Samuel (or William or John) Shattuck - No record of a first name exists. Sam, Wm & John are all guesses.

Not a strong set of sources, which is why I have 3 possible names. My original source was documentation passed down to me (but it didn't list a source). Philip Shaddock of http://shaddock.ca would better be able to point you to sources. Lemuel Shattuck's book would be one.

Hi James:

Thanks for your note. Can you help me fill in anything that's missing from the post below? I'm looking for people who might have some information that I haven't been able to find yet.

http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.shattuck/456/mb.ashx

Thanks.

Shirley

Shirley,

All the information I have is here: http://family.beacondeacon.com/bm.htm Hopefully that information can help. There are still questions that remain, but that's the most complete I have been able to get in regards to my Shattuck ancestry. I list sources there.

-James "Jamie" Johnson

First Last all attempts at a given name for "widow Shadduck's" husband are speculative. They are listed in the geni profile to reduce the number of new lines created.

First Last I've now also -

- peeled your Hopkins off the Shattuck / Gardner's ... Again
- reviewed your http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.shattuck/456/mb.ashx posting

I am in agreement with your notes. We had an extensive discussion a few months ago & geni & Wikitree should be reflecting similar trees (can't speak for Wikitree).

This Shattuck line "daughtered out," it seems. Our friend Samuel Sewell's diaries as the proof.

I think I can add that I had read a strong argument against the Sibley connection for "widow Shattuck". Hopefully it's in her profile. If not & you need it, let me know.

Thanks Erica. But now that he appears as

Unknown "Samuel" Shattuck

it might appear to some people that his first name was unknown and that he went by a middle name of "Samuel" which is misleading in two ways:
1. Commoners didn't have middle names back then.
2. We don't know his name.

Why can we not just call him Unknown Shattuck since no one anywhere knows what his first name was or when or where he was born or when or where he died?

There is nothing misleading about someone named Unknown if his name is unknown.

James -- thanks for the addition of the "critical eye" on your page. Would welcome any comments or suggestions to make it clearer to understand.

Thanks to you both --
Shirley

Erica: Yes please if you run across the anti-Sibley note again that you mentioned.
Shirley

Let me experiment with the "Samuel" for a bit. My need to not be constantly chasing Fake Pedigrees that send members down an erroneous path may trump any misunderstanding of what "Samuel" might mean. We've had success with this method in the medieval tree.

Back to rounding up Sibley's who found themselves attached to the Henry Vlll tree. Don't ask.

Thanks again Erica! Keep us posted on Samuel.