:Family Genealogy Books Jiapu or Zupu家譜: Although many family genealogy books dating from the 9th to 13th centuries to modern times were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, families may have handwritten or printed copies either in the ancestral village or brought with them to the United States. The village birthplace and burial site for each male relative may be listed. The books trace the male lineage from the first progenitor to the present. Wives and sometimes daughters were listed, but matriarchal lines were not usually traced. Those doing Chinese genealogy either get really lucky and go back like 1000+ years if their Jiapu survived and they know their ancestral village or they are SOL because stupid commies.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Yea I got into a wikihole on long genealogies some time ago. There are some really long lines you might connect to around. Several noble & royal lines can be followed back a thousand years or more; I think there are a few somewhat trustworthy Genghis Khan & Confucius/Kung fu-tze lines as well. There's also supposed to be a likely line from the Roman emperors to modern times via patricians in the Gaul colonies. Also of course, most european royals are supposed to descend from the prophet Mohammad, and via the royals, most American presidents. They say half of Europe descends from Genghis Khan or Charlemagne, but the hard task is proving the lineage. Here in Denmark, there's a very well-researched book (Nachkommen Gorms des Alten, I.-XVI. Generation by Sixten Brenner) that documents the descendants of the last pagan king of Denmark Gorm the Old down to the 16th generation (mid 1400s iirc). Some are able to reach that, but it's hard, as church records generally don't start until the mid 1600s. You'll need to dig deep into the weird old archives to get the connection. But it'll be cool just to be able to say it and document the exact line. So far no royalty and no nobility between my ancestors, but loads of cool and weird stories and amazing puzzles to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:Yea I got into a wikihole on long genealogies some time ago. There are some really long lines you might connect to around. I haven’t proven any nobility myself, but I have been handed down a tree that purports to show noble roots. The only problem? Two (currently) undocumented links between about 1610 and 1690 and a guy living around 1790 who has, so far, evaded any attempts to firmly confirm his birth parents. But if I can successfully nail down those people and link them to the one noble who lost his lands after the Battle of White Mountain, the rest of that tree (back to 1402) should fall into place, as there are several old encyclopedia entries and such that summarize that family. And hey! At least I have names for these people, so I have SOMETHING to work with. Someday the Plzeň archive will get around to digitizing the manorial records that will be able to prove or disprove it all, but so far no dice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
One of the kids from my maternal Grandfather's secret family just messaged me that his official birth record has a mother listed that none of us have heard of! I have to see if I can get a copy of that thing because that will make a cool Mother's Day Gift for my Mom. EDIT: I found a death notice for Mystery Mom which gave me her maiden name. I can't see any way she could've been my grandfather's mother. Wrong places, wrong times. Really weird though. Dick Trauma fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jan 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
It's risky going down the royalty hole. Cursory investigations link me to like everyone. Heck, I may be JFK's 17th cousin twice removed (the Kennedy's were Scottish before they were Irish). Although I think once you get to 17th cousin twice removed you're probably among millions of descendants. I've been pretty bad at documenting my sources and I'm trying to redo several family trees with collaborating evidence. Unfortunately too much of my evidence is relying on other family trees that may or may not be accurate. My wife's family is isolated to Vermont, but I found a whole slew of other lines with the same surname that almost certainly interconnect, but I can't find the link. One family tree I uncovered links her oldest ancestor to these other lines through a second marriage, but multiple other family trees don't connect the two. You'd think it'd be easier since if he did remarry, the reason why was his son beating his daughter-in-law to death and the mom helping cover it up. It was one of the early murder trials in New England and is even included in at least one scholarly book. "In Windsor (Vt.) Mrs. Lamphere, wife of George L. Having died on Sunday, she was buried on Monday; but suspicions arising, her body was taken up some days after, and examined by a jury of physicians, who reported that she came to her death by blows received on her left side and across her back; that those blows were probably given by her husband, and that his mother was accessory thereto. They were both committed to Woodstock gaol." The jury found them not-guilty and he later remarried.