Thomas Selden - Thomas Selden's Date of Death

Started by Ashley on Monday, June 11, 2012

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 5 posts
6/11/2012 at 12:51 AM

I am wondering if anyone has a source for Thomas Selden's death as being in 1655 instead of 1665. I went and pulled a will record (not the original will) from the Hartford Public Library's history center and found it to be from August 1665. That goes with the Early Connecticut Probate Records bound collection in the state library.

The Society of the Descendants of the Founders of Hartford says it's 1655, though, as do most on-line trees. I also found several Hartford histories and printed Selden genealogies that go with 1655. I feel like the SDFH is /the/ authority on these things, so I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, it's entirely possible that the will record is the source of a misunderstanding that was perpetuated in the bound probate digests. But my historian instinct wants to go with the will record and probate digest as the best sources.

So...what do we have? I've changed it to 1665 for the time being since the only actual source we have at the moment is the will record stating 1665, which I've uploaded.

6/11/2012 at 6:02 AM

I tend to think that the profile should be conformed to whatever is there for sources. August 1665 is sourced, 1655 is not. If that changes, the profile is not made of stone, and can be changed back if some competing source is found. My two florints... -Ben.

Private User
6/11/2012 at 11:40 AM

Hello.... I would tend to agree with Ben Angel on 1655 that is what the majority of the sources indicate. If you go to the following URL there is another document supporting 1655

http://search.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=2204&path=411....

Maybe it is enough info to make Hester a Wakefield and John Wakefield her brother To go along with the will that was added as document..
If it looks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck chances are very good it's Duck......ttfn

6/14/2012 at 7:32 AM

Private User, the document you cite isn't a primary source, though. I think that's why I lean towards 1665 -- a will record is more legitimate than a membership application.

Let's stick with 1665 for now. I'm headed to the Connecticut Society of Genealogists' library this afternoon and will see what I can dig up while I'm there.

Private User
6/15/2012 at 2:47 AM

I did not know if you had the record from the SAR. It might not be a primary
source but the app was submitted by living relatives and had reference dates for other family members.....Hope you had a successful field trip to the library ..... Thomas is way out on a branch for me and it would be nice to correct any errors I may have.....ttfn

Showing all 5 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion