Em segunda-feira, 4 de julho de 2016 21:48:09 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 10:13:33 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > I have seen in many genealogy websites this connection Richard Mainwaring > > and his wife Dorothy Corbet were parents of Maria Mainwaring who married > > Adam Oteley and were parents of Richard Oteley who married Katherine > > MacWorth and were parents of Sarah Oteley who married Edward Owen and > > were parents of Richard Owen who married Johanna Pitt and were parents > > of the immigrant John Owen. The onomastic and geographical evidence > > support this connection but is this connection true or false. > > The 1623 Visitation of Shropshire (as published) shows, in its Mainwaring of Ightfield pedigree, that Richard and Dorothy had a daughter Mary who married Adam Oteley of Picheford. The Oteley of Oteley and Pitchford pedigree shows Adam marrying Mary, daughter of Richard Mainwaring of Ightfield. They are shown as parents of Richard who married Katherine Macworth (by the way, I doubt this is Scottish or Irish patronymic, but instead is likely an English toponym, probably derived from Mackworth, Derby, so not MacWorth, just Macworth). They, in turn, are shown with daughter Sara, wife of Edward Owen of Brightley. So far, so good. > > The Owen of Adbrightlee pedigree in the visitation shows Edward and Sara to be parents of three children (by 1623), Margaret (b. ca. 1611), Pontesbury (b. ca. 1613), and Thomas (b. ca 1617). No Richard. One could argue that he was a younger son, born after the date of the visitation, but this does not work, because the marriage of Joan Pitt to Richard Owen of Brome appears in the pedigree of Pitt of Curewiard, (then of Perry, near Stoke, and Brome, near Hopesay), in the same visitation - far from being yet unborn, Richard was already married by 1623, and he was not the son of Edward Owen and Sara Oteley. No dates are given for Joan or her parents, but her first cousin (son of the eldest son, which Joan was daughter of the 6th) had a daughter born 1602, meaning Joan was of the same generation as Sarah Oteley. > > In the nature of these things, it is likely that the entire thing is made up - that someone looking for the parentage of John Owen found the marriage of Richard Owen of Broome in the visitation, and liked the idea of a Pitt connection, so simply decided that John must have been son of Richard and Joan. Then, needing an ancestry for Richard, they arbitrarily decided to make Richard son of Edward. My suggestion is that the authentic pedigree goes no further than the immigrant. > > taf Thanks for the info but since the immigrant John Owen was from the area of Shropshire do you think he may have been from another branch of that family Owen.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 6:38:46 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Thanks for the info but since the immigrant John Owen was from the area > of Shropshire do you think he may have been from another branch of that > family Owen. Let me start by saying I know nothing about this immigrant, but do we know he was from Shropshire from contemporary reference to his place of origin, or is he said to be from Shropshire because he was made o be son of RIchard Oen of Broome? As to being from a different branch of that Owen family, we are talking about two Owen families, those of Adbrightley and Broome, and they don't appear to be connected. The Visitation shows another three Owen families. The Adbrightley family only began using the Owen surname in the generation right before Edward who married Sarah Oteley, so there isn't that much opportunity for another branch. Bear in mind that this is a Welsh patronymic, so there will be a lot of Owens completely unrelated. More importantly, this is going about it the wrong way. Trouble can arise from trying to 'fix' a broken line by looking for a way to rescue it, when there was never any evidence for it to begin with. This is not a case where someone made a mistake. Someone outright invented connections. Rather than trying to find another place to put John within this pedigree, you want to go back to John and see just what, exactly we know about his parentage once you set aside this invented connection, and work back from there. taf