No sorry, I don't have any information about this line of Blakesley's. Here's my summary: Regards, David David Blakesley -----Original Message----- From: blakesley-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:blakesley-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Owen Kaser Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:09 AM To: blakesley@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BLAKESLEY] Abner Blakeslee's Marriage On 1/24/07, ANITA MCKINNEY <newtonmac@msn.com> wrote: > I am descended from Micajah/Macajah/Micah Blakeslee (1766-1845) and Rhoda Hopkins. His father was Abner Blakeslee (1731-1817) but I'm confused about Abner's wife. I was looking at the Barbour Collection for further info and now I'm really confused. The Waterbury records show that an: > "Abner, s. Jacob, m. Thankfull Peck, d. Sam[ue]ll, Sept. 23, 1755" > > While at the same time, the Plymouth records show an: > "Abner, s. Jacob, m. Thankfull Peeter, d. Samuel, of Waterbury, Sept. 23, 1755" > > It makes more sense that Peck is the correct last name since one of their son, Abner Jr. named a son "Abner Peck" but who knows. > > Does anyone have any insight into this? I think you should view the actual Plymouth record (perhaps on microfilm, if you have an LDS Family History Center near you). My guess is that it's a matter of messy handwriting. Recall that the Barbour records were transcribed in the 1930s as a Depression-era project. (I think.) I don't know how much training the workers received in reading messy old writing... I can imagine how Peck might look like Peet, and maybe the "er" involved the imagination of the transcriber! ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BLAKESLEY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message