I can relate to that my husbands 3 great grandfather jerimiah davenport and his second wife sara fine snider davenport is a mess... so who do we believe the census the records or the family bibles? if i get information out of the census and then the birth and marriage bonds and all three has different dates what do you do? pam rice church (searching for hubby's family) ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Devenport, Jim" <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:04:58 -0600 >Well, along this thread: >My grandparents were married on 7 August 1910, according to their family >Bible. The marriage certificate, on file at the Chavez County courthouse in >Roswell, NM, signed by the minister who married them, states the wedding >date as 10 Aug 1910. So according to the "official" document, my >grandparents were wrong in recording their wedding as 7 August. Perhaps >that was the day they obtained the marriage license or bond? Who knows? >The only thing I'm pretty certain of in this case is that they were married >on one of these fine days in August. >Errors occur for all sorts of reasons. I noticed that my >great-great-grandmother Permelia Ann Reynolds, in one census recorded while >she was living with her second husband, was listed as "age 39" when in fact >she was 45, according to her family bible information and other censuses. >Might this have anything to do with the fact that her then-new husband >listed his age as 40? Perhaps she fibbed about her age both to younger >husband AND [Heaven Forbid] the census-taker? >In later censuses her age is recorded accurately, but by then she was no >longer wed to a younger man. >Surely she has to have been the only woman in history to have fibbed about >her age or other statistics to a government official? <evil snicker> >Jim Devenport >(DNA participant anxiously awaiting results of the test. Hoping I really AM >a Devenport, and not the milkman's son, as my Dad often joked) > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > >

I will add to this. I have ancestor who from 1850-1880 she when from 22 to 30, Tell me how could she not have age? Her first husband from 1850-1860 when from 23 to 25 She was born after 1838 and he was born c 1828. Now if can not proof by documents that gggreatgrandfather is who you say he is. Then must proof he does not belong to any one else. The DAR, SAR, DAC and DAMES will take this but it is hard but it works janet ariciu www.geocities.com/janet_ariciu ----- Original Message ----- From: Devenport, Jim <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:04 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] RE: Documentation > Well, along this thread: > My grandparents were married on 7 August 1910, according to their family > Bible. The marriage certificate, on file at the Chavez County courthouse in > Roswell, NM, signed by the minister who married them, states the wedding > date as 10 Aug 1910. So according to the "official" document, my > grandparents were wrong in recording their wedding as 7 August. Perhaps > that was the day they obtained the marriage license or bond? Who knows? > The only thing I'm pretty certain of in this case is that they were married > on one of these fine days in August. > Errors occur for all sorts of reasons. I noticed that my > great-great-grandmother Permelia Ann Reynolds, in one census recorded while > she was living with her second husband, was listed as "age 39" when in fact > she was 45, according to her family bible information and other censuses. > Might this have anything to do with the fact that her then-new husband > listed his age as 40? Perhaps she fibbed about her age both to younger > husband AND [Heaven Forbid] the census-taker? > In later censuses her age is recorded accurately, but by then she was no > longer wed to a younger man. > Surely she has to have been the only woman in history to have fibbed about > her age or other statistics to a government official? <evil snicker> > Jim Devenport > (DNA participant anxiously awaiting results of the test. Hoping I really AM > a Devenport, and not the milkman's son, as my Dad often joked) > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Well, along this thread: My grandparents were married on 7 August 1910, according to their family Bible. The marriage certificate, on file at the Chavez County courthouse in Roswell, NM, signed by the minister who married them, states the wedding date as 10 Aug 1910. So according to the "official" document, my grandparents were wrong in recording their wedding as 7 August. Perhaps that was the day they obtained the marriage license or bond? Who knows? The only thing I'm pretty certain of in this case is that they were married on one of these fine days in August. Errors occur for all sorts of reasons. I noticed that my great-great-grandmother Permelia Ann Reynolds, in one census recorded while she was living with her second husband, was listed as "age 39" when in fact she was 45, according to her family bible information and other censuses. Might this have anything to do with the fact that her then-new husband listed his age as 40? Perhaps she fibbed about her age both to younger husband AND [Heaven Forbid] the census-taker? In later censuses her age is recorded accurately, but by then she was no longer wed to a younger man. Surely she has to have been the only woman in history to have fibbed about her age or other statistics to a government official? <evil snicker> Jim Devenport (DNA participant anxiously awaiting results of the test. Hoping I really AM a Devenport, and not the milkman's son, as my Dad often joked)

In a message dated 6/23/03 2:33:02 PM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > Through it I have > wandered back many generations, and found several other descendants of > Davis/Martin/James but so far none of James' daughter Susannah (+Wm Hewell) > and their daughter Charlotte (+John Jouett Pass). Knock, Knock, good buddy. Some of these are my ancestors. I have Hewell, Jouett, and Davenport ancestors. What do you know about William Hewell's ancestors? Jno

