tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post8507679485109952433..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Don't Believe All That You Read or WatchJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-29299806841680093342012-09-03T13:20:46.891-07:002012-09-03T13:20:46.891-07:00I haven't run into this too much with my famil...I haven't run into this too much with my family tree. My brother-in-law's La Grange's are a different story. <br /><br />They came to New York (settling in the New Amsterdam area) in the mid-1600s. His ancestor is said to have come to New York with his father and a couple of brothers. Some of the online work and information in books says that he was born in 1625 and died in 1731 at the age of 106. The earliest reference I have found for him in New York is 1666.<br /><br />While it is possible that he lived to be 106, I find it unlikely given some other facts about his life. He would have been about 35-40 when he arrived with his father and brothers--those brothers being unmarried, too. He married about 1663. They had their first child in 1665 and their last in 1692. If I'm to accept his birth in 1625, then he fathered his last child at 67 years old. Not that strange today, but how likely in 1690s? Also, his wife was born in 1650. There would have been 25 years between them.<br /><br />For me, it doesn't add up. I'm more likely to believe that he was born around 1645-1650 and that a typo was made somewhere. That would make more sense with all the other data. It makes far more sense than a 40 year old man coming over with his father and unmarried brothers and then living another 50-60 years.<br /><br />I've had my debates with researchers over the inconsistencies but they are unyielding. I am sure the story is recorded in many places online and in print. But is it really true or how much of it is true?<br /><br />Melhttp://www.researchjournal.yourislandroutes.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-18825804121481846432012-09-03T12:13:28.674-07:002012-09-03T12:13:28.674-07:00A lot of 'family lore' was compiled by poo...A lot of 'family lore' was compiled by poor Family Historians in the 1910s-1930s, not passed down from several earlier generations. Some was also seemingly made up on the spot when someone was being interviewed for one of the published mug-books, or asserted as a matter of political viewpoint. For a published sketch of one distant cousin, whoever was talking to the book compiler could not get the name of his paternal grandfather right, but somehow 'knew' that the paternal-line family was one of the original Jamestown settlers -- more comfortable for a West Virginia family than Delaware origins. No actual connection is to be found.<br /><br />For another cousin's 1916-published sketch, the teller got the paternal grandfather and great-grandfather sort of right, but went on to assert paternal-lineage back to Lord Baltimore's original expedition to MD. The raconteur evidently had not seen a list of passengers and crew on the Ark and the Dove, which included no one by this paternal-line surname, and no known ancestor of the family in any event.<br /><br />Diligent searches for some antecedents for these stories have failed to find any possible sources.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.com