Davenport (bettieboop37@hotmail.com) thought you might be interested in reading the following story, which appeared on deseretnews.com on Saturday, November 12, 2005. Do not reply to this messsage. To send a message to the sender, use the address here: bettieboop37@hotmail.com. NOTE FROM SENDER: Sorry, I guess this would not open before, hope it does this time. Bettie FAKE FAMILY TREES ONLINE MAY TRIP UP GENEALOGISTS Genealogists beware. A software company is marketing a new program to Internet advertisers that could quickly generate Web sites full of extensive, but fake, family trees. FULL STORY: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C635160683%2C00.html

Everyone should read this!!! http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635160683,00.html<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635160683,00.html>

----- Original Message ----- From: <DAVENPORT-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <DAVENPORT-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: DAVENPORT-D Digest V05 #91

The LDS site is rife with the same type information. Anyone can download to their files, but corrections require proof. I recall finding a woman with children born 70 years apart.:-) Jim Crownover-

In defense of submitters of some of that bad information that is out there on Ancestry.com and other websites. In my earlier years of genealogy research I was anxious to get my tree online so that other researchers could contact me with updates and corrections to my tree. Once you have a tree online, it is VERY difficult to get it deleted from the database of whichever group you are using. I have not submitted a tree to anyone in several years, and have called, emailed, and written to the various websites requesting that my old trees be deleted. They are still there and to make matters worse, they have been downloaded and merged into other trees that are also on the websites so, once incorrect information is submitted, it is almost if not impossible to delete. For this reason I will never again submit any information that I have to an online database. I have even found one instance of a submission I made on paper to Everton Genealogy service in 1980. I was requesting information on the marriage of Franklin Preston Midkiff to Ellender Oliver. In the request I said that the marriage probably occurred around 1825 in Lincoln County, TN. There is a marriage records CD that is being sold with that information on it to this day. I did not say they were married on that date in my request, I asked if they could find a record of their marriage. To my knowledge no record of that marriage has ever been found, and the CD is sold giving that information as fact. All of us make errors, sometimes we find information that we are sure is correct only to find out later that it is not. If your database is online, may heaven help you get it corrected, because the various entities will not. Mary Lou Midkiff

Dear Friends, I agree that there is a lot of incorrect information on the internet, but it still is THE most valuable genealogical resource out there. I do use the internet as a guide and I take the information I find on the internet and see if I can find an actual record to substantiate it. You can easily tell the good information from the bad by looking at the sources. Some people list their sources along with the trees or with the notes. I usually write the text of books and articles and put the volume and page numbers of vital records. It is also wise to put the library call no. along with the title of the source. It's fairly easy to tell who is a serious genealogist and who is not by looking at their posts on websites like rootsweb. The serious genealogists document their sources so that anyone who sees the genealogy can find it. Having said that, I am wondering if anyone might help me with a Davenport brick wall. I am seeking information on William Davenport who married Almira Sanders. They are buried in East Lyme Connecticut, but I can find nothing on who William Davenport's parents were. He was a farmer from Montville. I believe his mother may have been a Green(e). Wyatt __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

