Genealogical Scholarship : A Matter of Proof

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Genealogical Scholarship : A Matter of Proof

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2007 16:43:02

Dear Bill and others,
I have a line that I don`t claim though I
suspect it is correct . Reason ? A lack of Proof that it is correct.
Captain the Honourable James Boyd of
Kilmarnock , born 1666, 2nd son of The Right Honourable William Boyd, 1st Earl of
Kilmarnock by his wife Lady Jean Cunynghame is given by Arthur Sumner Boyd Jr
as father of James Boyd of Berwick, Maine born about 1700 possibly in
Ireland. Captain James enlisted in the Dutch Wars before 1694 (at which date a
daughter Charlotte Johanna Boyd was born to Captain James `s wife Johanna Louisa
Graham of Killearn in the Netherlands) note that his wife and James` mother is
listed as unknown in A S Boyd`s book " The Boyd Family"
James Boyd of Berwick, Maine was married in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire a Mary or Margaret Whitten at some point before 1717 when a son Andrew who
died 1727, ae 10 yrs died g s (Portsmoth, NH) says son of a James and Margaret
Boyd. very possible the same couple witnessed a deed at York, Maine in 1725.
James Boyd born abt 1720 is given as the son of James and
Margaret Boyd and married Elizabeth Garland. A James Boyce is listed in the
Lebanon, Maine records as marrying Hannah Garland in 1773 who may be him.
So while plausible, perhaps even probable there is
insufficient evidence to support the pedigree.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Genealogical Scholarship : A Matter of Proof

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 24 nov 2007 21:36:06

In article <mailman.417.1195918819.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Bill and others,
I have a line that I don`t claim though I
suspect it is correct . Reason ? A lack of Proof that it is correct.
Captain the Honourable James Boyd of
Kilmarnock , born 1666, 2nd son of The Right Honourable William Boyd, 1st
Earl of
Kilmarnock by his wife Lady Jean Cunynghame is given by Arthur Sumner Boyd
Jr
as father of James Boyd of Berwick, Maine born about 1700 possibly in
Ireland. Captain James enlisted in the Dutch Wars before 1694 (at which date
a
daughter Charlotte Johanna Boyd was born to Captain James `s wife Johanna
Louisa
Graham of Killearn in the Netherlands) note that his wife and James` mother
is
listed as unknown in A S Boyd`s book " The Boyd Family"
James Boyd of Berwick, Maine was married in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire a Mary or Margaret Whitten at some point before 1717 when a son
Andrew who
died 1727, ae 10 yrs died g s (Portsmoth, NH) says son of a James and
Margaret
Boyd. very possible the same couple witnessed a deed at York, Maine in 1725.
James Boyd born abt 1720 is given as the son of James and
Margaret Boyd and married Elizabeth Garland. A James Boyce is listed in the
Lebanon, Maine records as marrying Hannah Garland in 1773 who may be him.
So while plausible, perhaps even probable there is
insufficient evidence to support the pedigree.

But nothing in your sketch makes the Maine / New Hampshire man a
"plausible, even probable" son of Capt. James Boyd. Why do you "suspect
it's correct?" Only that it is chronology *possible*? That's far, far
from probability. Why did Arthur Sumner Boyd claim it to be so? Was
there anything other than wishful thinking and naivete in his assignment?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»