Note: The Rootsweb Mailing Lists will be shut down on April 6, 2023. (More info)
RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 1/1
    1. Re: FW: Re: [COATES-L] RE: [Coates_Coate_Coats] My Coates
    2. Susan McIntyre
    3. I have noticed the 1664 marriage of John Coats & Joane Robinson listed in (I think) the Ancestry.com database and in an online tree. But I think it may be the marriage of a different couple than are being discussed here. If the James Clemson information is correct then he was born in 1654. If the Joan Coats that Clemson married is the widow of the John Coats listed in the 1664 marriage then she would likely have been born between 1644-1649 (assuming she was 15-20 yrs. old when married). James Clemson would have been 10 years old at the time Joan married John Coats. That would mean she was in her 70s when she married James Clemson between 1716-1718 (in 1716 he listed wife named Sarah - in his 1718 will he is aged 64 and his wife is named as Joan) - not impossible but highly unlikely. According the the Clemson information you shared with the list earlier today James Clemson's first marriage was in 1682 to Katherine / by 1716 to Sarah / by 1718 to Joan. The shared data lists his children born between 1685 to around 1705. I would be very cautious in accepting the 1664 marriage as that of the Clemson connection without additional documentation. Charlotte Coats wrote: > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: "brenden1mom2001" <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: FW: Re: [COATES-L] RE: [Coates_Coate_Coats] My Coates > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:02:33 -0000 > > Ok in diging some more I Found the following: > 1. John Coats; m. Joane Robinson 3mo 8 1664 at York Monthly Meeting, > England; 1st husband. > He resided at York, Yorkshire, England. > Joane Robinson married J. Clemson; 2nd husband. She died in 1729 > at Philadelphia, PA. > Known children of John Coats and Joane Robinson were: > 2. i. William Coats, b. 12mo 21 1679 at Yorkshire, > England; m. Mary Smith. > Thanks again I think this seems like it may be a better possibility > than I thought. > > Thanks > Ann

    06/10/2005 05:22:34