Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Donna,
The little we have on the Haverhill Haddocks mention possibly their origins as Yorkshire, so this Lancashire information is interesting. We also have to understand that the Biographical Encyclopedia is somewhat self-serving -- the guy in question, Charles H. Haddock, M.D. (1822-1904) was fairly prominent and may have wished to embellish a bit his background when asked by the publishers. As I wrote, it's the only source known linking the Haverhill Haddocks to either Sir Richard.
The timeline for this to work would tightly, from what I have (a combination of Mike Haydock's work and the published Haddock correspondence), and there is some confusion because of contradictions between what Mike has and the correspondence, but in essence, it would be possible for there to be a connection (the missing link being a generation, possibly two under one scenario, between 1688-1731, as I recall but I'd have to go back and plow through a lot of documents). But being possible and that being actual are two different things, because I still haven't found a conclusive link.
So, I would ask you, do you know if all of Richard's (second one, 1630-1715) descendants through 1731-1752 accounted for? If so, I think that would close off the last possibility of a Haverhill Haddock being related.
Thanks for your information.
-- JDS
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/haddock/messages/701.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|