Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
-
In reply to:
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
SHELLEY PRELUSKY 5/02/02
Hello Shelley---
Thank you for responding to my Blakeslee/Blatchley message.And thank you for the list of Samuel's family.You have found a couple items that I do not have.As to the question of the 12th child, I only found it in the list published by Russell Blakeslee, Sr. in his book "Our Blakeslee Heritage.".He did exhaustive and valuable research into the life and times of Samuel Blakeslee in New Haven, but he also committed several errors, the most notable of which were to claim the Blackley family of Great Chishall, Essex as the forerunners of Samuel Blakeslee and his assertion that Thomas Blatchley and Samuel Blakeslee were brothers.That Thomas Blackley was a passenger on the Hopewell to Boston in 1635 and appeared numerous times in Connecticut is fairly certain, but Samuel Blakeslee (Blachley, Blakely, Blackly, Blaxle, etc., etc.....) did not come with him.Who knows how Samuel spelled his name, or even if indeed he knew how to spell?Anyhow, Russell, in addition to the 11 children commonly cited, states that "A 10th child was born April 1667, and died April 1672.Its name is unknown.
More Replies:
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
Bill Grohs 6/19/02
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
A. Blakeslee 6/19/02
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
Sak Kehren 9/21/02
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
A. Blakeslee 10/09/02
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related
-
Re: Samuel Blakeslee and Thomas Blatchley not related