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Plzeň should have p good odds I think, afaik there's a lot of records in that area that survived the tooth of time (obv also a lot that didn't).Dick Trauma posted:One of the kids from my maternal Grandfather's secret family just messaged me that his official birth record has a mother listed that none of us have heard of! I have to see if I can get a copy of that thing because that will make a cool Mother's Day Gift for my Mom. Seems like he got around! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:It's risky going down the royalty hole. Cursory investigations link me to like everyone. Heck, I may be JFK's 17th cousin twice removed (the Kennedy's were Scottish before they were Irish). Although I think once you get to 17th cousin twice removed you're probably among millions of descendants. Wow "nice". That's a really cool family story (no sarcasm) imo, the main rules are: - never accept other genealogists' work without verifying every single fact yourself (birth, marriage, death, military, census, whatever, all of them) - not a huge fan of online trees, there's a lot of sloppy amateurs who just click everything and make a mess for everyone else - surnames can jump weirdly. in many germanic & nordic areas, they can jump from wife to husband, from farmer to the next unrelaterd farmer on the same lot, etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:Wow "nice". That's a really cool family story (no sarcasm) The best family stories are the bad ones. quote:imo, the main rules are: Yeah, I can stretch back to the 1600's with strong confidence. Beyond that it's mostly entertainment value. However I will say genealogical research is advancing at a really fast pace. Like fruitless searches made 2 or 3 years ago are showing actual quality sources now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:The best family stories are the bad ones. Hell yeah. I have 2 suicides; a drunken vagabond who broke into houses & stole booze several times over a 20 year period; a strange drunk+violent couple who beat on each other, their neighbors, the husband's apprentices, everyone; a married but childless 65 year old dude who got a 25 year old woman pregnant but then bequeathed his entire estate to the unborn child, whose mother he let marry another dude in his own house (required royal permission); a woman who appears to have faked her domestic staff/servant papers & prisoned for it... that's the stuff I'm looking for! So far I have all my branches back to great4, still looking for 3 couples to complete the great5-parents. Some go further, but mostly by the work of others. My personal furthest research is my great11-grandfather David Villumsen (fl. 1588–1660).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:Plzeň should have p good odds I think, afaik there's a lot of records in that area that survived the tooth of time (obv also a lot that didn't). Yeah, the manorial records in question to assist with one of the consist of 2.8m of shelving dating back to 1712 and another with 172m of shelving dating back to 1622 (both early enough to at least figure out what is up with that guy living in the 1790s). I’m less certain about what I’m going to do when I actually do get back to the 17th century for certain though, since these families seem relatively mobile for people whose occupation is “farming” and manorial records start getting spotty at that point (see: 1712 for the one estate). But it’s all moot so long as they keep not actually digitizing these records. I don’t care about the land records from Rokycany guys, gosh! The waiting game I have to play with Archion and these other digitization efforts is really the hardest part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:But it’s all moot so long as they keep not actually digitizing these records. I don’t care about the land records from Rokycany guys, gosh! ugh loving same fwiw, FamilySearch has had volunteers around Danish archives in recent years to digitize stuff; there was a pensioned mormon couple that digitized probably a million pages from the Copenhagen archives. All quid pro quo; FamilySearch gets a copy (with restrictions to not puplicize newer than 75 years) & the Copenhagen Municipal archives saves the money. Imo pretty cool. I hear Ancestry.com are doing a similar thing with the Nat'l archives church records (they're online now, scanned from the old 1940s mormon films but some of those are very very used and almost impossible to read so a new color digitization will be excellent). MyHeritage has been doing a census index thing for Denmark but their dataset is turning out to be a mess so idk what's gonna happen there. anyway, seems like there's a lot of energy in genealogy data these days so huzzah
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
I am loving to read about all these successes!Krankenstyle posted:Wow "nice". That's a really cool family story (no sarcasm) i.e. my mother. I will have so much work ahead of me. But it helps she is more open to criticism after she ran down one rabbit hole to "Odin". She is being a lot more careful. Now to figure out where the Berber haplotypes came from...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
Oracle posted:FYI there are a LOT of loving O’Learys in this goddamn country. How the hell one county in Ireland managed to send like a million people to the U.S. it’s like there must’ve been a baby production line cuz the place is just not that big it would’ve been standing room only. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmkBZQM7UBM
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Now to figure out where the Berber haplotypes came from... lol yea i cant speak to your genes
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
Any good resources on deciphering old english writing? I have some record images from 1600's and can't figure out what they say
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Handwritten I assume? I've taught myself how to read old Danish "gothic" cursive (back to 1500-1600) but it's taken a lot of time and practice! Basically, you'll want some good representative images of lettering from the period. Then start identifying single letters and words in the text while transcribing/making notes in a separate document. Don't worry if a word doesn't make sense at first, just go on to the next one. Do multiple passes, and refine the transcription each time. As content becomes clearer, so do the missing words. As you do it more & more, the better you get at it & after a while you won't need the reference alphabet handy. Some writters are incorrigible, though. This page took something like 90 minutes to decipher, some sections requiring 5+ passes:  Here's an example of English lettering from FamilySearch: http://broadcast.lds.org/elearning/...s_and_1600s.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Any good resources on deciphering old english writing? I have some record images from 1600's and can't figure out what they say The Bodleian has some helpful pages on Secretary Hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Or you can just join the facebook group 'Genealogy Translations' and ask them for help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:Some writters are incorrigible, though. This page took something like 90 minutes to decipher, some sections requiring 5+ passes:
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, much appreciated. Anyone have any ideas? Trying to pin down the wife's first name and can't figure it out. Pricilla is a likely option. Some docs have transcribed it as Phillip and Phillipa I have 2 baptism records of her children as well that are not any better. This is what I know John Bridge son of John Bridge of Rayne......... married 30 day of September I'm checking out those other resources as well.  https://imgur.com/oRIYXKX Also, I just paid for a 24 hour sub to the Essex England digital archive, if anyone bychance needs something from there, hit me up
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Oracle posted:That's downright beautiful compared to some of the poo poo I've had to wade through. True, most of the letters are fairly legible. The biggest problems are the unconventional spelling (even for the time) and the at times seemingly random punctuation/spacing. Worst I've ever had to work with is copyist Carl Mohr who worked for the Copenhagen probate commission in the 1840s. His hand is practically stenographic:  It's hard to work out the place names as I have no knowledge of what even exists nearby, but an attempt at the names: quote:Marriages 1618 ye is a ligature of thorn with an e above it. e: wrote in my guesses at the places Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Anyone have any ideas? Trying to pin down the wife's first name and can't figure it out. Pricilla is a likely option. E: very beaten
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
I think I'm making progress. Here's another image of the same info, I think it came from an index but it might be a little clearer https://i.imgur.com/DSTV9ed.png John Bridge, son of John Bridge, of Rayne <?> finch (f???h) daughter of Thomas of B??? (This could be, and most likely be Braintree), as Rayne, Braintree, Earls Colne are all in the Essex parish and pretty close to each other. edit: breaking tables
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
I read her first name as Martha. You're probably right on her surname as Finch, they often doubled Ffs ffor some reason back then. Braintree's good as well. Might be spelled "Branntree", hard to see if there's a dot because of the Rayne-y from above. So it's "Brayntreed" in the earlier clipping.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Thanks again, I'm going to see what I can dig up with Martha as the first name. Pricilla doesn't seem to be a common name back then, Martha makes more sense. The way folks switched names at will is frustrating as well when digging through stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:True, most of the letters are fairly legible. The biggest problems are the unconventional spelling (even for the time) and the at times seemingly random punctuation/spacing. Fffffuck this poo poo. I'm pleased as punch when I look up a record and find that it was typewritten. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Fffffuck this poo poo. Yeah that's like, every old German record I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Oracle posted:That's downright beautiful compared to some of the poo poo I've had to wade through. Kurrent is the devil’s hand.  Still bashing my head on this particular page and others like it. I read similarly to Krankenstyle: quote:Marriages 1618 skipdogg posted:I think I'm making progress. Here's another image of the same info, I think it came from an index but it might be a little clearer I read as: quote:John Bridge sonn of John Bridge of Rayne } Note that the double “f” is intentional in both cases. In early modern handwriting, there was no easy way to differentiate a lowercase “f” from and uppercase “F”. Therefore, the custom was to use a doubled “ff” to stand for capital “F”. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Looking around Braintree on a map, perhaps John Bridge the younger (in the first excerpt) is “of Felsted”? I’m still not certain whether or not the “moor” that I read should actually read “were”, but only because the full place name doesn’t make much more sense without the “moor”, and “were” seems like a stretch to read from that. EDIT: Now that I think of it, if that second clipping is from a duplicate register, I could definitely see the first reading “Brayntreed wear” instead of “Brangetford moor” or something similar. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
I'm not sure it matters after digging around more. Margaret/Mary/Martha isn't lining up with the baptism records of the John Bridge and sons I'm trying to figure out. Seems like all these guys had children named John or Thomas, one guy even named 2 of his kids Thomas. He calls them Thomas the elder, and Thomas the younger in his will.... basically impossible to straighten out with what little is available back then. The closest I can figure is this is Philis. The dates and location match up somewhat (wedding 30 Sep 1618, christening 2 Apr 1620) , but the names don't.  https://i.imgur.com/YbC4lTo.png edit: I think the 2nd clipping is from an index that was created a while after the original entry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Kurrent is the devil’s hand. That is beautifully hard to read. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:´Note that the double “f” is intentional in both cases. In early modern handwriting, there was no easy way to differentiate a lowercase “f” from and uppercase “F”. Therefore, the custom was to use a doubled “ff” to stand for capital “F”. Weird, here they were used pretty much always at the time. skipdogg posted:I'm not sure it matters after digging around more. Margaret/Mary/Martha isn't lining up with the baptism records of the John Bridge and sons I'm trying to figure out. I'm fairly sure this says "Walther the son of John Bridge ye Philis his wife was bapt." but that's a strange word order for sure. Another good secretary hand guide with examples of abbreviations: https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/mediawiki/media/images_pedia_folgerpedia_mw/2/21/Alphabet_Abbreviations.pdf e: Could be the ye ligature is actually a strange &-ligature: "Walther, the son of John Bridge & Phillis his wife, was baptised." Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
As for the possibly several John Bridges: I don't know how it was in England, but in contemporary Denmark you basically only had your baptismal given name (assuming you weren't a noble or something). All other names were bynames, the most common one being the patronymic. Sometimes they'd need to disambiguate or what not, so there'd also be geographic, occupational, etc bynames. If England was similar, Bridge could be a geographic byname, ie. he lived near the bridge... And of course one could be junior & the other senior. And then sometimes, it just doesn't make sense. I'm researcing a specific surname on a specific island over a 150 year period, and I've identified at least 10 identically named men. One way to split them up is to list all sponsors/witnesses for their events to see if there are obvious groupings. Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Feb 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:e: Could be the ye ligature is actually a strange &-ligature: "Walther, the son of John Bridge & Phillis his wife, was baptised." Probably a Tironian et.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Probably a Tironian et. Yeah agreed, that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:As for the possibly several John Bridges: I don't know how it was in England, but in contemporary Denmark you basically only had your baptismal given name (assuming you weren't a noble or something). All other names were bynames, the most common one being the patronymic. Sometimes they'd need to disambiguate or what not, so there'd also be geographic, occupational, etc bynames. I'm 100% sure there were multiple John Bridges around the area. Just trying to straighten them out is impossible. Frankly I find it amazing that records dating back to the 1500's even exist, so it's really really cool to try to figure this out. Supposedly the Bridge surname can be traced back to the Bridge Sollers region of England. Going back further that area was given to Simon de Brugge and his ancestors, (who supposedly came from the city of Bruges or it's area) which was part of Flanders/Belgium way back in the day. Brugges and it's various spellings is/was Dutch for Bridge, and I've seen different spellings of Brugges, Brydges, Bridge in documents and records. The House of Flanders which controlled the area that is now Bruges, Belgium supposedly helped William The Conqueror, and it's possible that an ancient <unknown> de bruge earned land/title for his helping during the invasion. The theory is over the years de brugge morphed into Bridge/Brydge. Bridge Sollers got it's name after a Bridge male married Mary Sollers in the late 1200's. Apologies for the following ramble, I doubt anyone is interested, but I think it'll be helpful for me to just type this stuff out and try to sort it out in my head. So a bit of background, I'm researching John Bridge the Puritan (Deacon John Bridge), who came to America circa 1633/1634 as part of the great migration, and well there's a ton totally incorrect information about his origins. His life and family after coming to America is well documented, but his life in England is pretty much a mystery. Some Ancestry trees (I have a love/hate relationship with ancestry trees), have his lineage going back to the 1200's and a Sir Simon De Brugge, and some other Brydges (possibly giles brydge a baron of chandos at one point)in the area. It's all conjecture and not even closely based on fact from what I've found. It's possible some relationship exists, but would be impossible to prove. For instance, his birthday is totally incorrect on his statue located at Harvard, but that was placed there like 200 years afterwards by a decedent of his. I'm 99% sure the birthday of his is wrong, the dates just don't make sense. Supporting this argument are a few we know about him - 2 sons, Matthew born circa 1620 to unknown mother, Thomas born circa 1622 to unknown mother. (I have the christening records, but as ya'll have seen, hard to figure out) Both sons came to America with him - Widowed prior to 1633/1634 trip to America - I found a burial record for a Margaret Bridge Jan 1630/1631 that list John as a spouse. This matches a 1618 marriage record of John Bridge and Mary/Margaret, but the christening records mention a Philis as the wife. Dates line up, names don't. It would be very odd for someone back then to wait until they were 44 years old (assuming the 1576 birth date is correct) to have children. He also would have been in his late 50's at the time he came to America which doesn't pass the smell test either. I'm sure some folks that age might have made the trip, but in a time where people didn't have the life expectancy they do now I cast doubt. While I don't have an exact date of his birth or christening, I did find a will of John Bridge Sr (d. 1614), that gives a farm/land to his son John Bridge Jr (Who I think is John Bridge the Puritan). I don't know how old you had to be back then to own land, but assuming it was 18, one can estimate a birth year of 1595 give or take a couple years. A 1595 birth date makes more sense when thinking about the birth of the 2 sons, and age in the mid/late 30's when going to America. It would have put his age at a more reasonable age around 70 years old at the time of his death as well. Keying in on the land deed records of the property referred to as "Tredgall Fenn" in old documents, a Thomas Bridge (d. 1580) willed it to John Bridge Sr, who willed it to John Bridge Jr. The property was sold around 1634/1635 which could match up with John Bridge the Puritan leaving for America in mid 1633. The dates are rough sometimes, and court was only held a few times a year from what I can tell. Supposedly John Bridge the Puritan, came to America with Rev. Thomas Hooker as a member of the Braintree or Hooker Party. It's known that Hooker and his party left Downs, England aboard the Griffin abt July 1633 and landed at Plymouth Sept 4 1633. No passenger list for the 1633 voyage seems to exist. Some people think he didn't get to America until later in 1634 based on his selectman application (Mar 1634/35), but no proof has been found. It is possible though as local church records show a John Bridge in attendance at some functions after summer 1633, but dry up 1635 and later. Something else that's been bothering me about trying to link all this