Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Ricketson Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Ricketson Descent from George Soule
Posted by: Larry Blackman (ID *****6831) Date: September 05, 2010 at 11:12:14
  of 160

As some of you are aware, in 2001 I published a compiled genealogy, Willcott, Kay, Timberlake, and Allied Families (Baltimore: Gateway Press). Some members of the Ricketson family qualify as "allied," because Nellie Olinda Timberlake married Robert Herman Ricketson (in 1906). In virtue of the fact that Robert Herman Ricketson was a descendant of George Soule of the Mayflower, all persons who descend from Nellie and Robert also descend from George Soule. This is set forth in detail in my book.

Not long after its publication I called attention to certain errors and omissions in the book. I did this on January 26, 2002, in the Timberlake Family Forum (item #553).

Regrettably, I must add to my original list of errors and omissions. In particular, the documentation on pp. 366-369, which have to do with the Ricketsons, is garbled. Worse yet, some of this has to do with the descent of our Ricketson line from George Soule. The following is an attempt to set the record straight.

At the very top of p. 367 a citation should be added. After the words, " . . the Civil War," citation number 11 should appear. This will correspond with endnote number 11 at the end of the chapter. Accordingly, endnote number 11 in the same paragraph following the expression,"January 24, 1889," should be note number 12. On p. 368, endnote 12 should be endnote 13. In other words, the number 13 should appear after the sentence, "We regret that Mr. Ricketson will not answer letters." In the same paragraph, endnote 13 should be 14. Toward the bottom of p. 368, note number 14 should be 15, and note number 15 should be 16.

If all that is clear, some of the endnotes themselves (on p. 369) need to be changed. It seems to me that notes 1-7 are correct as they stand. After that, however, the notes should read as follows:

8. Ibid., pp. 105, 175; Dartmouth, Massachusetts, Vital Records, Births, p. 200.

9. John E. Soule and Milton E. Terry, Mayflower Families Through Five Generations: Descendants of the Pilgrims who Landed at Plymouth, Mass. December 1620, Volume Three, George Soule (General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 1980), pp. 3, 6, 8, 20, 65, and 207. Cf. Milton Terry, Soule Kindred Name Index: With Corrections and Supplement (1986), pp. 53, 60, 75, and 103.

10. Westport, Massachusetts, Vital Records, Marriages, p. 227.

11. Edes, op. cit., pp. 323-324.

12. Ibid. Edes mistakenly calls Robert Herman Ricketson (born in 1889) "Robert HENRY Ricketson," but his middle name was actually "Herman."

13. Ibid., p. 534.

14. James S. Medill, "Frank H. ("Rick") Ricketson, Jr." and "Frank H. Ricketson, Sr., and Mary Margaret (Connor)," History of Leavenworth County, Kansas, Compiled and edited by Leavenworth County Genealogical Society (Salina, Kansas: Kancen Printing & Advertising, 1990), p. 338.

15. Edes, op. cit., pp. 323-324, 473.

16. Ibid., p. 535.

Best wishes, Larry Lee Blackman, Ph.D.

Notify Administrator about this message?
No followups yet

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network