Elizabeth Parker (Parker) - Consistency Check:

Started by Cynthia Curtis, A183502, US7875087 on Monday, July 4, 2022
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 7 posts

Consistency Check:Elizabeth Parker (Parker) is under 12 years old for the birth of her child Thomas Parker.Elizabeth Parker (Parker) is under 12 years old for the birth of her child Mary Harwood (Parker).Elizabeth Parker (Parker) is under 12 years old for the birth of her child Ebenezer Parker.Elizabeth Parker (Parker) is under 12 years old for the birth of her child Lucy Barron (Parker).Elizabeth Parker (Parker) is under 12 years old for the birth of her child Sarah Senter (Parker).Elizabeth Parker (Parker) is under 12 years old for the birth of her child Elizabeth Wright (Parker).

Hi Cynthia, I see you've changed the birth date from 26 Dec 1691 to 26 Sep 1709. The birth year I used did not have her too young to be the mother of her children.

Where did you get the new date from? I used FaG - https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/18168942/elizabeth-parker In there it has these sources. -

Chelmsford VRs, Births, Pg 106
Parker, Elisabeth, d. Mosis and Abigall, Dec. 26, 1691.

Concord VRs, Marriage, Pg 80
"Ebenezer Parker and Elisabeth Parker were married by Justice minott August 13 day 1712"

Chelmsford VRs, Deaths, Pg 422
Parker, _____, w. Ebenezer, bur. Sept. 7, 1754. CR1

Note: There is a record of her burial in the Chelmsford Vital Records, however, there appears there is no longer a headstone.

Also in FaG, the attached family members are consistent with what's in Geni.

What have you found as to this profile's date of birth?

Go to the other discussion please.
This is just the consistency issue.
The dates are per the FAG you added.
The two different death dates show two different people.
The profiles have many issues.
Common names create problems.

I did respond to that Discussion as well. Did I overstep a protocol by responding here, or give the wrong information on this thread?

To follow up on the inconsistency, it appears to be caused by an error in the revision to the birth date. It is the date of death of the 2nd profile (1709). If the 2nd profile is the preferred one, the year of birth is 1676. The year of birth I used was from the former profile, of 1691.

I hope that helps.

Private User oh no! You arefine! I just didn't want to have two conversations at once--- I added the Consistency Check to the other discussion and should have left just one discussion ongoing.

Ok, good. And yes, I get the '2 conversation' thing in emails all the time.

Out!

Greg

lol
thank you

Showing all 7 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion