John Gillett, I - Suggestion: Change Suffix to Avoid Confusion

Started by Private User on today
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Showing all 3 posts
Private User
Today at 7:44 PM

There is another John Gillett, of Wethersfield & Newtown .
Since sources do not support the suffix "I", it may be useful to refer to this John as "John Gillett, of Windsor" or "John Gillett Sr."

Just a thought.

Today at 7:56 PM

Private User - I agree with you. I prefer toponyms in display name as not only being a more precise disambiguation, they are usually sourceable from will or published articles. Dynastic numbering in Colonial America seems a genealogist's “convenience” for charting. And I’ve never seen a vital record in New England using Roman numerals.

Today at 8:01 PM

Your source calls him “John Gillett, of Deerfield & Lebanon” so that’s probably best.

Showing all 3 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion