John F. Chandler wrote: >Richard wrote: > > >> I've sorted things out a bit differently, and welcome Cyndi's -- Hi, >>Cyndi! -- comments (or anyone else's!), as I could be wrong, but here is >>how I have it: >> >>Eliz. Sweet of Richard m. Peter3 Wells of Jonathan: I have her as dau. >>of John4 Sweet, son of Richard3 Sweet; Peter3Wells' father Jonathan2 as >>son of Peter1 Wells. >> >> > >I don't see the justification for ignoring the explicit statement of >parentage in the original record. Elizabeth was said to be the daughter >of Richard, not the granddaughter. How do you discount that? > I don't!!!! I managed to miss it, I guess, :-[ when I originally came up with that proposed lineage. I knew I could count on you, John, to straighten out any errors I made. Thank you! :-) And in light of Cyndi's subsequent post, I guess I can throw that one out!!! Next time, I'll save myself some embarrassment by contacting both of you first, before I put my foot in my mouth!!!! :-D Overtaxed in Montana, Richard L. Hardesty

Richard wrote: <<I don't!!!! I managed to miss it, I guess, ... Next time, I'll save myself some embarrassment by contacting both of you first, before I put my foot in my mouth!!!!>> Richard, Don't worry that you missed something - we all do - frequently! Isn't it refreshing to have had an actual exchange of thoughts based on sources??? Thank you to Kathy for posting the original question! Cyndi