***-----Original Message----- ***From: Cynthia [mailto:NewEnglanders1620@samnet.net] ***Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 6:46 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Re: [Ma-Bay-Colony] Old Bridgewater MA epitaphs *** *** *** I am a descendant of the Rev.James Keith of Bridgewater............ *** ***I need information married RUTH MANLEY, who married Josiah Keith ***in 1768. ( James is descended from Rev.James Keith.) *** ****Ruth born July 11,1660. in Easton,Ma ? ***parents: Thomas and Lydia (Field) *** ***Any information would be appreciated. *** ***thanks *** ***Cynthia Hi Cynthia, I hope this may help some. H. C. Peter Rounds_Abstracts of Bristol County, Massachusetts Probate Records 1687-1745_ (Baltimore, Genealogical publishing Co., Inc, 1987) 10:329 Abstract of the will of Thomas Manley of Easton--names wife "Lidia" and dau. "Ruth Keith." will dated April 6, 1743 and prob. July 19, 1743. I realize this doesn't work with your dates, and I'm not really familiar with this family. But I think the dates you have may not be right. I think there were three Josiah's in one line--your's being the second. I believe the first married Mary Lathrop, their son married Ruth Manley, and their son married Susannah Williams. The first and third are in the Bridgewater VR (214) where Josiah 3 is said to be of Easton. He was married in 1758, Josiah 1 in 1703/3. I don't have VR for Easton.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:51:25 -0600 "Ginny Core" <vcore@tctwest.net> writes: > I am searching for information on people who lived in Fall River, > Troy, > Freetown from the early 1700's to the middle 1800's. Ginny - I can suggest an online source. Scans of what appears to be the manuscript of Mary Phillips Herbert's "Freetown, Massachusetts, Marriage Records, 1686-1844," (published 1934) are online at: http://www.usigs.org/library/books/ma/Freetown1934/ They are .tif files, so you will need a tif viewer to read them. Dale H. Cook, Chief Engineer, WWWR Roanoke VA, WCQV Moneta VA, WKBA WZZI Vinton VA, WKPA WLNI WLVA WZZU Lynchburg VA

Cynthia, You might want to check out this page and get in touch with the people who maintain it. They can probably find the info you need. I have the book, but it is packed away at the moment and I am not sure which box it is in. http://pages.prodigy.net/lakeith/index.htm Dianna At 06:45 PM 6/29/2002 -0400, you wrote: > I am a descendant of the Rev.James Keith of Bridgewater............ > >I need information married RUTH MANLEY, who married Josiah Keith >in 1768. ( James is descended from Rev.James Keith.) > >*Ruth born July 11,1660. in Easton,Ma ? >parents: Thomas and Lydia (Field) > >Any information would be appreciated. > >thanks > >Cynthia >administrator for: > Ma-Bay-Colony-L@rootsweb.com > search the archives of MBC > http://archiver.rootsweb.com > > > >==== MAYFLOWER Mailing List ==== >Check out the web page of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants at http://www.mayflower.org/ > >

***-----Original Message----- ***From: Ginny Core [mailto:vcore@tctwest.net] ***Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 3:51 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Fall River Vital Records *** *** ***Hi, ***I am searching for information on people who lived in Fall River, Troy, ***Freetown from the early 1700's to the middle 1800's. ***Middleboro and other ***towns have such great amount of vital facts information ***available. Is there ***anything in print or on CD for these towns during that time ***frame? If so, ***where can I get it? *** ***Thanks, ***Ginny Core Go to the LDS site and to the Family History Library. Do place searches for these places. Keep in mind that the area was once part of Plymouth Colony, but became part of Bristol County and that the place names changed over time. You will find many, many records on film and some books. It is also often helpful to do catalog searches at the Allen County Public Library site or the NEHGS site.

I am a descendant of the Rev.James Keith of Bridgewater............ I need information married RUTH MANLEY, who married Josiah Keith in 1768. ( James is descended from Rev.James Keith.) *Ruth born July 11,1660. in Easton,Ma ? parents: Thomas and Lydia (Field) Any information would be appreciated. thanks Cynthia administrator for: Ma-Bay-Colony-L@rootsweb.com search the archives of MBC http://archiver.rootsweb.com

Hi, I am searching for information on people who lived in Fall River, Troy, Freetown from the early 1700's to the middle 1800's. Middleboro and other towns have such great amount of vital facts information available. Is there anything in print or on CD for these towns during that time frame? If so, where can I get it? Thanks, Ginny Core

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/FO.2ADI/159.1.1.1 Message Board Post: You wrote: "Do you think "Else" for Alice [Alden] Paddock reflects the Pilgrims' casual orthography or some lingering regional pronunciation from England?" My guess is both, or at least that it is a phonetic spelling. I have seen this elsewhere (oops)--I have one in my own family (b. 1762 in East Haddam, Middlesex, CT) spelled "Else" in the town records, but Alice in the father's will, and I've seen it a few times while looking through VR. Few people realize it, but the expression "close enough for government work" originated with the New England town clerks.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Alden, Southworth, Paddock Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/FO.2ADI/159.1.1 Message Board Post: Ahoy, Harlow Chandler! To my sin of not being born a New Englander, please add the worse ones of not acknowledging your June 2 message or thanking you for explaining Plymouth Colony Assistants, confirming Constant Southworth's militia-ensign status, and linking to the URLs of the Paddock gravestone photos in Dennis. I spent the last hour reading those websites with fascination and hope to use two of the photos in our family history with permission from the copyright holders. One small question to which there probably is no answer: Do you think "Else" for Alice [Alden] Paddock reflects the Pilgrims' casual orthography or some lingering regional pronunciation from England? Or perhaps was Alice called "Else" by her family? It is certainly she, because the inscription reads "wife of Judah Paddock." Thank you, too, for the New Bedford Whaling Museum URL. My grandparents escaped Middle Atlantic summers in a house on Nantucket, in Pearl Street (now India Street) right in the town. On rainy days my mother would go to the library (I think, but maybe a museum if there was one then, which I doubt, this being in the first two decades of the 20th century) and curl up with old whaling skippers' logs. Lucky child. Again, ever so many thanks, and thanks always for your documentation. (A source! A source! My kingdom for a source!) Happy Fourth, Mignon Cameron MABCam@aol.com

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:47:42 -0400 "BA Young" <scanbar@prodigy.net> writes: > I am trying to reconstruct my grandmother's Pilgrim genealogy which > was stolen from her home. > I will start with: ... Barbara - I had a busy weekend and a busy week so I'm just now getting to your list. I hope it was worth waiting for. Following your paragraphs are source citations with abbreviations in {curly braces} where I have them with the sources given in full at the end of the message. DuxVR, KinVR and SciVR citations are exact transcriptions, all other citations are paraphrases. I think I've covered everything in your message. If anything needs expanding please let me know. > CHANDLER, Nathaniel Lewis., b. Dec 24,1803, Duxbury,MA; Married > Sally W. SAMPSON in 1827.I believe she was the daughter of Perez > H.SAMPSON and Sally (WESTON) CHANDLER, Nathan[ie]l L., ch. Asa, Dec. 24, 1803. {DuxVR p. 45} CHANDLER, Nathaniel L. of Duxbury, and Sally W. Sampson, Jan. 4, 1827. [Nath[anie]l L. of Dux[bor]o, C.R.1.] {KinVR p. 190} > CHANDLER, Asa, b Nov 10, 1771, Duxbury,MA, father of above > Nathaniel, married Dianna SIMMONS of Kingston, MA. CHANDLER, Asa, ch. Asa, bp. Nov. 10, 1771. C.R.1. {DuxVR p. 40} CHANDLER, Asa and Diana Simmons, Aug. 2, 1792, in Kingston.* {DuxVR p. 229} CHANDLOR, ASA [int. Jr.] [of] Duxboro [int. Duxborough] and Diana Simmons, Aug. 2, 1972. [Chandler Jr. [of] Duxboro, C.R.1.] {KinVR p. 190} > CHANDLER, Asa, b 1738, Duxbury, MA; married Martha (DELANO), father > of the above Asa. CHANLER, Asa [dup. Chandler], s. Philip and Rebekah, Mar. 1 [dup. Sept. 25], 1742-3. {DuxVR p. 48} CHANDLER, Asa [dup. Chanler] and Martha Delano [dup. Delanoe], June 30, 1763.* [Chandler and Martha Delanoe, C.R.1.] {DuxVR p. 229} > CHANDLER, Phillip, b 1702, Duxbury,MA mareried Rebecca (PHILLIPS) > father of above Asa CHANLER, Philip [dup. Chandler], s. Joseph and Martha, July 21, 1702. {DuxVR p. 49} CHANDLER, Philip [dup. Chanler] and Rebeca [dup. Rebekah] Philips, Dec. 16, 1725.* {DuxVR p. 232} > CHANDLER, Joseph,DUxbury, MA** married Martha (HUNT) father of above > Phillip CHANDLER, Joseph, lived in Duxbury and went to North Yarmouth ME before Feb-1728-9 {MD v. 14, p. 66}. CHANLER, Joseph Jr. [dup. Chandler, omits Jr.] and Martha Hunt, Feb. 12, 1700-1.* {DuxVR p. 234} > CHANDLER, Joseph,Duxbury, MA; married Mercy ( In one place I saw her > as Mercy Standish but I haven't found anything to verify that) > father of above Joseph CHANDLER, Joseph, s. of Edmund and 2nd wife; b. about 1646 {GMB v. 1}; d. 1721 {MD v. 14, p. 66}. He m. by 1673 {GMB v. 1} Mercy ___. Note that neither GMB nor MD gives her surname. > CHANDLER, Edmund, immigrated 1633 Duxbury,MA CHANDLER, Edmund, b. about 1587; d. between 03-May-1662 (will) and 02-Jun-1662 (inventory). He m. 1st by about 1612 ___ ___; not seen in any record. He m. 2nd by about 1632 ___ ___; not seen in any record. He came from Leiden, Holland to Plymouth before 01-Jan-1632-3 and removed to Duxbury by 1639 {all from GMB v. 1}. > ************************************************************************* **************** > This is where I get very confused <grin> > ************************************************************************* **************** > CHANDLER, Benjamin, brother of Joseph(1) and son of above Edmund, > married Elizabeth Buck and had daughter Keturah. CHANDLER, Benjamin, b. about 1644 {GMB v. 1}; d. about 1691 {MD v. 14, p. 65}. He m. by 1672 Elizabeth Buck (eldest child b. Scituate 16-Feb-1672[-3?]), daughter of John Buck of Scituate {GMB v. 1}; d. about 1732 {MD v. 14, p. 65}. > CHANDLER, Keturah married Abraham(3) SAMPSON CHANDELLER, Keturah, d. Benjamin, bp. May 20, 1683. C.R.2. {SciVR v. 1, p. 65} This Keturah did not marry Abraham SAMPSON, according to George E. Bowman {MD v. 14, p. 66}. He cites: CHANDLER, Keturah and Nathaniel Sampson [dup. Samson], Jan. 19, 1703.* {DuxVR p. 231} > SAMPSON,Abraham(3), son of Abraham(2) and Lorah STANDISH SAMSON, Nathaniel, s. of Abraham and Lorah STANDISH {MD v. 14, p. 66}. > SAMPSON, Abraham(2) son of Abraham(1) SAMPSON and ____Nash SAMPSON, Abraham, son of Abraham and ___ ___ (2nd wife), b. about 1658, d. a. "nearly 70" before 04-Sep-1727 (will proved), probably Duxbury {MI p. 122}; m. about 1680 Lorah STANDISH {MI p. 122}. > SAMPSON, Abraham (1) arrived 1629 brother of Mayflower Pilgrim > HenrySAMPSON SAMPSON, Abraham, possibly the one bp. 14-Aug-1614 Campton, Bedford, England {SamGrand p. 141}; and so possibly 1st cousin of Henry SAMSON of the Mayflower; d. before 25-Aug-1701 {SamDaus p. 208}; m. 1st ___ Nash {SamDaus p. 209}; m. 2nd ___ ___ {SamDaus p. 209}. The first record of Abraham is an 04-Dec-1638 deed in Duxbury. > STANDISH, Lorah above wife of Abraham(30 was the daughter of > Alexander STANDISH and Sarah (ALDEN) STANDISH, Lorah; daughter of Alexander and Sarah ALDEN {MI p. 122}; d. after 02-Aug-1725 (living at time of husband's will) {MI p. 122}. > STANDISH, Alexander , son of Myles Standish and Barbara_____ STANDISH, Alexander, s. of Myles and Barbara ___; b. about 1626 Plymouth {MFIPDoty p. 11}; d. 06-Jul-1702 {MFIPDoty p. 11}. He m. 1st {MFIPDoty p. 11} Sarah ALDEN. He m. 2nd about 1686 probably Marshfield {MFIPDoty p. 11} Desire DOTY. > STANDISH, Mylies - MAYFLOWER Pilgrim STANDISH, Myles, b. about 1584 possibly Isle of Man, England {Stratton, pp. 357-359}; d. 03-Oct-1656 Duxbury {MD v. 3, p. 153}. He m. 1st {Stratton p. 359} Rose ___; d. 29-Jan-1620/21 Plymouth {MD v. 30, p. 3}. He m. 2nd before 24-Mar-1624 Plymouth {Stoddard p. 151} Barbara ___; d. after 06-Oct-1659 {MD v. 4 p. 119}. > ALDEN, Sarah above wife of Alexander STANDISH, daughter of John > ALDEN and Priscilla MULLINS both of whom were MAYFLOWER Pilgrims ALDEN, Sarah, daughter of John and Priscilla MULLINS; b. 1629 {MI p. 4}; d. before 13-Jun-1688 {MFIPDoty p. 11}. > ************************************************************************* ***************** > STANDISH, Mercy and Lydia were sisters of above Lorah. All three > married SAMPSON's and I believe Mercy married Caleb SAMPSON, son of > Henry SAMPSON and Ann (PLUMMER) and Lydia married Issac SAMPSON > brother of above Abraham (3) Mercy m. before 1686 Caleb SAMSON, son of Pilgrim Henry and Anne PLUMMER {MFIPWarren p. 43}. Lydia m. after 26-Oct-1686 Isaac SAMPSON, son of Abraham (1) and ___ ___ (2nd wife) {SamDaus p. 209}. > ************************************************************************* ***************** > ************************************************************************* ***************** > SIMMONS, Moses - married Rachel SAMPSON daughter of above Caleb > SAMPSON SIMMONS, Moses, m. 26-Mar- 1718 Duxbury {MD v. 11, p. 25} Rachel SAMSON, daughter of Caleb and Mercy STANDISH {MI p. 112}. > ************************************************************************* ***************** Sources: Note for VR marriage entries - " * " means Intention not recorded DuxVR: F. Apthorp Foster, Editor, "Vital Records of Duxbury, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850" (New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 1911). Note - "C.R.1. - church record, First Church and Parish of Duxbury" GMB: Robert Charles Anderson, "The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England 1620-1633" (Great Migration Study Project, New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 1995). Note - there are no pages cited because I use the online version on the NEHGR website. KinVR: F. Apthrop Foster, Editor, "Vital Records of Kingston, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850" (New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 1911). Note - "C.R.1. - church record, First Church of Kingston, Unitarian, containing also a full list of the widely-scattered funerals attended by the pastor, the Rev. Courtland Yardley De Normandie" MD: "The Mayflower Descendant, 1620-1920: A Quarterly Magazine of Pilgrim Genealogy and History" (Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, Boston, 1899 to date). MFIPDoty: Marion B. Cushman, Richard Fetzer, Peter B. Hill and Robert S. Wakefield, "Edward Doty of the Mayflower and His Descendants for Four Generations" (General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 2nd Edition, Plymouth MA, 1993). MFIPWarren: Janice Beebe et. al., "Richard Warren of the Mayflower and His Descendants for Four Generations" (General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 4th edition, Plymouth MA, 1991). MI: Susan E. Roser, "Mayflower Increasings (For Three Generations)" (Genealogical Publishing Co., 1st Edition, Baltimore MD, 1989) MM: Susan E. Roser, "Mayflower Marriages" (Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore MD 1990). SamGrand: Robert Leigh Ward, "Henry Sampson's Paternal Grandfather" (TAG, v. 56, pp. 141-143) SamDaus: Robert S. Wakefield, "The Daughters of Abraham(1) Sampson (born 1614?) of Duxbury MA" (TAG, v. 63, pp. 207-210) SciVR: F. Apthorp Foster, Editor, "Vital Records of Scituate, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850" (New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, 1909). Note - "C.R.2. - church record, Second Church of Scituate, now the First Unitarian Church of Norwell" Stoddard: Francis R. Stoddard, "The Truth About the Pilgrims" (New York, 1952, rep. Baltimore, 1974). Stratton: Eugene A. Stratton, "Plymouth Colony, Its History and People, 1620-1691" (Ancestry Publishing, Salt Lake City UT, 1986). Dale H. Cook, Chief Engineer, WWWR Roanoke VA, WCQV Moneta VA, WKBA WZZI Vinton VA, WKPA WLNI WLVA WZZU Lynchburg VA

Last year,I purchased a copy of a newspaper called something like, "Maine Freewill Baptist News." It had an account of the marriage of David Soule and Clarissa Hopkins, both of Garland ME; marriage performed in Dexter Maine, about 1830, or 1835. I was planning to submit it to supplement ME Census Records, and History of Garland ME by Lyndon Oakes to show that David Soule was son of William Soule, b. Halifax MA , m. Rachel Dillingham. I show Rachel Soule,82, living in house of David Soule and wife Clarissa Soule in 1850, ME Census. The Newspaper copy was the link, I was hunting for, as there are no early marriage records for Dexter or Garland ME. Anyway, I can't find it. The Genealogy Gremlins "cockeroached it" I have hunted high and low, implored St Anthony and I just can't remember where I put my special Mayflower Proof File. Does anyone on the list remember the name of a company who sold original old documents or copies online? What I purchased was a photocopy for $20.00. I can get the other proofs again by writing to Maine Archives, but this marriage record seems a pivotal link between, MFIP, Vol. III, "Ridlon,"History of Garland ME, and the ME Federal Census, 1840 Garland, 1850, Hartland ME. My advice to new reseachers: Don't print out everything you see on the internet. Leave it there! It's probably not going anywhere! I ended up with piles of files and I can't find anything! Betty Bradway and Susan Roser should be named National Treasures, they are so patient and helpful. Now if they could just come to California and get me organized! Frantically Searching Lucy Severance Carroll

Here comes another "long one!" I have been monitoring this question on the documentation policy, and the responses that have been posted, but have stayed out of the issue until now. (I have also been extremely busy for the past week, because I am getting ready to have hand and wrist surgery on July 5th.) Kathy is correct that there is no hard and fast rule on using documentation of this sort. She is also correct with the statement that, if you did write it down now, it still would NOT be acceptable as documentation some 5 generations (or even 75-100 years) in the future. Old family records, statements and letters can be used under certain circumstances, if there is NOTHING ELSE AVAILABLE and if they fall under the "ancient document" rule of evidence. Anything more recent is considered "hearsay evidence" because the person giving the information was usually not present at the "event" and has no personal knowledge of it ever having happened. They've only been told it happened and that, as Kathy pointed out, is also from someone else's recollections, which is even more hearsay evidence. Even if the person WAS present at the event - this can certainly happen with marriages and deaths and each of us was certainly present at our own birth although we do not really REMEMBER IT- there are far BETTER sources of documentation that are available and should be used. Since what we do accept is really considered OLD hearsay evidence, maybe we should change some more and not accept that either. We 're not likely to change, because it is really no worse than accepting some of the old published genealogies (or locval histories) that never cited any sources. Without some of those references, probably no one would ever be able to join anything. We are certainly living in an era where vital events ARE recorded. This was not the case 100 years ago. Even in those States that kept vital records very early (the New England States in particular) it was still not MANDATORY that vital events be recorded. We have all struggled with family lines where births, deaths and sometimes, even marriages, weren't ever entered into the civil records. Marriages were more apt to be recorded by families that never recorded anything else, because there was usually a LEGAL issue at stake. (Think of all those Military widow's pension applications you have seen where the widow had to PROVE she was married to the soldier!) The rules for genealogical documentation have changed and all lineage societies (not just the "Mayflower Society") have changed their requirements for documentation. That change began some 20 or more years ago, when some of you were probably still children. There are still a few lineage societies that require less proof than others do, but they may also decide that they will need to change in the future, if they want to keep up with "the times." That's entirely up to them. When I was still taking client work (I stopped doing that about 5 years ago because my work with the Mayflower Society was taking almost all of my time), I did a lot of applications for many other lineage societies and their requirements were no different that "ours" are. There are some Family Associations (and PLEASE don't confuse them with lineage societies!) that require little or no documentation for your family line. That's just one reason why the Newsletters that the Family Associations put out are not normally acceptable as documentation for lineage society applications. Often, no one has provided any real proof for the information that is being published in a family newsletter. I can certainly attest to that personally, having been the Editor of two such family publications in the past. With one of those (the one I didn't "inherit" after many years of publication), I began each issue with a statement that the information provided had NOT been documented by me, that it should either be used for clues or the submitter of the information should be contacted for any documentation that might exist. I also forwarded a lot of letters for people who found new relatives! The fact is that if someone wants to join a lineage society, the burden of proof is, and always has been, with the applicant. If you cannot (or don't want to) provide that proof, then you probably aren't going to be able to join that society. There are also some lines that might lead to membership in one or another lineage society that are simply UN-provable, because our forebears didn't leave us enough information while they were living. That is unfortunate, but it is true. They should have been more considerate of our future "needs." I sure wish some of my ancestors had left better records! Even a little "family tradition" would have been helpful to me! Bette Innes Bradway, CG Assist. Historian General (and out-going NY Society Historian)

