WHITNEY-L Archives

Archiver > WHITNEY > 1999-12 > 0944454633


From: "Robert L. Ward" <>
Subject: [WHITNEY-L] Stray WHITNEYs Found?
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 23:30:33 -0500


Dear WRG,

In the Barbour Collection of Connecticut Vital Records, the Voluntown
vital records contain the following:

SURNAME BIRTH/DEATH/MARRIAGE VOL. PAGE
WHITING, Amos, s. Enock & Thankfull, b. July 7, 1744 1 20
Hannah, d. Enock & Thankfull, b. Aug. 11, 1735 1 20
John, s. Enock & Thankfull, b. May 2, 1737 1 20

It would seem virtually certain that these are children of Enoch-4 and
Thankful (PARKE) WHITNEY [Ebenezer-3, Richard-2, John-1] of Pomfret,
Plainfield, Preston, and Kent, CT, otherwise and hitherto unknown.
They certainly fit into gaps in that couple's family in a very
pleasing way!

I know nothing of the further history of these three children, unless
the following, also from the Barbour Collection, belongs to this family:

WHITNEY, Amos, s. Amos, bap. 9 Sep 1744, Preston VR 7:63
Asa, s. Amos, bap. 7 Jul 1743, Preston VR 7:63
Hezek[i]ah, s. Amos, bap. 28 May 1744, Preston VR 7:63
John, s. Amos, bap. 7 Jul 1743, Preston VR 7:63
Rosanna, d. Amos, bap. 7 Jul 1743, Preston VR 7:63
Samuel, s. Amos, bap. 7 Jul 1743, Preston VR 7:73
Susanna, d. Amos, bap. 7 Jul 1743, Preston VR 7:63
Thankful, d. Amos, bap. 16 Aug 1744, Preston VR 7:63

There doesn't seem to be an early Amos WHITNEY old enough to be the
father of this group living in Connecticut. There was one in Maine,
but he was a bit too young and his history is known. There was one
in Massachusetts, but he never married, and his will gives his estate
to nieces and nephews. On the other hand, the children of Enoch-4
and Thankful (PARKE) WHITNEY were (assuming the 3 WHITINGS above belong
to them) Amos, Asa, Hannah, Hezekiah, John, Joseph, Rosanna, Samuel,
Susanna, and Thankful. Possibly Hannah died before being baptized.
Joseph was born later, in Kent, CT. This seems like too much of a
coincidence to be an accident. I postulate either a misreading of the
records as transcribed into the Barbour Collection, or else an error
in the original records. Clearly a reading of the originals is in
order to find out what they *really* say.

This points out that the names WHITNEY and WHITING are easy to confuse
when written in script handwriting. Remember when seeking records to
search under both. Also realize that some of our more baffling
WHITNEY problems may have WHITING solutions.

It couldn't be simple, could it? Murphy's Laws at work!

Regards,

Robert

Robert L. Ward
WHITNEY Research Group
<http://www.whitneygen.org/&g

This thread: