George Ambrose Sutton - George Sutton (not George Ambrose)

I fired off an "unmerge" - the tool may be incomplete and require further manual editing. If you're not able to do so, post back here or use "contact manager" . Hope this helps.

Here's George Sutton

Unknown Profile

I've made him MP to keep him separate

The children need to be moved over perhaps? They currently show as stepchildren. Easiest done through profile view > relationships >. (Parents drop down) (select correct pair) (save & close button).

I am not familiar with the families so didn't want to guess.

Thanks Erica.

Might not be that easy to resolve this one. Many people truly believe that Robert Ambrose Sutton is the father of George and Simon, though there is no paper trail to connect the Essex Suttons to Kent. And honestly, George Sutton 1607 only wins over George Ambrose Sutton 1613 due to much better circumstantial evidence (those christening and marriage records in the neighborhood of the Tildens), whereas there are, I believe, no records of "George Ambrose" until he comes to America, and there are no primary sources whatsoever for his alleged middle name or his birth date. It's been claimed that there was a christening but I have yet to see any proof. He probably ended up with April 12, 1613 as a birth date because he is thought to have been aged 56 at his death on April 12, 1669. That appears to be a weak point in the case for George 1607. Though I strongly suspect that comes from a history (Genealogical Notes on the Sutton Family of New Jersey by Edward F. H. Sutton, 1900) that reads "aged ABOUT 56," so this is probably yet another case where a guess has been inflated into a fact. He was probably given Sandwich as a birthplace because the ship Hercules sailed from Sandwich, Kent. (To my knowledge, there is nothing to tie his alleged Essex family to Kent. I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm not looking for DAR-level documentation, but show me a primary source!)

It's one of those errors that has taken on a life of its own and spread across the internet. But people really want to believe in this line because there are royals (e.g. William the Conqueror, Hugh Capet, & the Wessex kings) and aristocrats in Robert Ambrose Sutton's tree. Sometimes we see only what we want to see.

Is there a way to simply leave two fathers for them and let people decide which is the truth? I feel like just removing people from the George Ambrose line might be bullying them, yet I don't want to be bullied into accepting errors into my tree, either. Needless to say it is also throwing off many of my relationship paths. Not a big deal, but it is a neat Geni feature I'd like to make use of.

Is there a way to choose the father of Nathaniel in my own tree while leaving others to choose for themselves? Or is there no Geni mechanism to "agree to disagree"?

Thank you kindly!

One day perhaps there will be multiple path options to assuage researchers and "true believers" but if it connects to "royalty" then it's "too good to be true" without additional evidence on Geni, in my opinion.

If it were my line, I'd add "unknown parents" placeholder parents to be made MP.

I'd also be contacting the curator of the "Ambrose" line to see if that profile should be conformed to yours. Again, if this were a collateral line for me, I'd rather a conservative approach.

Oops - sorry - I do see you have a decent candidate for George's father. I would enter them. There could be an unresolved parent conflict kept, but I think I'd ask curators / managers for a "best presentation" option decision - with links to the other possibility profile that can be "jumped to" for study.

So far your case is compelling me but I'd want it laid out as clearly in the profile also.

Love "True Believers." Similar issues on the "Marquis of Thomond" Bryan line (waiting to hear back from a curator/cousin).

The placeholders are a stellar idea. I'll figure out who best to contact for a few other lines with similar issues that are at risk of being mis-merged. At least for one of them, I am also armed with DNA evidence (one line is Haplo G, the other R1b).

I'll sleep on it and firm up the research before contacting the "Ambrose" line folks. My understanding is that all of the records for "Robert Ambrose" actually read "Ambrose"--no evidence for the name Robert. But I'd like to look into it more fully. Some believe a Robert Ambrose Sutton came to America after his son (records unknown to me), other records show Ambrose Sutton died in England.

And with another night's sleep I'm less likely to be snippy. : )

The first recorded case of a middle name in the American colonies was noted by the Rhode Island compiler as "surely the first case."

1680s, Quaker family.

If I see it before then I think it a "genealogist fudge it."

I've wondered myself about the lineage of my George Sutton who married Sarah Tilden. I hadn't heard about the George Sutton (son of Robert) before reading Amy's post. It does seem to me a lot likelier that our George was the son of Robert Sutton and his wife Mary Austin. I admit I've always had concerns that ppl so readily state (as if it's proven) that George Sutton was the son of Robert Ambrose Sutton. Thanks for looking into this!! :-)

I would like to add the parents as discussed, but the profile for George Sutton was merged into "George Ambrose" on April 9. Could that be reversed?

Oh ack!

Here's the Unknown Profile born 1607

Here's the George Sutton born 1613

Here http://www.geni.com/people/Nathaniel-Sutton/600000000692907604 born 1643 with a parent conflict

Let's be clear on which George is more likely to have been

- husband of Sarah Sutton

- son of Ambrose Sutton of Long Island & Sarah Sutton

So we know which to disconnect

George Sutton of Biddenden, Kent--

Unknown Profile

--is Sarah Sutton (Tilden)'s husband, but not the son of "Robert" Ambrose Sutton and "Sarah Rose" Mary Warner.

I'd like to disconnect his current parents and add Robert Sutton and Mary Austin as the probable parents.

There are a lot of people on that profile--many believe George Sutton is a gateway ancestor. Hoping to get more people involved on this one.

Shall we involve Ashley Odell and/or Janet Palo-Jackson (nearby curators)?

Should have specified--that's George 1607.

I agree with Amy--IMO it's MUCH likelier that "our" George Sutton (who married Sarah Tilden) was the son of Robert Sutton and Mary Austen. To me it seems a much better fit. I suspect the curators will agree with us. Why not ask them? I'm already pretty much convinced.