GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-08 > 1187552517


From: "H. B. Whitmore" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] new VP at DAR?
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:41:57 -0400
In-Reply-To: <000401c7e28a$f5ecce90$0202a8c0@HOUSE>


I'm glad the DNA is useful here, but I find myself annoyed by what appears
to be the assumption that because Clarissa didn't marry George Sr. until
1858, George Jr's paternity is some way more in question than if they had
been married.

It seems to me that the obvious fact they had been cohabiting and the
children bare the father's name ,,, ah well, forget it<grin>.

on 8/19/07 2:00 PM, GKBopp at wrote:


> DAR
> would not accept any line that was illegitimate but I understand that now
> they will if there is good evidence.
>
> There is an established RW Patriot named Wisner
> His daughter married a Kinne and they had a son George
> George married Elizabeth in NY and abandoned her
> Elizabeth in NY divorced George
> George went to California in 1851 on a wagon train with a lady
> George and a Clarissa appear in an 1852 CA census
> They marry in CA in 1858 - they have three Kinney children by then
> They divorce and George disappears (no children mentioned in the divorce)
> Their son George Kinney Jr. is my direct line
>
> The evidence for every generation is excellent except for one weak link.
> There is no primary evidence that George Sr is father of George Jr.
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: