39 relatives here, but not a curator... happy to assist

Started by living Cooley on Saturday, March 2, 2013

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 1-30 of 59 posts
3/2/2013 at 1:17 PM

History link tells me I have 39 ancestors or siblings of ancestors in this project - likely I have more. Since I'm not a curator, I can't take them on in that role, but I'm happy to help improve them once I figure out which ones they are :)

Private User
3/2/2013 at 2:04 PM

Hah! We're 12th cousin's now, you've been a busy tree builder.

I would love assistance in sourcing and correcting tree. What area of history / geography is interesting you?

3/2/2013 at 2:23 PM

No area in particular, though if I had to choose one area in particular which makes the most sense in terms of number of relatives I would probably say colonial Massachusetts - Reading, Salem, Monson, possibly Woburn

Private User
3/2/2013 at 2:28 PM

I am all about the Woo- bin. :). Woburn, Cambridge, Cambridge Farms (now Arlington), Lexington, Newton, even as far west as Concord.

Salem puts you in Essex county, another axis, and somewhat covered in the Salem Witch Trials Project.

So let's think of an interesting event to build a project around. For instance, we've done "founders of Newbury" based on a monument.

What's put there for Middlesex county?

3/2/2013 at 2:30 PM

8th cousin twice removed here :)

There's an Early Salem project and an Early Reading project and there really should be one for Woburn if there is not yet.

3/2/2013 at 2:36 PM
3/2/2013 at 2:38 PM

kind of a late event, tho

Private User
3/2/2013 at 2:39 PM

It actually should be Charlestown, not Woburn, I think, based on this:

Charlestown, settled in 1629, only nine years after the Pilgrims founded Plymouth Colony, is actually the starting point of Woburn’s history. In the early 1630s, looking to expand Charlestown, its citizens petitioned the newly elected representatives of the Great and General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony for more land. A wide extent of territory on the “main land” eight miles northward was granted to Charlestown (this area includes present day Woburn, Winchester, Burlington and parts of Stoneham and Wilmington).

http://users.rcn.com/woblib/chrnlgy.htm

So - we need an official list of some sort to identify the founders / settlers.

Private User
3/2/2013 at 2:41 PM

Too many Minute Men! :). Would make a cool project. Also a Sons of Liberty project would be awesome.

3/2/2013 at 2:41 PM
Private User
3/2/2013 at 2:47 PM

No wonder I knew my source so easily.:). I sent you a collaboration request to join the project. The list of founders need updates on the project index.

That Learned fellow is familiar Hatte. :):)

Maybe when done with Woburn, back track to Charlestown, 1629? I've actually been working a bit on those families.

3/2/2013 at 2:53 PM

sure, sounds good... I'll add my second (found so far) ancestor to Woburn Planters and continue on from there

3/2/2013 at 3:25 PM

Okay, the Richardson brothers appear to have some difficulties. Samuel, is shown as being born in 1670, yet shows as the brother of Thos. III and Ezekiel the immigrant. about 100 years off, in other words.

Samuel Richardson, lll

3/2/2013 at 3:29 PM

I just changed Thos. RIchardson III to Thos. IV too :)

3/2/2013 at 3:59 PM

hah, just found ancestor #3 in the original planters list :)

3/2/2013 at 4:42 PM

I'm going to guess we want Deacon Edward Converse Woburn selectman April 13, 1644 as opposed to Sgt. Samuel Converse (b. 1637) on the original planters list.

3/2/2013 at 4:51 PM

unless there's evidence to the contrary, I think Ezekiel Richardson is accidentally on the list twice and so far I haven't found a profile of Gershom Flagg which I think fits the bill. The rest seem good.

Private User
3/2/2013 at 4:56 PM

Except you now have a little "merge party" to help me finish because of your Samuel Richardson lll find.). Putting him in the right place brought in some duplicates :):). Source as you go along if the profile is "empty."

3/2/2013 at 4:59 PM

Lt. Gershom Flagg b. 1641 in Watertown does show up here http://www.yeoldewoburn.net/Flagg.htm , but unless we change the project from Original Planters to early settlers probably doesn't fit the bill.

3/2/2013 at 5:01 PM

ah, yes Samuel :)

3/2/2013 at 5:37 PM

Sarah Richardson
married to

Samuel Richardson, Jr.

versus

Samuel Richardson, of Woburn

married to

seems to me to be the major conflict now, I'll look at some sources and see what's what...

Private User
3/2/2013 at 6:35 PM

Sarah Hayward was married to Jr., not lll.

3/2/2013 at 6:36 PM

okay, glad you were able to clear that up while I ate dinner :)

3/2/2013 at 6:37 PM

she appears to be attached to Sr. as well as Jr.

Private User
3/2/2013 at 7:16 PM

So do you know how to disconnect her from the wrong husband? Be SURE the children have the correct parents 1st (I speak from bitter experience).

Once that's checked (parents are assigned easiest from the drop down box in the Edit Relationships tab) then it's simply "remove this relationship" to "grant the Geni divorce."

I think we're almost done! David Prins has helped out also.

3/2/2013 at 8:07 PM

She has no children listed, only stepchildren, so that's no problem.

Private User
3/2/2013 at 8:25 PM

I agree with the Geshom Flagg question & I'm unclear if Sgt Converse is whom is meant as a founder - his dates are correct in profile & too young to have been in "the group of 7." So perhaps we just need to clean up the list of original proprietors.

3/2/2013 at 8:28 PM

Yes, not all of the 13 currently listed were in the group of 7, for certain ;)

Private User
3/2/2013 at 8:31 PM

I think a couple of notables such as Rev Thomas Carter are good too. Part of what's fun about projects like this is to see the inter related families.

And then I'll challenge you to create the Charlestown project. I'm not sure how to winnow it down and what the best source material is yet.

3/2/2013 at 8:35 PM

whew, that sounds like a challenge for another day, lol

Showing 1-30 of 59 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion