V. Adm. Sir John Hawkins - Sea dog and horndog?

@Erica Howton: Yes, if that were so. However, he also says a Sarah MacDanile, born Jones is the real Sarah. I have seen her record for her first marriage to a James McDaniel in 1739 in Maryland, and then the 'Widow' married Joseph Hawkins on 19 May 1745 in Baltimore County. He is insistent this is correct. Face/palm. With so very many Joseph Hawkins, how can he possibly say this? I can find no death notice for her first husband. It is said she had a daughter from the first union, but I have yet to see a tree that lists the child into the Ether.

Yes, I wish I had a male Hawkins from my line who would take the DNA test. Apparently, according to another Cousin from his same line (Joseph, Jr.) he's mulling it over. The man is closing in on 97! If he hasn't yet had the test, he may very well take the Truth to his grave. Sorry to rant, but this man came out of nowhere and totally laid to waste what I know about my family. He didn't even care that the cenotaph lists Sarah Marlin as Joseph Hawkins' wife. What can we do?

@Erica Howton: If this Sarah McDaniel born Jones is the one, he shouldn't be suggesting her mother was Patience Bael. The Quakers, bless them, keep very good records. I can find no birth record for a Sarah whose father was Joseph Jones and the mother was Patience in 1720 when she is said to have been born. There were other children born to this couple. But the only Sarah born to a Joseph Jones had a mother by the name of Sarah and was born much later. I cannot verify his claim. But I do believe he's the one behind the discrepancy. And believe me there are two camps over at Ancestry.

@Erica Howton, I would but for the fact I'm a paying subscriber to Ancestry and they have great records! I just pretty much ignore the trees that list Sarah Jones as my 6th great-grandmother's mom. I may look at their sources, just to see what they found that I haven't, but then I move on. It's amazing how many will use a record of marriage and/or birth/baptism, that clearly notes a different set of parents than they have listed as 'proof'. :O We simply can't get anywhere, if we don't source correctly.

April, you should also try Familysearch.org - registration required, but it's *free*. They have good records too, sometimes better than Ancestry's - and the two of them provide a valuable check on each other.

Nobody's "family trees" are primary information, not even the English Visitations series. They're all secondary, with all the hazards that come with secondary sources.

@Maven B. Helms. Yes, I'm also over there, too. I spread myself out to hopefully catch more DNA matches.

Yes, after a short time of going shaky-leaf happy, I have stopped taking the repeated 'errors' as any form of truth. I now check out their sources and if they're 'iffy' IE names on the record not matching their tree (and I've run into a number of them) then I don't accept the person proffered.

My Sevier Family Historian is now concentrating on our Valentine Sevier's brother, William, who stayed in Virginia when the rest of the family left for the Settlements, 300 miles southwest from the Shenandoah Valley. Seems some have assigned his children to his older brother. Likewise, one had him married to his sister-in-law (makes me wonder if Valentine knew about this ;) ).

All matching surnames don't belong to one set of parents! Or even the same branch of the family. I've been slowly, cleaning up my individual profiles on my Tree over at Ancestry, which is the Main one I have. To the point I won't just download it to my Family Tree Maker. Eventually, I will key it in one person at a time to avoid the mess I inadvertently made.