I agree with Doc about bad information. Last July, the subject of bad genealogy on the Internet came up on another list I belong to. I did a little research and below is what I reported to that list. Bill Davenport >wbdave@aol.com -------------------------------------------------- When I look up my own line on Worldconnect, I get an lots of information - most of it wrong. Garbage In, Garbage Out, Repeat. I did a little survey. I looked up the following individual: Thomas Davenport - born in England probably in 1604. Died in Dorchester, Massachusetts 1685. He married Mary (unknown) who died in 1691. The three most common names associated with Mary is Forth, Pitman, and Neuman. Thomas and Mary had nine kids, born between 1643 and 1664. On Worldconnect the most popular spouse for Thomas is Mary Forth. There actually was a Mary Forth born in England in 1589 who married a Thomas Davenport born about 1580. But people keep connecting her to Thomas (1604). So this means her first child was born when she was 54 years old, and the last at age 75. That must have been a remarkable lady. In my survey - I had 114 hits. Here are the results: All these are the same person - with the same kids. Thomas (1589-1685) - Mary Forth -- 3 times Thomas (~1615-1685) - Mary Forth -- 66 Thomas - Mary Pitman -- 12 Thomas - Mary Neuman -- 8 Thomas - Mary -- 7 Thomas - Mary Waitstill -- 1 Thomas - Mary Forth and Mary Pitman -- 8 Thomas - Mary Forth and Mary Neuman - 4 Thomas - son of Henry -- 5 times Thomas - son of Thomas -- 8 Thomas - son of Rev. John -- 2 Thomas - son of Richard -- 2 Thomas - born in or about 1589 -- 8 times Thomas - born in or about 1615 -- 11 Thomas - born in or about 1617 -- 10 Thomas - born in or about 1620 -- 71 Thomas - born about 1610 -- 8 Thomas - born about 1618 -- 1 Thomas - born about 1625 -- 1 Thomas - born in England -- 84 times Thomas - born in Dorchester, MA -- 2 Thomas - born in Dorchester England -- 1 Thomas - born in London England -- 3 Thomas - born in Little Ilford England -- 2 Thomas - born in Coventry England -- 3 Thomas - born in Cheshire, England -- 2 ------------------------ In a message dated 11/11/2005 2:15:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, JSDDOC@aol.com writes: ALL INTERESTED IN CORRECTING GENEALOGICAL IDENTIFICATIONS: The simple answer now appears to be that error will always be with us. Case in Point: Identification of Davenport Kennedy's parents: There are fourteen (14) identifications of the parents of Davenport Kennedy on the GEDCOM. Two (2) are redundant, i.e., same person putting up the identification twice. All of the remaining twelve (12) are wrong, are

ALL INTERESTED IN CORRECTING GENEALOGICAL IDENTIFICATIONS: The simple answer now appears to be that error will always be with us. Case in Point: Identification of Davenport Kennedy's parents: There are fourteen (14) identifications of the parents of Davenport Kennedy on the GEDCOM. Two (2) are redundant, i.e., same person putting up the identification twice. All of the remaining twelve (12) are wrong, are misidentifications. Six have the name as James Davenport Kennedy--which is wrong. Most dates bear little relationship to the record reality. All of those who put the identification up were required to give an e-mail address for queries. Five (5) of those addresses are no longer valid. Of the seven (5) remaining, all were advised via e-mail that research has now determined that Davenport Kennedy was not the son of Charles Kennedy and Crotia Davenport, as all claimed, and that updated information could be obtained at < pamunkeydavenport.com >. Three weeks later, none of the valid e-mail addresses have corrected the data they hung on the web. Odds of them doing so? Doc

PAMUNKEY DAVENPORTS WITH JUMPING OFF ROOTS NORTH OF THE JAMES RIVER Cousins: Part 1 of "The Further Chronicles of the Pamunkey Davenports, Beginnings and North of the James River," is in its final compilation stage, is scheduled to go to editing later this month. This is a call for Short Stories, Narratives, Historical Anecdotes, Essays, etc, concerning your Eighteenth Century ancestors, born in Virginia, but who ventured forth--South, West, Southwest, and in a few instances North or Northwest. These articles, etc, would appear in the Appendix, would be credited to the author or the source, and must be clear of copyright infringement. We particularly seek articles concerning Eighteenth Century Virginia born Pamunkeys in the Carolinas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. We've got North of the Ohio River fairly well exposed, possibly too much so, and therefore seek Dixie and Border State material. NOTE: This Call is for Pamunkey Davenports from counties North of the James River. Part 2 of the Chronicles will cover those from counties South of the James River. Part 3 will cover those from Southwest Virginia. Part 4 will cover those in Northeast North Carolina. FYI: Those Pamunkeys back in the North Carolina Mountains during the Revolution were from Culpeper or Amherst, both North of the James River, so any stories concerning King Mountain Men, etc, are welcome and solicited. Send to me via e-mail or snail mail. John Scott Davenport 6 Van Brackle Road Holmdel, NJ 07733

Mary K., I'm fairly certain that this family isn't related to James Davenport and his sons Jouett and William who moved to Georgia after the Revolution (still need to track down some of Jouett's descedants). Three of William's sons moved to Coryell Co., TX about 1854/5, but they all lived into the 20th century. Jason

