FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Hello to all you Parker Researchers who are trying to figure out FG#1,#5 and #7 and to Kelly Parks (noI haven't forgot the information you sent me to study)
The more I know the less I know!!!!!!!!
I took some time off from researching because I was getting burn out and found myself going around in circles.
I want to say up front that I am just trying to help find the answer to the many questions we have as to which Parker belongs to what Y-DNA group and to do the best job of research that I can do. I make mistakes and I have changed my mind a bunch of times since DNA Testing (before also) and expect to be changing it again as I go forward as we find new information. I am trying to use records from the oldest and best sources that I can find but sometime the records are just not there.
I will be posting several long posting on fact and theories. I welcome any and all comments, ideas and theories anyone has. I will be posting information about the early Parker families in VA and NC. Thomas and Jeane/Jane Parker will be in one of the post. I don't know if they are members of FG#1 or FG#7 but the problems that I have run into is that there is so must misinformation out there on this family. I am trying my best to add what little knowledge that I have found so far on Thomas Parker as this is an ongoing project.
Theory only:let's see if we might come up with some dates thatcould show when Jane/Jeane was born as no one has found any records so far. Note: you can plug any number you want to but till we find another record that has date that we can use, it will be only a theory.
Thomas Parker second wife Jane lived about 38 years after he died,1754-1716=38 OK lets say she was 25( mother of 2 children) when he died then 25+38=63 ageat her death then she could have been born about 1691.
OK lets say she was 18 when Thomas died +38= 56 when she died then she could have been born about 1698.
You will find more information in the files that I will be posting.
On a lighter note.
This week I came across some information on a on-line tree that I never had heard before, the information about a Joane Parker (FG#1) marringRichard Parker ( abt 1624-Bef. April 23, 1681) [FG#7] see below. This was found at this link.
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=rand100&id=I12731http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=rand100&id=I12731
“Those Parker children came to the New World as their father’s headrights. Meaning, he paid their way, with the understanding that The Virginia Company would patent land to him for bringing settlers to Virginia. It seems as if others of Thomas the Yeoman's children also immigrated to Virginia, but with everyone in every generation being named the same, and with Thomas’ daughter Joane marrying a Parker—Richard—it’s difficult to sort these folks. (A challenge for someone with better organizational skill than this compiler.)”
I e-mail the researcher several days ago but have not heard back yet which goes to show you that there is a lot of informationout there but the big QUESTION is it correct or not. If Joane Parker and Richard Parker were married the this would explain a lot about FG#1 and FG#7. ( WELL I CAN DREAM CAN'T I just maybe for a day or two or till hear back from this researcher on way or the other.)
Wayne N. Parker
More Replies:
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Nancy Misenheimer 10/26/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
wayne parker 10/26/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Nancy Misenheimer 10/26/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Wayne Parker 10/26/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Nancy Misenheimer 10/27/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Nancy Misenheimer 10/30/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Patti Parker 10/27/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
Nancy Misenheimer 10/27/12
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7
-
Re: FG#1,FG#5, FG#7