together is the distance and towns of the area. The land "Tredgall Fenn" is in the Earls Colne region of Essex, which is about 6 miles away from Braintree, and 8 miles from Rayne. I don't know how mobile folks were back then. Regarding the potential marriage link of a John Bridge Jr of the Earls Colne region and a Martha of Rayne (8 miles away), not sure if that was common. The marriage record also lists John Bridge as being from Rayne, not Earls Colne. It's very possible these were 2 different people, but the dates do line up. Anyway, I'm at the point where I can disprove the information for John Bridge that's plastered all over the place, but I can't prove my current theory. The common names of John and Thomas just make things difficult to keep straight. I found records for what I'm assuming are 3 Bridge brothers in the Earls Colne area. Alby/Albon (b before 1540 d 1581), William (d1580), and Thomas (d1575), and all 3 of them had kids named Thomas and John. Thomas (d1575) named 2 of his kids Thomas to make things even more confusing. It is fun trying to figure it all out though. Anyone done a Y-DNA test? I did the ancestry one, but I was thinking the Y-DNA might help tracing paternal lineage more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
The baptismal records don’t list sponsors/witnesses to use for separating the two Johns?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:So a bit of background, I'm researching John Bridge the Puritan (Deacon John Bridge), who came to America circa 1633/1634 as part of the great migration, and well there's a ton totally incorrect information about his origins. I wasn’t sure if this is what you were doing, but if so, you should definitely go mucking about in the Massachusetts court, land and probate records for him and allied families. I’ve been doing a bit of reading literature on a couple of other Puritans lately (not to do new research per se, but just to properly cite stuff that goes into my tree). You’d be surprised how a number of conclusions have ended up falling together from these sorts of inferences from American records. When you get a chance, you should take a look at the various articles Clarence Almon Torrey wrote for The American Genealogist in the mid 1930s on the English origins of Edward Gilman, Samuel Lincoln and the wives of Rev. Peter Hobart. (They should all be easily found in the American Ancestors databases by those names) Some of his lines of reasoning in each of these cases might give you some ideas for new angles of research.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:The baptismal records don’t list sponsors/witnesses to use for separating the two Johns? Unfortunately not, the baptismal records are just single line entries that read "Thomas son of John Bridge and <wifename> his wife was baptized 9 of November" No actual birth dates, maiden wife names, witnesses, nada. ComradeCosmobot posted:I wasn’t sure if this is what you were doing, but if so, you should definitely go mucking about in the Massachusetts court, land and probate records for him and allied families. He's pretty well researched, or so I thought anyway. Robert Charles Anderson's comments on him is what got me started digging. For instance the Elizabeth Bridge that also came to America that was supposedly his sister. No record of that. If he's actually John Bridge Jr, John Bridge Sr's will only mentions 2 sisters of his, Susan and Thomasine. There was an Elizabeth Bridge born circa 1596, daughter of one of the many Thomas Bridge in the area, who very likely was a close cousin. Not uncommon even today for close cousins to refer to each other as brother or sister.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
skipdogg posted:He's pretty well researched, or so I thought anyway. Robert Charles Anderson's comments on him is what got me started digging. Yeah Anderson is good but not perfect. For example, he’s hesitant to peg the second wife of John Leavitt of Hingham as Sarah Gilman, claiming that the association of John with (his brother-in-law) Daniel Cushing is interesting but not enough to be certain. This would be true if this was all we knew, but Anderson apparently is not aware of the fact that the court records of old Norfolk County (and, by proxy, the published, collected probate records of New Hampshire) explicitly have John Leavitt of Hingham acquiescing to the administration of Sarah’s father’s estate in Exeter, New Hampshire (the aforementioned Edward Gilman) by his wife Mary, after the court requested that Gilman’s children explicitly do so. I can only assume he either is just recapitulating others’ published research (I don’t believe the Gilman estate administration has been published as part of a sketch on Gilman or Leavitt, although the record itself has been published twice; most of the Gilman research cribs from research first published in the 1800s) or hasn’t really completed research on post-1634 Great Migration participants (Gilman immigrated in 1638).
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2018 21:31
|
|