Thanks, Nel. I agree that 36 yrs. of childbearing is definitely stretching it a bit. It will be so exciting when we discover more about the paternity of these early FC Beatys--can't wait! Gerri ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [BP2000] L2 Beatys -- BP2000 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 191 > > Hi Gerri, > The real reason the branches of L2 were separated is that there doesn't > seem > to have ever been any primary source documentation that prove them to all > be > brothers. It is possible that some of them might have been grouped > together > only because they were Beatys and lived in the same area at one time. > They > certainly might still all be brothers...but the proof hasn't been found > yet. > I'm sure the consensus of most L2 researchers is that there is probably > some > kind of family relationship between them all...or most of them at least. > > Considering the age span for L2F's James & Phoebe b. 1751/52 and their > proven but unknown older brother; L2B's Andrew b. 1761 & Alexander b. > 1768; and > L2E's John b. 1780, George b. 1783, & David b. 1787, believe the range > would be > more than 36 years and that's what gets somewhat excessive. My computer > program doesn't like using the same mother for a range of children that > broad, > but guess it might be possible although very unusual. There is no proof > that > the father of all these sons had more than one wife as is claimed in some > secondary sources -- but of course that claim is for John Beaty who was > married > to Margaret Montgomery. I believe his paternal connection with these men > has > been disproved. I'm only guessing that the same line of thought could be > transferred to William/Billy Beaty now that he has been proven to be the > father > of at least L2B Alexander & Andrew. > > Anyway, as Nelda says, "to remove arbitrarly due to differences in > ages... > not really smart is it??" No, I agree -- many other things were also > involved > -- but over 36 years of childbearing would be quite a feat even today. > There does also seem to be the possibility that some of them might have > been > arbitrarily connected in the first place due to colocation and that can > be a > problem too. > > It was hoped that the creation of the different branches of L2 would > highlight some errors of the past so they could be corrected and allow > research to > be more easily focused on each group. Hopefully, we will be able to find > information someday that will allow us to reassemble the L2 family. > > Nel Rocklein L2B > > > > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:00:49 -0400 > From: "Gerri Goodwin" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [BP2000] L2 Beatys BP2000 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 189 > To: <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi Nel, > Yes, I do consider myself fortunate to have 3 lines of Beatys. I used to > think I was the Beaty-est person around but I know of someone else who > has 4 > lines, so I guess I can't claim that distinction anymore. : ) > Thanks for all this great info. About L2B, was it indeed the spread of > the > ages of David, George, John, Andrew & Alexander that caused them to be > discounted as all being brothers? During the early part of the 1900s & > prior to that time it wasn't unusual for women in that part of the > country > to have children over a period of 20 yrs. or more. My foster grandmother > had children over a span of 24 yrs. One woman I know of had 20 children > over a span of 28 years. So I, personally, wouldn't rule out the > possibility of the 5 of them being brothers just on the span of their > ages. > The best of luck to you with your research. > Gerri > > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL > at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > When replying to a digest message, quote only the specific message to > which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. > Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides > with the message subject to which you are replying. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >