Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Malcolm: The material I submit below will finish our discussions, prove you and one your sources, are in error.
You, and your source, provide: in effect:
THE WILL OF THOMAS CATLIN LEAVES A BEQUEST FOR HIS
GRANDDAUGHTER MARY BURNHAM. THAT SUGGESTS,ACCORDING TO YOU AND YOUR SOURCE, THAT JOHN BURNHAM ALSO MARRIED A MARY CATLIN, NOT THE DAUGHTER OF THOMAS'S SON, JOHN, BUT THOMAS HIMSELF.
The theory of course, is that the name Mary was carried down to a second generation, John's, and HIS daughter Mary, who Thomas named in his will, married someone other than Burnham --- Burnham already being Married to the daughter of John's father,i.e the first Mary Catlin.
That is speculation, Malcolm, and VALID speculation.
It is just NOT fact!
The facts are herewith revealed in the contents of a quit claim deed as reported on "Genealogy.Com", giving as source, "Connecticut, 1600s-1800s Local Families and Histories. Families of Early Hartford, Ct."
First, the Deed.
"LAND RECORD: JOHN BURNHAM & MARY HIS WIFE QUIT CLAIM TO SAMUEL & BENJAMIN CATLIN ALL RIGHTS IN EST OF THEIR FATHER JOHN CATLIN. JOHN CATLIN FOR LOVE TO SONS SAMUEL &
BENJAMIN GIVES HIS PPTY TO BE DIVIDED BY AGREEMENT - ONLY SURVIVING SONS RESERVING USE FOR SELF & WIFE MARY DURING LIFE."
For the sake of this discourse, I won't take the space or time to re-copy ALL the ancestry reported because it is too extensive and doesn't add to the specific issue at hand.
But, for clarity's sake, I will say source reporting above deed, gives Mary (Marshall) for wife of John (Thomas's son); and gives John's daughter, Mary Catlin, a husband named JOHN BURNHAM.
In addition to giving a birthdate of 16 July 1666 to Mary Catlin, he gives birth and marriage data for the rest of John's family (Mary's siblings). That family which agrees with the Quit Claim Deed, the source states, is as follows: Samuel b. 1672 m/1 Elizabeth Norton, m2 Sarah (Nichols)Webster; John b Apl 27, 1676;Thomas b. Aug 27,1678;
Benjamin b. Feb 1, 1680 m Margaret Kellogg; Hannah b. NOv 29.
Now is has to be confirmed if that quit claim deed is registered somewhere, hopefully to be found in the archives at Hartford or Wethersfield.
All other data, of course, should be investigated inlcuding the author of the data who provided the ancestral information. All that is beyond my resources, time and expertise. Otherwise, on the surface, all seems ironclad, if such a term can be appled to such a complicated research.
Regardless, the relentless search goes on - only on the basis of above, the daughter of settler Thomas will now be unmarried. And, thus, Joseph Churchill is still a viable candidate. All apologies accepted.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/churchill/messages/1679.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|