Thank you Terri for the very nice reply. I know I don't "pipe up" very often on the list, but I do read all the posts. I can promise you, I've picked the brains and file cabinets of everyone I know and my trusty scanner allows that my copy of a record is just as valid as the original. We also all know that documents are not always available, or still in existence. Sometimes they are just flat out wrong (after all, a census record is just a copy of other people's information by definition). If I post any information I have found, I not only hope for any corrections, I am willing to beg for them. We all want to get it right. Certainly, never take someone's conjectures for gospel, but also remember that group conjectures may be all you'll ever have. I too would never return to purely solo research again. I need the sounding board this forum and others provide. Keep up the good work, Danice Meunier Greenville, SC (and that's documented, lol) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DAVENPORT] Research Hello, I too, am glad that someone brought this up! Documentation is a piece of paper, whether it be a birth certificate, Will, death cert or whatever. If I obtain a copy and send it to my cuzzin Butch, his copy is just as valid as my copy. No difference. It proves the same thing. When I say info on our site is documented, that doesn't necessarily mean it's our documentation, nor should it have to be. The info on our site is a compilation of many Davenport researchers. It is a DavenportFamily site, each person's work is documented by the submitter. I see verification of said documents. This in no way lessens our credibility as putting out the best info we can to the best of our knowledge. In my opinion and in my experience, working alone and documenting your own work, is a very lonely way to go. I've had more fun and met such wonderful people (cuzzins) doing things my way! I will never go back to solo work again. I didn't learn anything in genealogy classes because I didn't go. I wanted to know my family, so I started looking. I found more than I bargained for....lots and lots of cuzzins who without their help, we would never have gotten this far. Keep up the GREAT work cuzzins...and don't forget the documentation......cuzzin Teri ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] >Did you shoot Cliff yet?< I get so many copies from the Davenport site that I can't tell which message is addressed to me, personally, especially when most, if not all of them show a , (comma) in the name slot. Iow, my name is a comma. But no, I have no intention of 'shooting Cliff'. He was absolutely right in his comments AND, he was extremely gentle, and polite. <bg> Winn

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:54, Winifred Auch wrote: > Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > > > > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. > > We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than > others. > > Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't > locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included > in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be > used as a tool to search for specific documentation. > > I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I > knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the > DAVENPORT_L list.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I, Winifred Davenport Auch did not write the above, it was written by Cliff Davenport Winn

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] >Terri said: Hello, > I too, am glad that someone brought this up! > Documentation is a piece of paper, whether it be a birth certificate, Will, > death cert or whatever. If I obtain a copy and send it to my cuzzin Butch, his > copy is just as valid as my copy. No difference. It proves the same thing.<<<<<<< What troubles me is the fact that in spite of all that is written and pretty much accepted as fact, not only here, but also in various genealogical books and writings, ......... there doesn't appear to be a truly *clear* line leading back to the Norman Knight who came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066 and was granted land which today is Cheshire. I for one would like to see more participation leading back to England. I may be a little prejuced since I'm the first Davenport of my family in the US, but I get the feeling that so much effort is expended finding all the smallest details of the US Davenport but not much is said of how they got here. Winn

Did you shoot Cliff yet? -----Original Message----- From: Winifred Auch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Research Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:54, Winifred Auch wrote: > Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > > > > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. > > We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than > others. > > Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't > locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included > in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be > used as a tool to search for specific documentation. > > I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I > knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the > DAVENPORT_L list.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I, Winifred Davenport Auch did not write the above, it was written by Cliff Davenport Winn ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Terri said: Hello, > I too, am glad that someone brought this up! > Documentation is a piece of paper, whether it be a birth certificate, Will, > death cert or whatever. If I obtain a copy and send it to my cuzzin Butch, his > copy is just as valid as my copy. No difference. It proves the same thing. I agree. Not all of us have the physical and/or financial means to obtain every scrap of evidence on our own. Why the duplication of effort? There is always more to pursue. Do that. I don't think anyone can go wrong learning the basics such as are presented by Rootsweb. This lesson explains the difference berween Primary and Secondary evidence and some other key points. Keep up the good work. I appreciate all the researchers and the DNA participants. http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson12.htm Janet Crain --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/2003

What documentation, if any, is there that proves the Dorothy Davenport who married Thomas Baker in North Carolina about 1734 was the daughter of Martin Davenport? Also, looking for documentation that Martin Davenport married Dorothy Harralson. Thomas and Dorothy Baker were my sixth-great-grandparents. Thank you. Mary Redmond [email protected]

