Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Mark, at this point anything is possible since we know so very little about Thomas' early life. Sure, its possible, and it is just as possible that he never had a son named William. Or, perhaps he had a son in England before he/they left for America. But, John was the son who inheirited his property, so I doubt either William in England was his son. I get the feeling that we are slowly closing in on the facts. I don't question the accuracy of the IGI records, but I wonder about their "completness". If they are substantially complete, then we can learn a lot through the process of elimination.
We may soon be able to say something like "It is probable, or likely", that Thomas was from (some identifiable place) and that he was lilely the son of ????????
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out that he only had a son named John, who had no sons, and that "NONE" of the US Crumps were descended from him! No one has been able to document another son. That would change some records, wouldn't it <G>. Ed
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/crump/messages/1229.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|