Alice Mullins (Unknown) and false claims of parentage

Started by Private User on Wednesday, February 3, 2010


Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 19 posts
Private User
2/3/2010 at 5:53 PM

Greetings all.
This profile has multiple (false) claims of parentage.

I am proceeding to remove the false links as I attempt to clean up the Alden/Mullins tree.

Unless someone can provide a valid, verified source that documents parentage for Alice Mullins (Unknown)... all of these false links will be systematically broken.

I have multiple sources indicating that these links are, in fact, false.
This is, but one, example:

Jason P Herbert

2/3/2010 at 6:22 PM

Jason, I agree with your sources and also your intention to remove the erroneous links- just as long as you are only removing the links and not deleting any actual profiles.

Private User
2/3/2010 at 6:39 PM

That is my intention, though there are alot of things in this disaster of a tree that should be deleted.

Jason P Herbert

2/4/2010 at 6:21 AM

Jason, Also you can use this source, which may indicate the source of the "Alice Atwood" myth:
He married ALICE - - - -, d. at Plymouth, "winter 1621" after 2 April 1621 (when copy of husband's will was made). Alice's maiden name is not known. Claims that she was Alice Atwood, daughter of of Nicholas Wood-Atwood and Olive Harman, derive from a mistake published by Elijah Francis Atwood (author of Ye Atte Wode Annals and article on the Atwood family in the Boston Transcript's genealogical column), which he later discarded when chronological evidence proved the connection could not be correct. Likewise, the source for the entry in Clarence Almon Torrey's New England Marriages Prior to 1700, which lists Alice's surname as "[Poretiers]?," cannot be found.

Because we have no marriage date for William and Alice and no baptismal dates for the children, we cannot prove that Alice was the mother of his children, but in the absence of other evidence, we are assuming that she was the mother of all the children.

2/4/2010 at 10:51 AM

So, if I see a pending merge that calls Alice on one side Alice Atwood, I shouldn't complete the merge? Or should I complete it and change Alice Atwood's name to Unknown?

Private User
2/4/2010 at 11:10 AM

"So, if I see a pending merge that calls Alice on one side Alice Atwood, I shouldn't complete the merge? Or should I complete it and change Alice Atwood's name to Unknown?"

Merge it if you can... and on the data conflicts page... keep 'Unknown' instead of 'Atwood', 'Portiers' or any other name.

Also... any 'parents' linked to the profile you're merging in, should be split (or deleted) from the profile, preferably *before* merging.

Jason P Herbert

9/9/2010 at 3:15 PM

Guess what -- this issue is back. No one reads the "overview tab" I guess.

Do we have a consensus to add in mother and father profiles that say "Alice Mullin's UNKNOWN father" and "Alice Mullin's UNKNOWN mother" ?

Erica "Mayflower" Curator

9/9/2010 at 3:46 PM

Erica "the Disconnectrix" Howton you could put a curator note on the profile -- you should find it under "More Actions"

9/9/2010 at 3:48 PM

Are you making me a "Mayflower" icon to add to the note? I can put it on photobucket.

9/9/2010 at 3:50 PM

More seriously - I wanted to make sure Jason and David and so on, who worked so hard on this information, see the issue, and agree to the solution.

I'm adding the "curator note" right now but won't do "disconnects" until people have seen this discussion.

Private User
9/9/2010 at 6:22 PM

Erica: I agree with your solution.

However... I don't like the use of the "Mullins" surname.

Perhaps just "Alice's UNKNOWN mother" and Alice's UNKNOWN father"?

Thanks for working on this area!

Jason P Herbert

9/9/2010 at 6:32 PM


You're saying that it is unproven that Alice was married to Mullins?

Feel free to jump in and power merge as far as you can. The general strategy is to gather all the dup's possible together, and *then* cut the connection.

Private User
9/9/2010 at 6:38 PM

Erica: No... I just don't like the use of the surname Mullins. I tend to be quite picky about maiden names on female profiles.

This is due to (in my experience) the use of maiden names making it easier to research the maternal lineage.

Also... because many women married multiple times... without a timeline of surnames... picking one (other than maiden name) is ill advised.

"The general strategy is to gather all the dup's possible together, and *then* cut the connection."

Yeah... that's the way I've been doing it... I just don't have all the tools I need to finish the job.

Jason P Herbert

9/9/2010 at 6:49 PM

OK, gotcha. What I've been doing is sort of period - dependent. I put in maiden names, if known, for contemporary times, as that makes it easier to trace their family: in my preferences they show as ( ), such as Susannah Latham (Kingman). So if the maiden name is unknown, it would only show first, middle, last name. Susannah Latham. (I'm neutral on the use of "unknown" in the maiden name field.)

The workaround for the mutiply-married I've been using is both married last names in the last name field. (Inventing here) Susannah Latham Kingsley (Kingman) in date order.

My question for a user name that shows as Alice Unknown is if she'll get improperly married off to all sorts of rounders <grin> by the less genealogically sophisticated.

If you all gather dupes around the Mayflowerites and then run out of permissions to do the final merge, just go ahead and post it for a curator to do. We're divvying ourselves into areas and projects and masochistically, I self assigned the Mayflower immigrants.

Speaking of that, other question for you. Again for the less experienced, would it be good to come up with a standard "suffix" for the Mayflower passengers? (I intend to start a discussion listing those passengers, by the way.)

9/9/2010 at 7:08 PM

Erica, another twin-separated-at-birth moment - I do the multiple married name the same way. Good luck with the Mayflowers! Why do they need a special suffix? Just lots of interest amongst the USians?

9/9/2010 at 7:17 PM

A lot of people have put in something like "Mayflower Passenger" in the middle name, nickname, first name, last name, suffix, and display name fields.

I think it's a good idea -- I keep thinking of third grade homework, must have been a traumatic study module, I think I wept for the starving pilgrims or the kind Indians -- but we need a standard.

The Mayflowerites (ians?) are not just popular with Americans, at least based on the "shared manager" names. Did my 3rd grade study module get (imperialistically) exported, along with Disney's version of Pocohantas? :)

Private User
9/9/2010 at 7:41 PM

Erica: That would get ridiculous for women who married many times (I know of a few who married at least 7 times!).

Also... those "suffix"es drive me nuts.

Valuable screen real estate wasted on utter crap, that has ZERO genealogical value.

Just my opinion (of course).

Jason P Herbert

Private User
9/9/2010 at 7:43 PM

P.S.- Erica... do you have an IM (instant massager) account? Could be useful if you need to "pick my brains" on the Alden tree.

9/9/2010 at 8:05 PM

I do and I'll PM you the account info.

Agreed about the sevenly married ladies. :)

Showing all 19 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion