Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Further to Tousey/Catlin:
Partial quote from Malcolm's post of March 6, 2003 (#1652):
""Para 7: Thomas Catlin in his will made a beguest to his
GRANDDAUGHTER - Mary Burnham."
That can only suggest Mary's father,was John Catlin (son of Thomas)and obviously, this was the Mary that married John Burnham. How could it be otherwise??? And, being so, Burnham could not have married Thomas's daughter, also named Mary Catlin.
In trying to reduce this puzzle to lowest common denominator consider:
MARY TOUSEY:
Birth date: none recorded, or conjectured
Birth place: none recorded, or conjectured
Parents: none recorded, or conjectured
MARY CATLIN:
Birth date: 5/6/1649 - conjectured???
Birth Place: Wethersfield/Hartford - conjectured???
Parents: Thomas Catlin/Mary Partridge - conjectured??
On the basis of above, sources give no data - conjectured or otherwise for Mary Tousey. Searches cannot be made for parents - because none are given, conjectued or otherwise.
CATLINS: Genealogy.Com publishes on the Internet,
the complete records of "St. Thomas Parish", Barbados (beginning in 1648). Also published on the internet are International Passenger Records, which I would consider a bona-fide source. Those records indicate a Thomas Catlin embarked Barbados,1640, for Hartford, Ct. Same records indicate a Mary Catlin embarked Barbados for America (no city given)1674, the same year a "Mary Catlin" married Joseph Churchill.
Above records "prove" nothing in the Tousey/Catlin puzzle,for Barbados records from the Parish indicate there were many generations of Catlins and Partridges in Barbados. The given names of Mary and Thomas were repeated many times over the years for births and marriages, which guarantees confusion. Close scrutiny of the records might produce some solid records for Thomas and family of Hartford, pre-1650. The fact is, however,the Parish records substantiate there did exist Catlin and Patridge families in the 1650 era.
Is there anyone out there that can subtantiate the existance of a Tousey, Toucey, Touzey (etc) family before the year 1650? Records indicate the first recorded Tousey (not including Richard Tousland of Saybrook), was Thomas,the apparent forebearer of the line. But, indications are he arrived well after 1650, the date given for his birth in England. So, one has to reach to make Thomas Tousey a factor.
Discussions go on which source was correct in their reportings - Hindman? Stiles? Barbour? - and sources too many to list. Catlin or Tousey? How can a serious discussion take place, when it hasn't even been established that a Mary Tousey, factually, existed?? Not even phantom parents!
So folks, please keep looking.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/churchill/messages/1669.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|