In a message dated 6/27/02 6:49:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, XxGenealogyxX@aol.com writes: > In my situation, my great-grandmother lived with us for the last six years > of > her life and died when I was nineteen. We were extremely close, and I can > easily recall twenty or more specific references that she made to her > childhood, her family, her mother's full maiden name, as well as stories of > > her maternal grandmother and her family (which is important since both of > these women are the Mayflower "line carriers"). > > What's crazy with the way the Mayflower Society works is that I could write > > down everything she told me first hand in a spiral notebook, and 5 > generations from now, someone could join on the basis of this information! > I > also have to say that the fact that none of the representatives of the > Mayflower Society subscribed to this list have stepped forward with an > explanation for these inconsistencies in policy only assures me that there > probably is no explanation. > While I am not an official rep of the Mayflower Society and certainly don't presume to speak for them, my two cents is that it would seem to me that the "explanation" is that they strictly adhere to the "If it can't be read, it ain't been said" rule for documentation, and furthermore, it must be "read" in some "official" source. Since they are (and always have been) very clear on that point, I think that's probably why they have remained silent at this time. Meanwhile, I would NEVER fully discount anything that's "family tradition," especially that which is told to you by an older family member. My own experience has been that no matter how difficult it may be to prove such stories, there is always at least a kernal of truth to them, even when there are those who have told me they are total fabrication along the way! However, also keep in mind that human nature makes even the most well-intentioned, honest person tend to imbellish these stories, and so you might notice that with each telling, the story gets more detailed -- but are those details "real" or imagination?? Up to you to prove, I guess...and that would seem to be the point here! By the way, MY understanding of the policies on documentation is that even if you DID now write down all your g-grandmother's stories, they still could not be used as official proof by GSMD standards, even by future generations. Since they still aren't "first hand" to you (while these stories may have been told to you, they didn't happen to you...or your g-grandmother, either, if they are about her parents!), wouldn't they still fall under the category of undocumented hearsay, no matter how many years go by? I think so...However, don't let that stop you from doing it! Even better would have been to tape record your g-grandmother telling these stories herself! Perhaps the day will come (hopefully sooner than 5 generations from now...) when new information will somehow surface and someone can officially verify your "missing links." Perhaps those family stories will be just the clues someone will need to look in the right places for that documentation! Good luck! Kathy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself...but I think I have a right to object to libelous statements about my dog." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt Check out my genealogy web pages! http://www.familytreemaker.com/users/f/e/n/K-Fenton/index.html ~AND~ http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=twigsandbranches Recycle yourself! Tell someone you want to be an organ and tissue donor!

on 6/27/02 1545, XxGenealogyxX@aol.com at XxGenealogyxX@aol.com wrote: Your posting sounded as if you are thoroughly frustrated. Don't give up. Have you tried to find obituaries of her family ? Most important, have you actually submitted what you have to your State Society? If you haven't submitted anything yet, why don't you submit what you have and I hope that someone on this list will have something that will help you. It's helpful, when posting to the list, to give your gr. grandmother's name and the town, county and state where she lived. Did you check the Social Security Death Index and then send for her original Social Security Application? Was her husband ever in the Service? I sent to Nat Archives and received my grandfather's service record, which showed my mother's name as his dependent. I don't understand why the US Census is not admissable, if it shows her name and her sister, when living with her parents. If she lived with your parents during a census year, that would be documented as well. I just misplaced all my proof for my great,great grandparents marriage, so I do sympathize with you. Happy Hunting Lucy Carroll, George Soule1. John Soule2, Moses Soule3, Gideon Soule4,Gideon Soule5, William Soule6,( married Rachel Dillingham, Halifax MA VRS)David Soule7(History of Garland ME, and "Ridlon") William Soule8, Hartland ME, Almon Soule9, Hartland ME,( d, 1902 Havana Cuba) Hazel Soule10, Pittsfield ME, Lucille Severance,11 > > Basically, my line is documented from the Mayflower passenger down to her > mother, and from her down to me. The only link without paper documentation is > her link and thus my link to her mother. I can prove her maiden name, > birthdate and birthplace, and censuses show her living in the household of > her parents. I also have a letter to her from her sister, who also is shown > in the census, but lacks the names of her parents on her death certificate as > well. There are also no marriage certificates on file for either woman, since > the town they lived in did not keep records until the early 1900s. > > > > > > ==== MAYFLOWER Mailing List ==== > Check out the web page of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants at > http://www.mayflower.org/ >

I can certainly understand that there would be a level of uncertainty in the case you mention since the "witness" was a child, and the misunderstanding was over something technical, property ownership. In my situation, my great-grandmother lived with us for the last six years of her life and died when I was nineteen. We were extremely close, and I can easily recall twenty or more specific references that she made to her childhood, her family, her mother's full maiden name, as well as stories of her maternal grandmother and her family (which is important since both of these women are the Mayflower "line carriers"). Not being interested in formal genealogy at the time, I never thought to ask her to write anything down, and, when she finally died, an ignorant uncle served as the informant on her death certificate and couldn't give her parents' names. Basically, my line is documented from the Mayflower passenger down to her mother, and from her down to me. The only link without paper documentation is her link and thus my link to her mother. I can prove her maiden name, birthdate and birthplace, and censuses show her living in the household of her parents. I also have a letter to her from her sister, who also is shown in the census, but lacks the names of her parents on her death certificate as well. There are also no marriage certificates on file for either woman, since the town they lived in did not keep records until the early 1900s. What's crazy with the way the Mayflower Society works is that I could write down everything she told me first hand in a spiral notebook, and 5 generations from now, someone could join on the basis of this information! I also have to say that the fact that none of the representatives of the Mayflower Society subscribed to this list have stepped forward with an explanation for these inconsistencies in policy only assures me that there probably is no explanation. llscott2000@worldnet.att.net writes: > Personal knowledge can be decieving. > I wrote a research paper about a community > that existed in our area for about 10 years. > When my paper was read by the daughter of the > founder, who was a child resident at the time, > she was indigant (sp) that I did not have her > father as the owner of the property he sold. > Actually he was only an agent for the paper > company that owned the land. My information > came from the courthouse. Her info came from > the remembrances of a small child.

Personal knowledge can be decieving. I wrote a research paper about a community that existed in our area for about 10 years. When my paper was read by the daughter of the founder, who was a child resident at the time, she was indigant (sp) that I did not have her father as the owner of the property he sold. Actually he was only an agent for the paper company that owned the land. My information came from the courthouse. Her info came from the remembrances of a small child.

First off - glad you're back and better Susan! And now, I want to make sure I understand the last post. I really don't have to try to clear up who Lillis Bowen was? The main concern is proving that Frances Church is the daughter of Charles Church? I was under the impression that you had to have birth, death, and marriage proof for all concerned? That's quite a relief. Terri

Dale, I'm not aware of another article on the MF 3 Soule book and I think it's unlikely. Neil Thompson did quite a good job critiquing the first 3 volumes of the 5 generations books and left very little unsaid! I'm off this very minute for a few days rest at the cottage but when I get back I can look into it. I have an article in the next issue of TAG and can ask David Greene (Editor) if he knows of any such article such as the one you suggest. Susan. www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale H Cook" <radiotest@juno.com> To: <MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:06 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [MFLR] Jonathan4 Soule > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:50:32 -0400 "Susan E. Roser" <roser@iprimus.ca> > writes: > > > TG 1 [1980]: 229, ["Mayflower Families To Date: A > > Critical Examination", by Neil D. Thompson, F.A.S.G.] - in response > > to the Soule, vol. 3, MF silver book published in 1980 ... > > Susan - > > It is very good to see you back. > > Perhaps you can answer a queation I posed to Jim. In addition to the > Thompson article you cited, was there not another critical article > comcerning MF5G v. 3 Soule, perhaps by Wakefield, published perhaps in > TAG? I recall reading one, and I don't have local access to TG so I'm > sure it wasn't the Thompson article. > > Dale H. Cook, Chief Engineer, WWWR Roanoke VA, WCQV Moneta VA, WKBA WZZI > Vinton VA, WKPA WLNI WLVA WZZU Lynchburg VA > > ______________________________

