Richard Thayer Sr. - Richard Thayer

I think I disconnected at the correct places, Judith. I also merged the redundant spouse of Richard Thayer, III, immigrant (he now only has one spouse, Dorothy Thayer)

It would be helpful, when asking for help untangling situations like this where there are cross-generation common names and spouse, to also put in the specific URL links to the profiles being discussed (such as done above).

What was somewhat interesting about this is that 'Jr.' was his own parent.

(... as far as the Geni 'tangle' was concerned ... which may be why it may have required a Curator to disconnect ...)

Even though they are not 'complete & documented', I'm going to MP the Dororthy of Richard Sr. so she isn't mis-merged with Dorothy Pray (wife of Jr.).

I will check Da. the reason i notice is Jane and John Parker are my line . Thayer is really not anything to do with me other then 2nd husband of jane and they left N.E. but never made it back to England. At least she didn't. My line goes from John and Jane Parker to Thomas Parker( he was born in Boston same year they arr. on The James in June 1635. he was born I think it was Oct, and Mary Shaw Rogers to Benjamin Parker and Elizabeth Gilman to Thomas Parker and Anna jenness to Benjamin Parker and Anna Taylor to William Taylor Parker and Mary Chandler to Timothy Parker and Catherine Fernald to Daniel Parker and Lucy Fernald(they were first cousins) to George Parker and Lucinda Bowley Jackson to Charles W. Parker and Winnette I. Cookson ( she also has a Parker in her line but a different one) to my mother helen Parker and Julian J. Loubris to me. I feel like I left someone out!

Dan, it looks ok, now. Thanks. Judy

Dan , this Thayer thing is still a bit tangled. yes everyone is in the right place but I have seen other places and it's strictly family tree info from other people that the one born in 1601 is not sr but really jr and the one born in 1624/25 is really the 3rd not jr. At least they are matched up with the right people. Judy

I found another one , tree, that had two richard thayer's born to same father one a sr. 1601 to late 1660's and one a jr, born 1601 dying much later. > Now explain how that one happened. Someone is confused don't see why the father would have twins with the same name, would you. Lot of crazy stuff out there. i am sticking with the legal records ete.

Just discovered another Thayer connect via Parker, Same, Parker family , stemming from John and Jane Parker. Hon William parker's line via Toppan and a Toppan married a Thayer, ame family. Interesting.

Yes, not all the 'family trees' one can find are 'correct'! :-)

When there are common "errors" easily found, it is helpful, at times, to document that on one or a couple of the key family profiles. That can either (or both) be done in the "About" text as well as in a curator note on the profile.

n.b.: The curator note shows during the 'merge compare', and is limited to 250 characters, so it often contains just the information needed for clarification or to help prevent incorrect merges.

I'm looking to your guidance, Judith: when you think you've identified all the known children of a particular couple, I (any curator) can make MP's of all the children. That way it becomes obvious when a child gets added later (by whatever means) that either doesn't belong or needs to be merged (which can occur either via a mis-merge, incorrect information, or a simple mistaken action such as a click in the wrong place!).

re: Sr. / Jr.

It is rather common for a Jr. or III to become a Sr. for a subsequent generation of families, particularly if one of those people never really used the suffix (e.g.: because they moved to a different locale, so there was no confusion, or because a later researcher didn't know about all the generations involved, or family tradition, or ...).

I know in the Neely clan in America that I'm connected to there are a string of 6 Thomas Neelys, but I'm pretty sure they were not known to their families as 1 through 6! In many cases those are genealogical additions to prevent confusion of the generations!

I think that's why people get confused , sometimes. I agree a lot of trees can differ from person to person.I have that problem with one of my Parker's. Now it being my mother's direct line, plus all the probate , deeds and other records I have compiled over the years, i can recite the whole line, at this point. However , out there some one has a William T. Parker,being born in Roxbury , with his father Thomas. and being buried in Saugus. Well, there was a Thomas Parker in Roxbury with a son William T Parker born the same year as mine but he is not the same person. i believe he is a distant cousin. Mine on the other hand Is William T. (Taylor) Parker the son of Benjamin Parker and Anna Taylor and he is buried I am not sure but his grandfather William Taylor (his mother's father) is in deed buried in Saugus, When I lived in the Saugus center section of saugus, now am in diferent section of town) I use to walk by the old Burial grounds daily ,as I only lived a few house from it. so I could go visit William Taylor's grave as well as the daughter's , son, ,Timothy Parker and wife Catherine fernald, of William taylor Parker But this has never been correct and most likely never will be, either! Judy

From what I can see in the files,Richard III and Richard jr. are switched. I could be wrong

The 'display names' of the father & son were causing some confusion; the names more accurately reflect relationships now. Thank you, Mary, for raising the question.