Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: My Lincoln Line

  1. #1
    Valued member of Brit-Gen SandraL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    316

    Default My Lincoln Line

    I have seen many names for Thomas's parents. I'm not sure which is right.

    I have Hanna Lincoln 1663–1731 married Peter Branch 1659–1713

    Hanna's parents were Thomas Lincoln 1637–1694 and Mary Austin 1632– (no death date for Mary).

    On a site I found a Thomas 1600–1691 (unsure on those dates) that married Bridget Gilman 1603–1665. I found other names that showed different people that Thomas married. So I'm not sure which to believe.

    On another site I found a Bridget Gilman born about 1582 married to Edward Lincoln born about 1575. It shows on one site that Edward's father was Richard Lincoln. Edward's mother on one site was Elizabeth (Unknown).

    Are they 2 different Bridget Gilman's?

    This Lincoln line eventually ties into Abraham Lincoln.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,620

    Default

    Where are these people supposed to have been born/married/died?

    Most stuff prior to 1700 is difficult to prove. Parish registers (where they survive) are full of information such as 'baptised ye 12 dec 1679 William, son of John Smith'. Not even a mother's name to help, though with most men being called John or William, and women called Mary or Elizabeth, the mother's name is not necessarily helpful anyway.

    Incidentally, you are allowed to name sites and the particular section in which you found a record. e.g. Ancestry, London marriages 1600-1700; Findmypast, Westminster marriages 1815-1899.

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  3. #3
    Valued member of Brit-Gen SandraL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    316

    Default

    I know some sites don't like when one puts site names etc.

    My Hannah will not be on the Famouskin site on Abraham's tree since she was a probably a sibling to someone further down the line. On that site it's more of a direct lineage to the famous person. But on Abraham's surname list there is a Bridget Gilman.

    It was on Ancestry that I had some different outcomes with Bridget Gilman to whom she was married to. As I had mentioned I found both of these dates on Bridget, 1603–1665 and 1582-?.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator - Completely bonkers and will never change.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    9,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SandraL View Post
    I know some sites don't like when one puts site names etc.
    You're not allowed to post direct links to commercial sites on BG, but if you think about it it makes sense to say where you found a particular piece of information so that's allowed.

    My Hannah will not be on the Famouskin site on Abraham's tree since she was a probably a sibling to someone further down the line. On that site it's more of a direct lineage to the famous person. But on Abraham's surname list there is a Bridget Gilman.
    Presumably the Famouskin site has thoroughly researched all the connections so I would have thought that the most reliable.
    However there is a lot of missing detail, i.e. Bridget was born 'about 1582', married 'about 1600', and the alleged death place of Samuel Lincoln, (supposed son of the Bridget Gilman born about 1582 and Edward Lincoln) is wrong. Famouskin say Samuel's death date is 26 May 1690, location is Hingham, Norfolk England, but he certainly ain't buried there. (They probably mean Hingham, Plymouth, Massachusetts, as they say that's where his son, Mordecai, was - allegedly - born.) So I don't know exactly how much trust can be put in the rest of the information on the site.

    It was on Ancestry that I had some different outcomes with Bridget Gilman to whom she was married to. As I had mentioned I found both of these dates on Bridget, 1603–1665 and 1582-?.
    Were you looking at the family trees on Ancestry? Talk about ROFL. One person said Bridget Gilman's spouse was called Bridget Gilman. Another one said Bridget born 1582 gave birth in 1643!!!

    I would suggest that you start with the tree on wilson family1. That mentions places which means that you can check the parish registers. Some of the PRs are online on FamilySearch. Scroll down to England, Norfolk, Parish Registers.
    https://familysearch.org/search/coll...INGDOM_IRELAND

    No registers earlier than 1600 exist for Hingham. For other parishes, see this list compiled by Norfolk record Office.
    https://www.archives.norfolk.gov.uk/view/NCC154771

    For the Bridget born 1600 I'd suggest you check out the Smail Gelsinger etc, tree. Not saying it's right, but it does seem to have dates and places that you could check. I had a brief look at the tree which has Bridget born 1599. One of the sources it quotes is the Millennium File which refers to Bridget born 1582.

    However, I do think you ought to concentrate on Hanna and her parents first before you try to go further back.
    I have Hanna Lincoln 1663–1731 married Peter Branch 1659–1713

    Hanna's parents were Thomas Lincoln 1637–1694 and Mary Austin 1632– (no death date for Mary).
    Looking at various trees on Ancestry, again there is conflicting information. One tree for example has Thomas born either in 1628 in Hingham England, or in 1638 in Hingham Massachusetts. I think you need to check the sources people are quoting for details, and them check them for accuracy. (Most I can't check because they're in the US and I don't have a world sub to Ancestry.)

    Pam
    Vulcan XH558 - “Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.”

  5. #5
    Valued member of Brit-Gen SandraL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Yes that is what I did. I ended it with Hannah's parents. Now you can see why I was so confused.

    And I hear you on crazy info on Ancestry. I found one couple that were married for 220 years. LOL


    And another that had 50 children. Mind you that could have been possible for some lineages since the Mormons way back when were allowed more then one wife.


    At least I was able to tie into all of the rest of the famous people. Needless to say I was totally surprised at how many I am related to. Some were direct and some were by marriage. 39 in total. Not including Abraham and Amos Lincoln.

    Thanks for your help.

  6. #6

    Default

    Those of us who got started when the IGI was on microfiche remember that with many (most?) online collections that offer a mixture, one has to discriminate between trees offered by users and data from actual documents. There are no doubt many excellent pieces of research online, but there are a lot of others based on nothing more than imagination and an assumption that if the name is the same, it MUST be the right person.
    I don't trust any online tree that doesn't give the sources it's based on. I also don't trust any tree that quotes someone else's tree as a source - if you don't know the person with the original tree, you don't know how careful they are.
    I don't ignore these trees, but I treat them as "grey data" - possible clues but requiring checking. I don't know the Famouskin site at all - they may double check everything. However there's an additional hazard associated with the records of the rich and famous - their records tend to have a better chance of surviving because the storage conditions were better. The records of many people who lived quietly, paid their rent on time and didn't break the law (all other ways to get your records preserved) have vanished without a trace.

    Pam's suggested a good approach that might shed a lot of light on which dataset is correct.

  7. #7
    Valued member of Brit-Gen SandraL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    316

    Default

    As you said Lesley no tree is 100% correct.

    What I did was looked for names I had a DNA match with. I knew I had a match with Gov. William Bradford, Thomas Rogers, Martha Mayhew, Sir Charles Tupper. Almost all I was able to tie into were related to those I just named. And I just found 3 more to add. My list is still growing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: