Is Amy Patrick the wife of John Dean, KLXF-4XN? Are they in my direct line or is John Dean a perso
I've had some doubt for some time about my lineage beyond my great-grandfather William Dean, son of John Dean referenced above. (All parties mentioned can be accessed through his person page.) I remembered several of William's children, to include my grandfather Ashbell David Dean, living in the Salt Lake area in my youth. William's baptismal record identifies him as the son of John Dean.
There no record of a birth record of John Dean in the Yarnfield area, and the children's births are listed as diverse places, all be they close, within the shire. The 1861 census source in John Dean's record confirms all his children's birthplaces but does not for John. There were two possibilities that appear on a seacrh of find my past: Wirksworth and Kirk Ireton. I accepted Kirk Ireton.
Amy Patrick, a widow of George Holden prior to her marriage to John, has been sourced as his wife. The issue with Amy Patrick is that she would be the mother of William Dean my great-grandfather. His Idaho death certificate shows his mother's maiden name as Amy Gallimore. Amy Holden born Patrick died in 1860 the year before the 1861 census and shortly after the death of her last child. John Dean outlived her and she did not have time to divorce and remarry someone with the surname of Gallimore. A cursory search yields several Anne Gallimores in derbyshire, but no Amy.
My questions are: 1. Are John and Amy correctly placed in my lineage?, 2. Who is Amy Gallimore? Did I miss something? and 3. Are there two children (brothers of William) named John. John Dean's DETAILS page shows John an older brother to William and the 1861 census lists John as a younger brother.
I made notes in the discussion section in John Dean's COLLABORATE page. I've gone stale and might be overthinkng things. I was hoping someone who is fresh and quick in cross-checking the persons' records and sources might be able to tell me if this tree is correctly assembled as it pertains to John Dean and Amy Patrick. If this is too unreasonable a request, knowing that I should engage the services of a professional for hire would be goood to know.
At any rate, any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Bart
答え
-
Parents' names in death certificates should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when the decedent was an older adult. Amy Patrick passed away nearly 80 years before William Dean, and in another country. William's death certificate lists the informant as a Margaret D. Moss, and I don't know her relation to the Deans, but it doesn't look like she was a sibling of William's. It is entirely possible that Margaret was misinformed about William's mother's maiden name.
I see this sort of thing happen a lot. For years, I had difficulty finding my great-great-grandfather because the only record I had of him was a name on his child's death certificate, and I only recently discovered the informant had gotten his first name completely wrong. So helpful.
So, I would not put a lot of stock into the fact that Amy's last name is different on William's death record. Death records can be an important source for information on parents, but they are unfortunately not 100% trustworthy and should not be taken as a totally reliable source for parents. Considering the rest of the evidence, I think Amy Patrick is probably William's mother.
As for the two Johns, I'm only seeing a younger brother John on both the details page and the 1861 census, unless I'm missing something.
I hope that helps! I know how it feels to stare at your family tree until your brain short-circuits.
0 -
Many thanks for your input! I see a lot of mistakes on public records such as gross misspellings on foreign names to point they cannot be recognized. This one threw me because it was in the King's English, but it good to hear that experienced genealogist can confirm that they do happen. Your input was very helpful. As for the two Johns, I'll revisit them-----in a day to two.
Bart
0 -
You're welcome, happy to help! Yes, it's surprising the types of information people get wrong in records sometimes! I hope you continue to make good progress on your family tree, and we're always here to help! 👍
0 -
@Dean, Barton David
.
Dean
.
As an aside ...
.
Provided, a "Relationship" actually EXISTS in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
.
Just on the 'off chance' ...
.
IF, you have NOT already; THEN, you could try ...
.
Can I humbly suggest that a place where you should be able to 'See' your "Relationship" with, "Famous People"; and, many, "Others"; PLUS, you can ALSO "Print" the connections/links between you and them is through (BYU) "RelativeFinder" ...
.
(BYU) "RelativeFinder" digs (pun intended) a lot DEEPER in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', than 'FamilySearch' does.
.
(BYU) "RelativeFinder" is one of the "Third Party" Applications that "Certified" to work with "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
BYU = Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah, USA (ie. the Church University).
.
From the "Family History Technology Laboratory", of the "Computer Science" Department.
.
Here is direct link to "RelativeFibder"
https://www.relativefinder.org/#/main
.
.
"RelativeFinder" has MANY 'Bells and Whistles', that you might find useful.
.
Apart from "Famous People" and "Others" ...
.
(BYU) "RelativeFinder" has some interesting options ...
.
There is an option to see if there is a 'Connection' between yourself and a "Deceased" individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
.
There is an option to see if there is a 'Connection' between two (x2) "Deceased" individuals/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'
.
.
There is an option to see if there is a 'Connection' between ("Living" - Users/Patrons) Friends in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
.
.
Good Luck
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
0 -
The comments added here have reminded me of the pitfalls in accepting the details recorded in official records.
For many years I had been trying to find the baptism of an ancestor, who I knew was born in Yorkshire, around 1817. I had obtained a copy of this John Fawcett's marriage certificate, where his father was shown as Michael Fawcett. There were two Michael Fawcett individuals who had lived in the same area, but one seemed too young and the other too old to be John's father. Then, at last, I found a baptism record that appeared to relate to this John and, soon after, an 1818 marriage record for John Fawcett's mother, Elizabeth FAWCETT. It transpired, a year after John was born (illegitimately) she had married a Michael COATES. So there was no Michael "Fawcett" at all - just a Michael Coates stepfather. I have been wary of believing the recorded details - however "official" - ever since!
0
