This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5FE1E3FE52E8A8E09B3DFFAB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------5FE1E3FE52E8A8E09B3DFFAB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <STREET-L-request@rootsweb.com> Delivered-To: utrainbow@mail-dnvr.uswest.net Received: (qmail 1617 invoked by uid 0); 6 Mar 2000 07:59:36 -0000 Received: from mail9.uswest.net (204.147.80.27) by pop.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 07:59:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 5298 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 07:59:35 -0000 Received: from bl-11.rootsweb.com (209.85.6.27) by mail9.uswest.net with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 07:59:35 -0000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-11.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27061; Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:55:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:55:36 -0800 (PST) Resent-Message-ID: <9oBZt.A.UmG.4R2w4@bl-11.rootsweb.com> Resent-From: STREET-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: STREET-L-request@rootsweb.com Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:55:06 EST Message-ID: <2f.249801a.25f4be5a@aol.com> From: RESpeese@aol.com To: STREET-L@rootsweb.com Old-To: MSJASPER-L@rootsweb.com, SPEESE-L@rootsweb.com, STREET-L@rootsweb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 67 Subject: [STREET] State Civil War Rosters Reply-To: STREET-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <STREET-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/1820 X-Loop: STREET-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Civil War Rosters - Arranged by State Civil War Rosters - Arranged by State http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/3680/cw/cw.html Blessings, Bob RE Speese --------------5FE1E3FE52E8A8E09B3DFFAB--

Thanks

When anyone on the list asks or answers a question, it goes to the whole list. It isn't intended for you individually, just as general information. MargoBelle

I don't know these people .

This is not for me---- not my family

I AM GETTING NOWHERE WITH MY SEARCH, I HAVE EVEN CONTACTED DR. MARSH ABOUT MY DAVENPORT'S BUT WITH NO LUCK. I AM DAVID DAVENPORT I WAS BORN IN ANNISTON ALABAMA, MY DAD IS HOWARD DAVENPORT, BORN IN CULLMAN ALABAMA, HIS FATHER WAS KENNETH DAVENPORT ALSO BORN IN CULLMAN. I BELIEVE THE NEXT ONE IS MARSHALL DAVENPORT, BUT IM NOT SURE AND THAT IS ALL HAVE TO GO ON. CAN YOU PLEASE HELP? ----- Original Message ----- From: <MargoBelle@aol.com> To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 11:22 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] Land Patents > Here is the website address of a great site for searching land patents from > 1820 to 1908. It only includes about half the states at this point, but > other research sites for all the states are listed. > > It's at: > http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/search.asp > > Once you find the land patent record, you can print a copy of the actual > document right off your screen! Also, don't miss the last entry under > States, it says "All States" so you can search all the states listed at once! > > > This is a very valuable resource for genealogists. > > MargoBelle > >

I am looking for ancestors of Robert DAVENPORT who had a daughter who married Robert BRADBURY who was born abt 1405 Derbyshire, Eng. Carolyn Nelson