Today's discussions got me thinking about another inconsistency concerning Mayflower Society documentation policies that I'm hoping someone can better explain. Why are family bibles and letters and other written records of family relationships accepted for generations that lived several generations ago, but they won't take my word or written statement, for example, about the identity and parentage of my great-grandmother who I personally knew? As I see it, there should be nothing better than a first-hand account, unless their assumption is that I could be "lying" to gain membership through people who weren't really my ancestors. I'd be interested to hear some other opinions or experiences.

Many thanks, Susan, for the MFIP info! I don't have a Soule line but, as some are aware, I am working on documenting the early settlers of Rehoboth & Swansea, MA, and their relatives in neighboring MA & RI towns. I have some ties to Jonathan^4 Soules' wives' Bosworth & Rounds families. Also, Jonathan's aunt Phebe Slade married Stephen Bowen, my 2nd cousin 8 x removed. So they aren't close relatives of mine but are important to my Rehoboth research. Chilton, Cooke, Howland, and Tilley are my direct lines and I have close relationships to Winslow & Billington. Jim Bullock Littleton, CO P.S. I certainly hope you & your computer stay healthy now. -----Original Message----- From: Susan E. Roser [mailto:roser@iprimus.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:51 AM To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Fw: [MFLR] Jonathan4 Soule Jim, According to the new research in the updated Soule MFIPs, Jonathan Soule4 (Sylvanus3, Nathaniel2, George1) (who married as above) is listed of one of 5 children of Sylvanus Soule (#21) & Sarah Slead with the caveat: "While there is no absolute proof they are the children of Sylvanus, their close association in Tiverton makes it very likely they are." The children listed (under #21) are: #108, Nathaniel, b. c1710, m. Lydia Gifford #109, William, b. c1711, m. Jemima Baker, Keziah Gifford #110, Jonathan, b. c1712/3 (married as you have above) #111, Sarah, b. c1718, m. Remembrance Davis Sylvanus, m. int. Ruth Davis (n.f.r.) The source for the above is "Mayflower Families In Progress, George Soule of the Mayflower..." 3rd Ed., 1999, family #s as given above. I get uneasy when the MF or MFIP books say children are "likely" or when they state there is no proof. Does this mean the line is accepted or not? I have had cases with applicants where the lines have and have not been accepted. In this case, there is no note saying that the line needs more proof before being accepted, so I'm assuming that the Soule researcher is satisfied with the line. However - note that TG 1 [1980]: 229, ["Mayflower Families To Date: A Critical Examination", by Neil D. Thompson, F.A.S.G.] - in response to the Soule, vol. 3, MF silver book published in 1980 - stated that "At least two purported children of Sylvanus3 Soule #21, Jonathan and Sarah, are so identified by elimination only." The only thing that seems to have changed since the 1980 MF book came out, is the inclusion of various deeds whereby Nathaniel, William, Jonathan and Sylvanus witnessed each other's deeds or were involved in the same deeds. The researcher has also shown that there was only one other Soule family in Tiverton at this time and all of his children appear to be accounted for. So, if this is your line Jim, looks like it's a Mayflower line. Susan E. Roser, Historian Canadian Society (PS - it's nice to be back, after a nasty computer virus and health problems, all of which have had me down for some time. Nice to see the list so active!) www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html

> I get uneasy when the MF or MFIP books say children are "likely" or when > they state there is no proof. Does this mean the line is accepted or not? > I have had cases with applicants where the lines have and have not been > accepted. In this case, there is no note saying that the line needs more > proof before being accepted, so I'm assuming that the Soule researcher is > satisfied with the line. Is there a rule of thumb about the Society's acceptance of lines through "question mark children" in the silver books? I'm wondering particularly about Obadiah Chase, 6th generation (probably) from Stephen Hopkins (Stephen1 > Giles2 > Stephen3 > Mary4 > Thankful5 Maker > ?Obadiah6 Chase). He and 5 siblings are listed (MF: Stephen Hopkins, 2nd ed, p.406) with question marks and a reference to the Chase genealogy in the New England historical & genealogical register. Their oldest brother is not questioned, as his birth was recorded at Yarmouth. Anybody have any insight here? Dianne Kenny