Hi, John and List, I've found a lot of good information on my last generations of Stantons from the "...Thomas Stanton and His Descendants" book, but some of the information new to me is a little suspect. I think I've ask this question a hundred times, but is anyone researching the ThomasI>Samuel>Daniel who married Mary Chesebrough > Phineas Stanton, Sr. who married Elizabeth Stanton?. I've found several "new" offspring, but the dates are really strange: 1. Phineas Stanton, Jr., b. Aug 9, 1741 (my ancestor) 2. Enoch Stanton, b. Sept 15, 1745 3. Zebulon Stanton, b. June 10, 1753 4. Anna Stanton, b. Sept 5, 1758 5. Samuel Stanton, b. April 16, 1760 6. Martha Stanton, b. June 7, 1766 7. Asa Stanton, b. July 29, 1770 That's an awful long time for poor Elizabeth to be having children! Any clues? Also, if anyone has information such as wills, bios, Bible records and obits for the Stantons of New London County, CT, please consider transcribing them to the new GenConnect boards on the New London County, CTGenWeb site. I hate to keep filling them up with Gallups! Pat Sabin New London County CTGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~ctnewlon My Families: http://www.maddoxinteractive.com/sabin John Ralls wrote: > > Brian Mavrogeorge of the Stanton website asked what kind of document is it > that I referred to in my original post. > It is a manuscript, written between 1885 and 1890, with some additions > written after 1890. It is in the format that one finds in family bibles, > with separate columns for births, deaths, and marriages. The writer is > Sarah Stanton Kniskern, my gggrandmother. Most of the information is such > that she would have had direct knowledge herself or have had access to > people who did (i.e., her parents),being her and her parents' immediate > families. This is one reason to allow it some credit. There are two > "facts" which don't necessarily qualify: The marriages of two of her > ggrandfathers: One, of Lawrence Lawyer and Elizabeth Berg, is well > documented elsewhere (and of no interest to this mailing list). The other > is the surprise that I described in my original post.