Christmas time may not be the best time to pose a question which probably has multiple complex answers. Nevertheless I rush ahead of the angels.... I have three major data bases. Each has provable links but the three are not combined because the links between them are not provable by any evidence which has surfaced so far. On the other hand... There are three Sullivan families in Brunswick Co. VA between 1735 and 1800. The father and one son are well-documented but the other son, who inherited, is not. The third family appears to descend from the inheriting son but there is no absolute proof. That third family moves to Warren Co. NC before 1800 where they are the only Sullivans. That generation and the next are well documented up to 1812 as they go to Halifax, Anson, Caswell and Franklin Cos. The Sullivan in Franklin leaves a will indicating children but only names one daughter - a cause for inappropriate language. The last census before his death lists 3 males and 3 females in his household, presumably 2 sons and 2 daughters. Two years after his death the family is not on the tax list. Four years after his death three Sullivan boys appear in Johnston Co. NC. There is no proof of their origin but they are close to two other probable family members and other families which walked the same trails from county to county. One of the males is probably an older brother who was on his own by 1809. Two of the boys made bond for my gg grandfather who had at least 4 base born children by three ladies - he married the one who had two. My dad's family and my mother's family wind up in AL, about 90 miles apart, by 1835. Both sides of mother's family were in Warren Co. at the same time as my assumed gggg and ggg grandfather. All sides of my dad's family were in adjacent counties. All except my dad's family came from Surrey and Isle of Wight Co. in VA - my dad's family may have also based on probability, but fewer facts to construct logic. My question is obvious - can, or should, my three data bases be linked by preponderance of evidence? It goes without saying that the lack of absolute proof should be noted if I combine them. Isn't it funny how you can't say "it goes without saying" without saying it? 8-) Everything I have found indicates the probability of my theoretical genealogy. Nothing I have found discredits my theory. Because the family resided in Franklin Co., a part of the Lord Granville Grant, I doubt the possibility of proof ever coming to light. It appears that my probable ggg grandfather never owned land and my probable ggggg and gggg grands didn't after moving from VA. If it gets to the point, I am more of a family historian than a pure genealogist yet I draw the line somewhere. If "family" is slow and "genealogy" is fast, I guess I'm half-fast. 8-) I thank you for opinions. Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > My question is obvious - can, or should, my three data bases be linked > by preponderance of evidence? It goes without saying that the lack of > absolute proof should be noted if I combine them. I'm not sure I'd *link* them yet, but I'd certainly get all three into one! Then I'd finagle, any way necessary, a bd-sorted list. Amazing how many things you can rule-in/rule-out that way. ;) -- there was for instance the woman who simultaneously had babies in Tidewater Virginia and in eastern Illinois in July of a certain year. I'm pretty certain that *still* isn't physically possible. (g) If the bd-sort list doesn't rule-out your pet theory, then I'd do some more sorts and see if something pops out at me as being an orange dress in a St.Paddy's parade. If not, go for it. As the man in the Tom Lehrer song gloats: *I* published first! (g) Cheryl

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > My question is obvious - can, or should, my three data bases be linked > by preponderance of evidence? It goes without saying that the lack of > absolute proof should be noted if I combine them. I'm not sure I'd *link* them yet, but I'd certainly get all three into one! Then I'd finagle, any way necessary, a bd-sorted list. Amazing how many things you can rule-in/rule-out that way. ;) -- there was for instance the woman who simultaneously had babies in Tidewater Virginia and in eastern Illinois in July of a certain year. I'm pretty certain that *still* isn't physically possible. (g) If the bd-sort list doesn't rule-out your pet theory, then I'd do some more sorts and see if something pops out at me as being an orange dress in a St.Paddy's parade. If not, go for it. As the man in the Tom Lehrer song gloats: *I* published first! (g) Cheryl ========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======: Message-ID: <cancel.3C2A8939.717F9BC4@erols.com> Control: cancel <3C2A8939.717F9BC4@erols.com> Subject: cmsg cancel <3C2A8939.717F9BC4@erols.com> From: Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 05:51:09 GMT X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 331882737 77135 29.94.20.186 (Sun, 30 Dec 2001 05:44:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-No-Archive: yes Newsgroups: microsoft.test,comp.lang.c,soc.genealogy.misc NNTP-Posting-Host: wonenara.ozemail.com.au 203.108.164.177 Lines: 1 Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newspump.sol.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp05!u.n.a.c.a.n.c.e.l.l.e.r This message was cancelled from within Mozilla.