Hal, (again!) After I wrote my reply, I went back to Gen Forum to see what I could find and there IS a will for Thomas Philbrick of Hampton, 1663. In it he mentions his daughter Elizabeth Garland! Mary Lou ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack W. Ralph <Jack@Ralph.org> To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:32 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] Fw: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > Dear Cousins, > > I received the message below from Hal Bradley, who was not a member of > this group when he sent it, but now is. > > I hope that some of you "gurus" out there will be able to shed some > light on Hal's observations and conclusion. I hope that all replies are > made "on the list", so that I (and every other interested party) can > read them too. If you *must* reply privately (due to email program > settings and not exchange of personal information), I would appreciate > you adding me to your cc list. I am as interested in resolving this > "Elizabeth" problem as anyone else and would like to make my database as > accurate as possible. > > Nevada Jack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hal Bradley <hwbradley@bigfoot.com> > To: <nvjack@intercomm.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 11:16 AM > Subject: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > > > > I was hoping you could help me out with something. I descend from > > Nathaniel Berry and Elizabeth Philbrick. There seems to be some > > confusion on her identity. Noyes' "Genealogical Dictionary of Maine & > > New Hampshire" on p. 545 states that either Elizabeth, daughter of > James > > and Ann (Roberts) Philbrick, b. 24 Jul 1666 or Elizabeth, daughter of > > Thomas and Ann (Knapp) Philbrick, b. 3 May 1667 is the wife of > Nathaniel > > Berry. > > > > As you have noted on your website, there is a problem with the dates > of > > Thomas' daughters. Elizabeth is born 1 Nov 1663. The next child is > also > > named Elizabeth, b. 3 May 1667. A death date for Elizabeth, daughter > of > > Thomas is recorded for 21 May 1667. It is unlikely that Thomas would > > name another daughter Elizabeth, unless the first Elizabeth is already > > dead. I think that the first Elizabeth died unrecorded. The recorded > > death date of 21 May 1667 is for the second daughter Elizabeth. Thus, > > Thomas had no daughter named Elizabeth that reached maturity. this > > conclusion is partially substantiated in Jacob Chapman's "A Genealogy > of > > the Philbrick and Philbrook Families," p. 11, where he identifies > > Elizabeth, b. 1667, " died as infant." However, he does not show the > > daughter Elizabeth, born in 1663. > > > > The conclusion would then be that James' daughter Elizabeth, must be > the > > wife of Nathaniel Berry, since Thomas did not have a daughter > Elizabeth > > that lived to adulthood. > > > > The one thing that would refute this conclusion is if Thomas had a > will > > which named his daughter Elizabeth. Did Thomas have a will identifying > > his daughter Elizabeth? > > > > Thank you for taking the time to help me resolve this issue. > > > > Hal Bradley > > > > > > >

Dear Jack, I would like to direct this to Hal..if I 'm reading you correctly, he's now on the Davenport list. (?) I have a really odd coincidence. My husband's family (whose name is Garland) have an Elizabeth Philbrick , of her birthplace I am uncertain, but she was married in Hampton , NH. However the date is too early: Oct 26, 1652. You mention a book "Genealogy of Philbrick and Philbrook Families". I would love to know if she is mentioned in it. She first married a man named Chapman (above date) and then on the same date in 1654, married John Garland, Sr. Her father's name was Thomas Philbrick and her mother Elizabeth Knopp. Naturally, we are curious to know if our families were connected .....way back when!!! For any information, Thanks! Sincerely, Mary Lou Garland ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack W. Ralph <Jack@Ralph.org> To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Fw: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > Dear Cousins (again), > > I apologize for the message I send a short while ago. It was meant for > a different list. > > One of the problems of maintaining multiple lists (and getting old) is > that I occasionally make mistakes. Look on the bright side; Nevada Jack > is as "human" as everyone else :-) > > Jack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jack W. Ralph <Jack@Ralph.org> > To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 6:32 PM > Subject: [DAVENPORT] Fw: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > > > > Dear Cousins, > > > > I received the message below from Hal Bradley, who was not a member of > > this group when he sent it, but now is. > > > > I hope that some of you "gurus" out there will be able to shed some > > light on Hal's observations and conclusion. I hope that all replies > are > > made "on the list", so that I (and every other interested party) can > > read them too. If you *must* reply privately (due to email program > > settings and not exchange of personal information), I would appreciate > > you adding me to your cc list. I am as interested in resolving this > > "Elizabeth" problem as anyone else and would like to make my database > as > > accurate as possible. > > > > Nevada Jack > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Hal Bradley <hwbradley@bigfoot.com> > > To: <nvjack@intercomm.com> > > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 11:16 AM > > Subject: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > > > > > > > I was hoping you could help me out with something. I descend from > > > Nathaniel Berry and Elizabeth Philbrick. There seems to be some > > > confusion on her identity. Noyes' "Genealogical Dictionary of Maine > & > > > New Hampshire" on p. 545 states that either Elizabeth, daughter of > > James > > > and Ann (Roberts) Philbrick, b. 24 Jul 1666 or Elizabeth, daughter > of > > > Thomas and Ann (Knapp) Philbrick, b. 3 May 1667 is the wife of > > Nathaniel > > > Berry. > > > > > > As you have noted on your website, there is a problem with the dates > > of > > > Thomas' daughters. Elizabeth is born 1 Nov 1663. The next child is > > also > > > named Elizabeth, b. 3 May 1667. A death date for Elizabeth, daughter > > of > > > Thomas is recorded for 21 May 1667. It is unlikely that Thomas would > > > name another daughter Elizabeth, unless the first Elizabeth is > already > > > dead. I think that the first Elizabeth died unrecorded. The recorded > > > death date of 21 May 1667 is for the second daughter Elizabeth. > Thus, > > > Thomas had no daughter named Elizabeth that reached maturity. this > > > conclusion is partially substantiated in Jacob Chapman's "A > Genealogy > > of > > > the Philbrick and Philbrook Families," p. 11, where he identifies > > > Elizabeth, b. 1667, " died as infant." However, he does not show the > > > daughter Elizabeth, born in 1663. > > > > > > The conclusion would then be that James' daughter Elizabeth, must be > > the > > > wife of Nathaniel Berry, since Thomas did not have a daughter > > Elizabeth > > > that lived to adulthood. > > > > > > The one thing that would refute this conclusion is if Thomas had a > > will > > > which named his daughter Elizabeth. Did Thomas have a will > identifying > > > his daughter Elizabeth? > > > > > > Thank you for taking the time to help me resolve this issue. > > > > > > Hal Bradley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

