The "AKA - names/terms currently politically incorrect/offensive" thread
brought to mind specific problems with certain data, and a more general
question. The data:
A 1775 parish register baptism entry reads: "Unity Cooling (base born
Child) of Elizabeth Davis" Four years later, another baptism entry
reads: "Unity Daughter of Elisabeth Davis B B." In 1798, a baptism
entry reads: "Thomas son of Unity Davis", he apparently marrying 13
years later in 1811. The next entry for Unity Daves was for her
marriage in 1807, followed four months later by the baptism of a son to
the couple with an unusual and almost legible annotation to the record.
His ages at censuses through 1891 and burial give an implied birth
between 1803 and 1806, most probably 1805 or 1806. All known
descendants are from this son, though Unity had other children. She
died in 1845, aged 59, according to her burial entry.
Specific problems: I entered both dates in the baptism field for Unity,
overriding Legacy's anguished protest and noting the details in Research
Notes, but I gather that won't be good for a gedcom or reports. How
should one deal with a situation when: an individual was baptized more
than once; with different surnames (one expressed the other implied);
and, generally, when the name of an assumed father is in the parish
register as the explicit baptismal surname or as a notation? Since
Unity appears to have had two sons out of wedlock, the possibility is
enhanced that her marriage legitimized a child not of the husband. As
it happens, the husband's own origin and lineage rests on inference and
parish register data from 3 other parishes, my reasoning requiring
several paragraphs of his Research Notes. Should discussion of the
evidence regarding that second son's bloodline (actually probably
legitimate) be in the son's notes rather than more compactly treated in
his father's?
General Problem: Some day this genealogy should be well enough
documented for it to be published. Currently, at least 4 published
genealogies have these individuals and appear to ignore the baptism
entries for Unity, the match to her burial data, and her first son. In
these days of DNA testing, that data's a useful footnote, but the Y gene
from the second son runs today to numerous Living and may or may not
match that from his cousins. Omissions and/or errors in the earlier
genealogies may simply reflect limited research, or could be due to
policy regarding possible embarrassment. I've no wish to cause or add
to the latter, but it doesn't seem responsible to me to not put later
workers on notice of both fact and prior reasoning. Should that also
include reference to earlier doubted work, or does that just add to
possible embarrassment and angst? Should such a reference be as a
source with a note of caution or disavowal?
kb
Have you unlocked the real power of Legacy? Legacy 6.0 Deluxe has 92 features
not found in the Standard Edition. Learn more about these features at
http://legacyfamilytree.com/DeluxeEdition.asp.
Legacy User Group guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
For online technical support, please visit
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