Anything published on the Internet should include sources, so you can check on the accuracy. Unfortunately, about 99% of what is published is sourceless. A lot of it is correct, but it can only be used as pointers without the sources. On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:54, Winifred Auch wrote: > Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > > > > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. > > We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than > others. > > Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't > locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included > in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be > used as a tool to search for specific documentation. > > I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I > knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the > DAVENPORT_L list. > > What I'm trying to gently say is that none of us should accept, as fact, > anything someone else has researched and offered to us on a silver platter. > It just is not good genealogy research for anyone to do so. Conclusions and > mistakes are made by the best. > > Grandma used to say "never believe anything you read and only half of what > you see". A little extreme, but not to far from the truth. > > I'm sure this might offend someone, but if I do please tell me how I'm > wrong. > > Cliff Davenport > Mill City, OR<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > You are 100% correct and yes, I too have noticed a certain eagerness to > promote and enhance "the product" that a little carelessness in the whether > the 'ingredients' are genuine has been deemed acceptable. <ssm> > Winn > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Hello, I too, am glad that someone brought this up! Documentation is a piece of paper, whether it be a birth certificate, Will, death cert or whatever. If I obtain a copy and send it to my cuzzin Butch, his copy is just as valid as my copy. No difference. It proves the same thing. When I say info on our site is documented, that doesn't necessarily mean it's our documentation, nor should it have to be. The info on our site is a compilation of many Davenport researchers. It is a DavenportFamily site, each person's work is documented by the submitter. I see verification of said documents. This in no way lessens our credibility as putting out the best info we can to the best of our knowledge. In my opinion and in my experience, working alone and documenting your own work, is a very lonely way to go. I've had more fun and met such wonderful people (cuzzins) doing things my way! I will never go back to solo work again. I didn't learn anything in genealogy classes because I didn't go. I wanted to know my family, so I started looking. I found more than I bargained for....lots and lots of cuzzins who without their help, we would never have gotten this far. Keep up the GREAT work cuzzins...and don't forget the documentation......cuzzin Teri

Dear Cliff I don't think anyone will tell you that your wrong. I do feel when a person post information on a site they are hoping that if they have posted something incorrectly someone with the correct information will follow up. When something is posted incorrectly, I feel the information can be corrected with a simple personal email rather than an attack all over Rootsweb and other sites. I as well as everyone else wants good info, but sometimes we do get wrong information. We need to be able to turn to our fellow researcher's for help. I have been trying to get information on my line of Davenports, but I had to remove my name from the Davenport Rootsweb because of all the emails back and forth with the DNA project. A lot need to be corrected, but consider this it's an avenue of information good or bad that we did not have in the past. Thanks MCannon

I agree with this and am glad someone brought it up Mari D ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff and Mary Jane" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] Research > > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. > > We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than others. > > Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be used as a tool to search for specific documentation. > > I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the DAVENPORT_L list. > > What I'm trying to gently say is that none of us should accept, as fact, anything someone else has researched and offered to us on a silver platter. It just is not good genealogy research for anyone to do so. Conclusions and mistakes are made by the best. > > Grandma used to say "never believe anything you read and only half of what you see". A little extreme, but not to far from the truth. > > I'm sure this might offend someone, but if I do please tell me how I'm wrong. > > Cliff Davenport > Mill City, OR > > > > > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than others. Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be used as a tool to search for specific documentation. I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the DAVENPORT_L list. What I'm trying to gently say is that none of us should accept, as fact, anything someone else has researched and offered to us on a silver platter. It just is not good genealogy research for anyone to do so. Conclusions and mistakes are made by the best. Grandma used to say "never believe anything you read and only half of what you see". A little extreme, but not to far from the truth. I'm sure this might offend someone, but if I do please tell me how I'm wrong. Cliff Davenport Mill City, OR<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< You are 100% correct and yes, I too have noticed a certain eagerness to promote and enhance "the product" that a little carelessness in the whether the 'ingredients' are genuine has been deemed acceptable. <ssm> Winn

I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than others. Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be used as a tool to search for specific documentation. I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the DAVENPORT_L list. What I'm trying to gently say is that none of us should accept, as fact, anything someone else has researched and offered to us on a silver platter. It just is not good genealogy research for anyone to do so. Conclusions and mistakes are made by the best. Grandma used to say "never believe anything you read and only half of what you see". A little extreme, but not to far from the truth. I'm sure this might offend someone, but if I do please tell me how I'm wrong. Cliff Davenport Mill City, OR

Ok, if you can't get thru on AOL, try: [email protected]

terri, Can't get in touch with the aol addy listed. Add to your site what I sent and thanks Gerry

Gerry, I do not find anything in my files, but if you'd like, I could put what you have on our website. Maybe someone will have more. Contact me off list with further details if you'd like to proceed! ([email protected]).......Teri http://www.DavenportFamily.1colony.com