Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Anyone using this book as a source of information should be very wary of the many, many mistakes it contains. Many of the early CT lines are false. Mathew of CT had no son Benjamin BECKWITH. Also, those of you so excited to trace yuor ancestry back to "Lady Beckwith Bruce", that lineage has been proven false. Also, anyone claiming that Mathew of CT was born in 1610 as stated in "The Beckwiths", I would love for you to contact me regarding the evidence for this.
Be especially wary of incorrect spellings of places, and transposed dates. In a few cases, women in their 90s have children born before the women married!
Be sure to try "Beckwith Notes" by the Beckwith brothers, A.C. & E.S. Beckwith. Six volumes of booklets were published between 1899 and 1906. They do not necessarily document what they state, but they do give good arguments for/against. Volume 4, I believe, was produced solely to point out errors, page by page, in Paul Beckwith's "The Beckwiths".
I do not mean to be a party-pooper, but PLEASE use "The Beckwiths" only as a guide for possiblities. Do not assume it is "gospel". Too many mistakes have been "turned into truth" by people passing on "The Beckwiths" information as being correct, when it is patently false....Mahlon Erickson
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/beckwith/messages/190.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|