Trying to identify this family listed in 1850 Harrison Co., TX Census. S.M. Davenport Female 30 y/o Farming Born in Georgia; A. Davenport Male 14 y/o born in Georgia; W. Davenport Male 13 y/o born in Georgia; S. Davenport Female 12 y/o born in Georgia; [I. or J.] Davenport Female 9 y/o born in Georgia; S. Davenport Female 5 y/o born in Alabama; [I. or J.] Davenport Male 3 y/o born in Texas; A. Davenport Male 1 y/o born in Texas Any suggestions as to the husband & father of this family would be appreciated. I posted this on the Davenport Message Boards and thought that it would also be posted to the Mailing List, but since I haven't seen it, I'm posting here also. Please excuse any duplication. Mary K. Double Pamunkey descendent thru Smith Davenport & Frances B. Davenport.

Tracing Martha Davenport-born 1801, daughter of Silas Davenport and Mary Drumm

Is he the Absalom Davenport, 22, b. TN in Jersey Co. IL in 1850? Has a wife Mary, 17, IL. No children. In 1860 he appears to be listed twice in Otter Creek, Jersey County. One says he is 31, born in NC, the other says he is 37, born in TN. But same wife and 4 kids. -----Original Message----- From: Teresa Cooper [mailto:davensportster@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:33 AM To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [DAVENPORT] 1850 Census- Absalom b.ca. 1828 Has anyone found Absalom in the 1850 census? I have him in 1860 (age 31) & 1870 (age 41) in Jersey Co, IL, but cannot find him in 1850 at the right age. Has anyone seen it? Thanks! _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

Has anyone found Absalom in the 1850 census? I have him in 1860 (age 31) & 1870 (age 41) in Jersey Co, IL, but cannot find him in 1850 at the right age. Has anyone seen it? Thanks! _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Doc - I weigh in very seldom, but I want to thank you every day for your great contribution in tracing this amazing American story of our Davenport family. I, for one, will be forever appreciative for how you have led the effort to link this all together. Thank you very much. Very respectfully - Tom White -----Original Message----- From: JSDDOC@aol.com To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:49:56 EDT Subject: [DAVENPORT] Corrections, Additions, Revisions Welcome--and Your Job PAMUNKEY KIN UNHAPPY WITH THE WEBSITE GENEALOGY: We've had a cousin complain that there were too many "Children Unknown" on the Five Generations from Davis Davenport Chart. Those children were known, he said. Our reply to him anticipates a reply to any others who might take umbrage by the "Children unknown" usage, to wit: If you will reconsult the Website and read the paragraphs and caveats at the beginning of the Chart, you will note that "Unknown" referred only to the Compiler, that there is an invitation and a procedure in place for corrections, additions, revisions, etc. Judy Russell is editor, will appreciate your help. She plans, for as long as necessary, to update the Chart once a month, and Jack will update the Website accordingly once a month. The website tells you how to communicate with Judy directly. You're right, I could find no one who would take on the genealogical chart job, so I framed out the skeleton of the family from what our research of the past seven years has revealed, and, thankfully, Judy volunteered to edit the Chart and then to take on the job of fleshing out the "Unknowns" and making whatever revisions were needed. So it's between you and Judy now. Please help her eliminate as many "Unknowns" as possible. If they are your line, it's your responsibility to enable Judy to fill in the blanks. Doc ============================== Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx

Cousins: The message below was sent to the "wrong" address and I am the only one who received it because I am the Administrator of DAVENPORT-L and DAVENPORT-D. Messages sent to the "request" address are reserved for subscribe and unsubscribe messages only. However, I receive copies of them. Regardless, I have decided to forward this message to you because I think that's what Ellen intended, even though that's not my "duty" as Administrator. I would like to mention that Doc's information goes down to the 1830s and doesn't stop at 1800 as Ellen alleges. I suspect that Ellen hasn't read all of Doc's information. I would also like to say that I will only accept "constructive criticism" on this list [this comment has nothing to do with Ellen's message. It is meant to ward off any future comments that might be disruptive to the purpose of this list]. Enough said. Best wishes, Nevada Jack -----Original Message----- From: Ellen [mailto:Wellann2@nc.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:17 AM To: DAVENPORT-D-request@rootsweb.com Subject: A new Start? Dear Fellow Researchers I am not "taking umbrage" as Doc says that the long awaited Pamunkey research apparently stops at 1800 with no link at all with the next generation. If you can trace your lineage back to 180, this is really fine. But this is highly disappointing to the rest of us, still hoping for a clue . However, I feel certain that if many of us find we can be pretty sure of the birth date , place of our earliest Davenport ancestor and the subsequent family history, it is because our parents/grandparents were alive within that ancestor's lifespan. We are looking for the unknown ancestor probably born about 1800, who sired our known Great- grandparent. What was learned by all the years of Doc's looking at wills etc, are lost to us and will not be posted. Isaac Crane Davenport's (my Ancestor) birthdate , Feb.17, 1828 was known to my Mother . His family lived in the same house in New Orleans from 1861 to 1946. His birthdate has been confirmed in US census data. His life in New Orleans is well documented. ( yes, after Katrina, the house still stands) My Mother, born in 1903, knew his wife, her Grandmother, and I found the record of their marriage in church records in 1854. All fine . But before that point, I can find no record. Three times, official records state he was born in KY, Once in VA , several in MO, . One obit one week later, remarks on his sterling qualities and his birthplace as Mo, corrected the next week as VA. He always gave his Father's birthplace as VA and his Mother's as TN. So, before Ancestry carried all census records, I was looking at many , many census rolls trying to find him in some Davenport Family in 1850. He is not there, in my Library research or on Ancestry ( and after looking at every conceivable spelling of "Davenport"), nor is his sister., Sarah A or Sally Davenport. Do I trash all this research or post it hoping it might help someone else? His sister's death certificate says her Father's name was Isaac and she was born in April,1834 in MO. I have to wonder if the person who gave this information took it from her Brother Isaac's obit. In various censuses, her children don't seem to agree on her birthplace. There were very few Davenports in MO in 1834. One of her descendents said she thought Sally was born in IN. Many of the birth records of her children leave her birthplace a blank or say LA, which is wrong. So, if I am still in the dark, it is not for trying to find a light. So, I was hoping there would be some mention of where those "unknown children " went after 1800, thus my disappointment when they are "unknown" Many generous Davenport descendents have tried to help me since this research started a long time ago. I thank them again. I would be happy to put together all the census data I have of Davenports in various States , born in Va , as noted in the 1850 US census. I won't know the numbers of the rolls or pages as none seemed relevant and I did not record them in many cases. Sincerely, Ellen Eanes Bethel

Pamunkey Cousins: I have made some significant changes to the Pamunkey home page at http://www.pamunkeydavenport.com/ I recommend that each of you visit this page and click on the "DISCLAIMER" link. This will help you understand where the PDFA stands in regards to the information currently in our database. If any of you have any additions or corrections, there is now a link to submit them. Just scroll down to the bottom of the Table of Contents and click on the link for updating your information. All messages will be processed in the order received. Happy hunting, Nevada Jack PS: There are exceptions to every rule. Many of you sent your genealogy information to Billy Bob several years ago and he put it into his database and sent it to me. However, none of the information he sent me included any sources, making the information "suspect". Therefore, Doc didn't include the information in the current version of the Pamunkey Davenport Database. However, if you send "vetted" information to Judy, she will add it to the Master Database and it will be published on our web site. Nevada Jack

PAMUNKEY KIN UNHAPPY WITH THE WEBSITE GENEALOGY: We've had a cousin complain that there were too many "Children Unknown" on the Five Generations from Davis Davenport Chart. Those children were known, he said. Our reply to him anticipates a reply to any others who might take umbrage by the "Children unknown" usage, to wit: If you will reconsult the Website and read the paragraphs and caveats at the beginning of the Chart, you will note that "Unknown" referred only to the Compiler, that there is an invitation and a procedure in place for corrections, additions, revisions, etc. Judy Russell is editor, will appreciate your help. She plans, for as long as necessary, to update the Chart once a month, and Jack will update the Website accordingly once a month. The website tells you how to communicate with Judy directly. You're right, I could find no one who would take on the genealogical chart job, so I framed out the skeleton of the family from what our research of the past seven years has revealed, and, thankfully, Judy volunteered to edit the Chart and then to take on the job of fleshing out the "Unknowns" and making whatever revisions were needed. So it's between you and Judy now. Please help her eliminate as many "Unknowns" as possible. If they are your line, it's your responsibility to enable Judy to fill in the blanks. Doc

