Wow! There's some life out there! It's really good to see some activity on
the list again. Even without the activity, I have been doing really well on
my branch this year. Surprisingly, it has been on my grandfather's siblings
where I've had the most success.
At any rate, that isn't what I going after right now. What I'm most
interested in is a topic that George brought up, that of the relationship
between Thomas (3) and Joseph (4). Personally, I believe the simplest and
most obvious answer is usually the most likely to be true. Consequently, I
am of the school that accepts Joseph as the son of Thomas and Mary.
In George's message appears:
"I feel that the only excuse for assigning a son, Joseph, to Thomas-3 is due
to the fact that in the 1698 census, Thomas, Mary (wife of Thomas prob.) and
Joseph were found in the dwelling together. As I pointed out this must have
been Joseph-3." - Letter from Henry A. Tredwell, 1 Aug 1949, to an [unknown]
Mr. Carman, researching Adam Carman.
_________________________
My feeling is that this assumption by Mr. Tredwell appears to be only
supported by his interpretation based on information he found in unrelated
documents. Certainly, it is possible that he could be right. However, I
feel it is more likely that things are as they seem to be in the 1698
census, i.e., Joseph is Thomas' son. The fact that Joseph is not mentioned
in Thomas' will does not sway me either. We have all seen adult children
left out of wills for one reason or another.
Ray Justus
Chandler, AZ