David: I sent this message earlier, giving some ideas for doing research on your family, evidently you didn't receive it so I'm re-sending it: Because you are starting from square one, it's easier to research one couple at a time, starting with your own parents first, then your grandparents Kenneth Davenport and Rose Anna Russell. After you have what you're looking for on them, then branch out to one set of great-grandparents at a time. This makes your project more manageable. Probably the first thing to do, if you haven't already, is obtain both your grandparents' death certificates from the Dept. of Public Health in Montgomery, 205-261-5033. They have birth & death records since 1908. This might possibly give you their parents names & some other information. Then I'd get the application for both their Social Security numbers. There will also be some genealogical information on that such as their parents names, birthplaces, dates, etc. Since you have the number, I think it will only cost $7.50. They are in Baltimore, check the Social Security website for address. Then you might try writing or contacting the Southeast Alabama Genealogical Society, P. O. Box 143, Dothan, Al. 36302. Ask them for the name of the public library in Ozark and see what they have also. Then get their obituary, if you don't already have it, from the local newspaper. The library can tell you where to contact them. If Kenneth & Rose Anna were married in Cullman, try contacting the County Clerk in Cullman County for their marriage records. They're located at 500 2nd Avenue SW, Cullman Al. 36049. Start with the period 1-2 years before their first child was born. These are two good Alabama websites to check out: http://www.rootsweb.com/roots-l/USA/al.html http://segenealogy.com/al.htm Good luck. MargoBelle In a message dated 3/5/00 10:08:34 PM Central Standard Time, daviddav@flinthills.com writes: > I AM GETTING NOWHERE WITH MY SEARCH, I HAVE EVEN CONTACTED DR. MARSH ABOUT > MY DAVENPORT'S BUT WITH NO LUCK. I AM DAVID DAVENPORT I WAS BORN IN > ANNISTON ALABAMA, MY DAD IS HOWARD DAVENPORT, BORN IN CULLMAN ALABAMA, HIS > FATHER WAS KENNETH DAVENPORT ALSO BORN IN CULLMAN. I BELIEVE THE NEXT ONE > IS MARSHALL DAVENPORT, BUT IM NOT SURE AND THAT IS ALL HAVE TO GO ON. CAN > YOU PLEASE HELP?

Here is the website address of a great site for searching land patents from 1820 to 1908. It only includes about half the states at this point, but other research sites for all the states are listed. It's at: http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/search.asp Once you find the land patent record, you can print a copy of the actual document right off your screen! Also, don't miss the last entry under States, it says "All States" so you can search all the states listed at once! This is a very valuable resource for genealogists. MargoBelle

Judy, Here's the list again: Grandfather: John Bowler Davenport/Aura Mae Hampton b:June 10, 1899 in Boone Co., Mo. G-grandfather: Samuel Turner Davenport/Caroline Emley Russell b: Nov. 14, 1853 Boone Co., Mo. GG-grandfather: James B. Davenport/Telitha Turner b: 1816 in Kentucky GGG-grandfather: John Davenport/Nancy March b: April 24, 1793 in VA GGGG-grandfather: Stephen Davenport/Esther Verlinda Wynn b: Nov. 24, 1749 in St. Mary's Maryland GGGGG-grandfather: Abraham Davenport/Mary Simms b: May 28, 1714 in Shropshire, England. Was an error in my typing. Sorry. Hope we can connect. Betty > -----Original Message----- > From: Judy Bates [mailto:judyb@inficad.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 12:53 AM > To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [DAVENPORT] Betty Kokal's Ancestors > > > I am interested in the families that Betty Kokal listed as her > ancestors. I wonder about her GGG-Grandfather John Davenport having a > wife with the same name as his father, her GGGG-Grandfather Stephen. Was > that an error? If so, could you resend your message with the correct > wives please? > > Judy Bates > > > > > > > > > >

My Elizabeth Crumpton, born 1790 in Greenville County, SC, Md James Davenport, born 1786 in SC; they moved to Bibb County, AL in 1820s.or earlier. R. L. Griffin shows strong evidence that father of James Davenport was son of Joseph and Margaret Floyd Davenport. also; My Hilda (Hulda) Crumpton, born 1820, married William Davenport on 30 July 1841 in Benton County, AL. They were in Benton Co., AL in 1850 census, but moved to AR. in 1850s. Dan Crumpton email gen@Thomson.net -----Original Message----- From: Heather and David <daviddav@flinthills.com> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >Do you have a connection to any Davenports in Alabama?? > >---------- >> From: David Davenport <dport@duo-county.com> >> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >> Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 7:47 AM >> >> Always interested in meeting other David Davenport.......I live in >Russell >> Springs, Ky. previously editor and publisher of a couple of newspapers >for >> 21 years.....now in real estate business. 59 years old. David Davenport >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Heather and David <daviddav@flinthills.com> >> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> >> Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >> >> >> >Thank you very much for your help I talked to him today. >> > >> > David Davenport >> > >> >---------- >> >> From: RoyWDAV@aol.com >> >> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com >> >> Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >> >> Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:16 AM >> >> >> >> There is a man in Arab, AL, which is very close to Cullman, who has >> >researched the AL Davenports extensively. His name is Dr. Leon Marsh. >> >Sorry I don't have any other information on him....Roy Davenport >> >> >> > >> > >> > >

I am interested in the families that Betty Kokal listed as her ancestors. I wonder about her GGG-Grandfather John Davenport having a wife with the same name as his father, her GGGG-Grandfather Stephen. Was that an error? If so, could you resend your message with the correct wives please? Judy Bates

Do you have a connection to any Davenports in Alabama?? ---------- > From: David Davenport <dport@duo-county.com> > To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama > Date: Friday, March 03, 2000 7:47 AM > > Always interested in meeting other David Davenport.......I live in Russell > Springs, Ky. previously editor and publisher of a couple of newspapers for > 21 years.....now in real estate business. 59 years old. David Davenport > -----Original Message----- > From: Heather and David <daviddav@flinthills.com> > To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:44 PM > Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama > > > >Thank you very much for your help I talked to him today. > > > > David Davenport > > > >---------- > >> From: RoyWDAV@aol.com > >> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com > >> Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama > >> Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:16 AM > >> > >> There is a man in Arab, AL, which is very close to Cullman, who has > >researched the AL Davenports extensively. His name is Dr. Leon Marsh. > >Sorry I don't have any other information on him....Roy Davenport > >> > > > > >

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C57049A7C6A9252F5CAF4CD1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------C57049A7C6A9252F5CAF4CD1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <KINNEY-L-request@rootsweb.com> Delivered-To: utrainbow@mail-dnvr.uswest.net Received: (qmail 5977 invoked by uid 0); 2 Mar 2000 17:52:27 -0000 Received: from mail2.uswest.net (204.147.80.18) by pop.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 2000 17:52:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 15873 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2000 17:52:24 -0000 Received: from bl-14.rootsweb.com (204.212.38.30) by mail2.uswest.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 2000 17:52:24 -0000 Received: (from slist@localhost) by bl-14.rootsweb.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17797; Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:48:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:48:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-Message-ID: <qHLlFB.A.ETE.clqv4@bl-14.rootsweb.com> Resent-From: KINNEY-L@rootsweb.com Resent-Sender: KINNEY-L-request@rootsweb.com Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:43:41 EST Message-ID: <4c.25347be.25f0024d@aol.com> From: BEVCROWELL@aol.com To: KINNEY-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Family History Stamp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 66 Old-To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailing-List: <KINNEY-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/573 X-Loop: KINNEY-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Forward from AZSTATEGENSOC-L@rootsweb.com: The U. S. Postal Service has never had a stamp promoting family history research, yet genealogy is America's most popular hobby. If you would like to see a stamp honoring genealogy, contact the U. S. Postal Service 476 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 4474B, Washington, DC 20260-6756 or e-mail them at: customer@email.usps.gov. --------------C57049A7C6A9252F5CAF4CD1--

Always interested in meeting other David Davenport.......I live in Russell Springs, Ky. previously editor and publisher of a couple of newspapers for 21 years.....now in real estate business. 59 years old. David Davenport -----Original Message----- From: Heather and David <daviddav@flinthills.com> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:44 PM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >Thank you very much for your help I talked to him today. > > David Davenport > >---------- >> From: RoyWDAV@aol.com >> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >> Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 7:16 AM >> >> There is a man in Arab, AL, which is very close to Cullman, who has >researched the AL Davenports extensively. His name is Dr. Leon Marsh. >Sorry I don't have any other information on him....Roy Davenport >> > >

Roy, I surely would like to contact him if you knew how. Thanks. Dan Crumpton email gen@Thomsone.net -----Original Message-----From: RoyWDAV@aol.com <RoyWDAV@aol.com> To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Kenneth Davenport, Alabama >There is a man in Arab, AL, which is very close to Cullman, who has researched the AL Davenports extensively. His name is Dr. Leon Marsh. Sorry I don't have any other information on him....Roy Davenport > >

Dear Cousins (again), I apologize for the message I send a short while ago. It was meant for a different list. One of the problems of maintaining multiple lists (and getting old) is that I occasionally make mistakes. Look on the bright side; Nevada Jack is as "human" as everyone else :-) Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack W. Ralph <Jack@Ralph.org> To: <DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 6:32 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] Fw: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > Dear Cousins, > > I received the message below from Hal Bradley, who was not a member of > this group when he sent it, but now is. > > I hope that some of you "gurus" out there will be able to shed some > light on Hal's observations and conclusion. I hope that all replies are > made "on the list", so that I (and every other interested party) can > read them too. If you *must* reply privately (due to email program > settings and not exchange of personal information), I would appreciate > you adding me to your cc list. I am as interested in resolving this > "Elizabeth" problem as anyone else and would like to make my database as > accurate as possible. > > Nevada Jack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hal Bradley <hwbradley@bigfoot.com> > To: <nvjack@intercomm.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 11:16 AM > Subject: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > > > > I was hoping you could help me out with something. I descend from > > Nathaniel Berry and Elizabeth Philbrick. There seems to be some > > confusion on her identity. Noyes' "Genealogical Dictionary of Maine & > > New Hampshire" on p. 545 states that either Elizabeth, daughter of > James > > and Ann (Roberts) Philbrick, b. 24 Jul 1666 or Elizabeth, daughter of > > Thomas and Ann (Knapp) Philbrick, b. 3 May 1667 is the wife of > Nathaniel > > Berry. > > > > As you have noted on your website, there is a problem with the dates > of > > Thomas' daughters. Elizabeth is born 1 Nov 1663. The next child is > also > > named Elizabeth, b. 3 May 1667. A death date for Elizabeth, daughter > of > > Thomas is recorded for 21 May 1667. It is unlikely that Thomas would > > name another daughter Elizabeth, unless the first Elizabeth is already > > dead. I think that the first Elizabeth died unrecorded. The recorded > > death date of 21 May 1667 is for the second daughter Elizabeth. Thus, > > Thomas had no daughter named Elizabeth that reached maturity. this > > conclusion is partially substantiated in Jacob Chapman's "A Genealogy > of > > the Philbrick and Philbrook Families," p. 11, where he identifies > > Elizabeth, b. 1667, " died as infant." However, he does not show the > > daughter Elizabeth, born in 1663. > > > > The conclusion would then be that James' daughter Elizabeth, must be > the > > wife of Nathaniel Berry, since Thomas did not have a daughter > Elizabeth > > that lived to adulthood. > > > > The one thing that would refute this conclusion is if Thomas had a > will > > which named his daughter Elizabeth. Did Thomas have a will identifying > > his daughter Elizabeth? > > > > Thank you for taking the time to help me resolve this issue. > > > > Hal Bradley > > > > > > >

Dear Cousins, I received the message below from Hal Bradley, who was not a member of this group when he sent it, but now is. I hope that some of you "gurus" out there will be able to shed some light on Hal's observations and conclusion. I hope that all replies are made "on the list", so that I (and every other interested party) can read them too. If you *must* reply privately (due to email program settings and not exchange of personal information), I would appreciate you adding me to your cc list. I am as interested in resolving this "Elizabeth" problem as anyone else and would like to make my database as accurate as possible. Nevada Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: Hal Bradley <hwbradley@bigfoot.com> To: <nvjack@intercomm.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 11:16 AM Subject: PHILBRICK, Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Berry > I was hoping you could help me out with something. I descend from > Nathaniel Berry and Elizabeth Philbrick. There seems to be some > confusion on her identity. Noyes' "Genealogical Dictionary of Maine & > New Hampshire" on p. 545 states that either Elizabeth, daughter of James > and Ann (Roberts) Philbrick, b. 24 Jul 1666 or Elizabeth, daughter of > Thomas and Ann (Knapp) Philbrick, b. 3 May 1667 is the wife of Nathaniel > Berry. > > As you have noted on your website, there is a problem with the dates of > Thomas' daughters. Elizabeth is born 1 Nov 1663. The next child is also > named Elizabeth, b. 3 May 1667. A death date for Elizabeth, daughter of > Thomas is recorded for 21 May 1667. It is unlikely that Thomas would > name another daughter Elizabeth, unless the first Elizabeth is already > dead. I think that the first Elizabeth died unrecorded. The recorded > death date of 21 May 1667 is for the second daughter Elizabeth. Thus, > Thomas had no daughter named Elizabeth that reached maturity. this > conclusion is partially substantiated in Jacob Chapman's "A Genealogy of > the Philbrick and Philbrook Families," p. 11, where he identifies > Elizabeth, b. 1667, " died as infant." However, he does not show the > daughter Elizabeth, born in 1663. > > The conclusion would then be that James' daughter Elizabeth, must be the > wife of Nathaniel Berry, since Thomas did not have a daughter Elizabeth > that lived to adulthood. > > The one thing that would refute this conclusion is if Thomas had a will > which named his daughter Elizabeth. Did Thomas have a will identifying > his daughter Elizabeth? > > Thank you for taking the time to help me resolve this issue. > > Hal Bradley > >