Doc, I wasn't presuming anything about Mr. Dornan's work; I was merely pointing it out in this new edition in case anyone was interested. Now that I've had time to peruse the .pdf file, gedcom and the webpage I'm a little perturbed by so many listings of unknown, especially in the 5th generation. Many of the descendents and their wives of James Davenport (A9 in the .pdf file) and Frances Jouett, to restrict my comments to my direct line, are well known, but are shown as unknown therein. Is this because you simply haven't had time to validate the existing research, including that of Harbert Davenport? If you'd like I'm perfectly happy to search through the census's and other online sources for all of James's descendants for the Further Chronicles. In the meantime I'd like to tout my own own horn by referring everyone to my website on the descendants of William Davenport and Elizabeth Sydnor Andrew (A9d2 in the .pdf file): http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~longkin/Davenport/wc_toc.html which I've created with the help of a number of Georgia Pamunkey descendants. I'll readily concede that I need to document my information better, but I'll not pretend it to be as rigorous your work with the Chronicles. Jason

The results from a long awaited Y-DNA test for the Davenport DNA Surname Project has arrived. This is a major breakthrough, so I thought I should report it separately. We are trying to get DNA samples from all of the branches of the various Davenport lines around the world to see how we are related. For more information and to see the results go to http://www.DavenportDNA.com -------------- First a little background. There were five Davenports that appeared in the Boston area in the 1600's. They were the Rev. John, Thomas of Dorchester, Humphrey of Barbados, Capt. Richard, and Lancelot. All were originally recorded as being from England although no genealogical connection has been found. However, researchers believed they were related since they all used the same family crest. DNA testing has since shown the Humphrey line is not related, but the Rev. John and Thomas are. We have also found the Albemarle line of North Carolina match these two. There has been much research on the Davenports of Cheshire England, going all the way back to Ormus De Davenport, (one of many spelling versions), around 1066AD. Some of his lines have been traced down to the present day. Including the Bromley Davenports. One of the goals of the DNA project is to try to determine if there is a connection between the American Davenports and the ancient Davenport lines of Cheshire. If the link could be make, then the line could be extended back to Ormus. So, we set out trying to find Davenports of documented English descent, especially Bromley Davenports. We did find English Davenports and some matched the American lines, but they were uncertain of their exact Cheshire connection. Finally, we found a Bromley Davenport who was willing to participate. And... his results are in. The Bromley Davenports match the others. This means the Rev. John, Thomas of Dorchester, Albemarles, and several other individuals of "unknown ancestry" all have a common Davenport ancestor with the Bromley Davenports. So, it's official now. Who that is - we don't know, but there are people working on it. ------------- I have also made some changes to the DavenportDNA webpage to account for this new development. In the past we would compare individuals within a particular line. In this way we could determine what the modal Y-DNA values were for the line - meaning, for example, what the DNA of Thomas of Dorchester looked like. We could then call any differences within the line away from the modal, a mutation. It was by comparing these modal values for the Thomas, Rev. John, and others that we able to determine that they were related. Now that we have the Bromley Davenport results, we were able to develop a modal for the entire English Davenport line. It may change slightly as we get more results, but it should be fairly close. Comparing our tested lines to the new modal shows us that there is a close relationship: Thomas of Dorchester - 1 step away from modal Rev. John - 2 Albemarle - 2 Bromley Davenport - 4 It is important to remember that it is not necessary to match the Bromley Davenport exactly. His line has mutations away from the original, just like all the rest. So the Rev. John line may be six steps from Bromley, but he is only 2 from the perceived modal. ----------- Our next step is to find more Davenports with documented connections to England to help fine tune the process. So if you know of any - please point them to the DNA project. ------------ This and all previous reports can be seen on the News page at >http://www.DavenportDNA.com If anyone would like to join the DNA project or has any questions please contact me. Bill Davenport Surname DNA Project Administrator >wbdave@aol.com