Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Surnames: CHILCOTE, CHILCOAT, HILL, ROSS
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Message Board Post:
There is not marriage record that I know about. No proof that I know of that she was a full blooded indian.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Surnames: John Chilcote
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Message Board Post:
Can someone please tell me what John Chilcote's wife Heaster's maiden name was? An is there any proof that she is full blood indian?
Thanks, Alma
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Surnames: chilcote
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BaI.2ACEB/102
Message Board Post:
i am looking for a mary who was married to a houser had jospeh and emily and a dillen then married a richard chilcote and had a sarah james a carolineand maria and newell chilcote in the years of 1853---1865 any help would be helpful thanks. linda sue/
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Surnames: Chilcote, Shaw, Lowery, Starkey,Tilton
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1
Message Board Post:
Sorry, something happened while typing. As I started to type before , I mistyped 1870 meaning to type 1880 census. On page 12D
Line 46. James Shaw 67, he is blind.
Line 47.Nancy (Chilcote) 57 wife
Line 48. George 35 son
Line 49 James D. 20 son
Line 50 Martha M. 20 daughter
On the top of the next page is where the mistake was made and another household number was given when completeing the household entry for James Shaw.Yeah, I know there will be those who think I am wrong. But just think out of the box.
Line 1. George Lowery 45
Line 2. Catherine 38 Ohio, Ohio, Ohio
Line 3. Elizabeth 12
Line 4. Lear J (Leah) 11 named as Catherine's younger sister
Line 5. Pearly B. 8
Line 6 Hester Chilcote 81 mother in law, Divorced, blind. Birth Place Va., Va, Va.
Please notice Catherine's parents were recorded as being born in Ohio. And with James and Nancy listed as such it only makes sense that their household was carried over and Hester is listed as his mother in law.
Now to prove that Catherine isn't Hester's daughter. I admit that I posted the wrong years for census in the earlier posting of the 1850 census, I didn't have the records in front of me at the time. There isn't a Catherine Chilcote listed in the 1850 census.I have search line by line.
The Mornon Church (LDS) Marriage Data base for Ohio has George and Catherine's marriage records. It also has his first marriage recorded in that data base as well as all of John and Hester's children. Batch # M514092
In the 1850 census Catherine Starkey (Lowery) is listed with her parents Lewis and Temperance Starkey (Shurkey) The family goes as such:Lewis 38, Temperance 37, Margaret 14, Aaron 13, Catherine 11, Rhoda 9, Elizabeth 7, Leah 5, Eliza 3.
The 1860 census as follows: Lewis 49, Emily (Temperance) 47, Margaret 26, Catherine 22, Rhoda 19, Elizabeth 16, Leah 14, Eliza 11, Sarah 7, George 4.
The 1870 census.Jackson twsp, Vinton Co., Ohio
George Lowry 31, Catherine 29,Elizabeth F. 2, Lear J. 1.
Now they are living next door to John Tilton. The Tilton family are connected with the Starkey family as well as the Brown and Chilcote family.
Thomas Tilton married Mary Chilcote 3-7-1820. Simon Tilton married Eliza Brown 4-9-1832. Sarah Tilton married Enoch Starkey. Elizabeth Tilton married Elijah Brown 8-12-1832.
And John Titlon was first married the Mariah Susanna Chilcote.
George Lowery married Malinda Browne (Brown) 2-16-1862.
He married Catherine Starkey 2-7-1867. I am sure copies of these marriage records can be obtained from Hocking County as well as on line from the LDS site..
Please forgive the typos.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2
Message Board Post:
Sorry you researchers out there, I mistyped 1870 when I meant to type 1880.
The census is as such, starting with James Shaw and Nancy Chilcote on the bottom of page 12D Line 46 James Shaw 67,
Line 48 Nancy (Chilcote)
They are more than likely buried in Wolfe Cemetery in Jackson Township,
Vinton County with Frederick's parents and family. There are several stones
that are worn and unreadable. But there is no proof yet found where they
are actually buried.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jambucketchucker(a)wmconnect.com>
To: <CHILCOTE-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Chilcote / Wolf
> This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
>
> Classification: Query
>
> Message Board URL:
>
> http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BaI.2ACEB/85.3
>
> Message Board Post:
>
> They stay in Hocking County until their deaths. I think Frederick might be
buried in Ross County which we all know is next to Hocking County
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
1870 Census of Benton Township, Hocking County Ohio:
George Sanford, age 32, farmer, b. Ohio
Mariah S., age 32, keeping house,b. Ohio
Nellie J., age 8, at school,
Adasia A., age 2,
Joshua Mettler, age 13, work on farm,
Esther Chilcote, ge 72, infirm, living with daughter,b. Pennsylvania
1880 census of Benton Township, Hocking County, Ohio, #120,page 13,
George Lowery, age 45, farmer, b. Ohio, parents b. Pennsylvania
Catherine, wife, age 38, keeping house, b. Ohio, parents b. Ohio
Elizabeth, daughter, age 12, at home,
Lean J., daughter, age 11,at school,
Pearly B., son, age 8, at school,
Hester A. Chilcote, mother-in-law, age 81,keeping house, blind, b. Virginia, parents b. Virginia
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1
Message Board Post:
I'm also looking at the 1870 Benton Twp, Hocking Co., Oh., and Esther is living with her daugther Mariah and her husband George Sanford, two children, possible a son from her previous marrage to Jesse Mettler. Are you sure that you are in the 1870 census?
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BaI.2ACEB/85.3
Message Board Post:
They stay in Hocking County until their deaths. I think Frederick might be buried in Ross County which we all know is next to Hocking County
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Surnames: Chilcote, Shaw and Lowery
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2
Message Board Post:
In looking at the 1870 census where Hester Chilcote is listed as the mother in law, you would first assume that it was pertaining to the mother of Catherine Lowery.
However, Hester and the Lowerys are living in the household of Nancy Chilcote and James Shaw, Jr. that started on the bottom of the page before.
And it was James that she was referred to as being the mother in law to. The census taker continued the household entry on the top of the next page and entered the rest of household as a new family and household instead of continueing with the household number.
I have found this over and over in census. Where the parents and a few of the children are listed on the bottom of a page and the rest of the children are on the top of the next page with different household number and a very young child is listed as the head of household.
George and Catherine's marriage records confirm that she was not a member of the Chilcote family. Catherine was still living with her parents in the 1850 census and with George in the 1860.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/97.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Message Board Post:
Another researcher found John Chilcote living in Illinois in 1860 census with his daugther. So he died before 1870. Hester is still living in 1880 in Ohio.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/101.1.1.1.1.1
Message Board Post:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear or try to get my point across. There is no doubt in my mind that John Chilcote (Chilcott) and Margaret were married. No doubt what so ever. The problem that I have is the fact that someone puts a maiden name on the wife because their first son name was Robinson.
I have send numerous email to some of those queries that had Margaret maiden name as Robinson, and not a single one replied. One did reply saying that what she found on the internet.
Maybe in time that a marriage date will surface and maybe the name of Robinson will follow Margaret. I hope that will happen, but I won't put a maiden name on anyone because their first born name was Robinson.
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/101.1.1.1.1
Message Board Post:
Just out of curiosity then, who do you suppose the Maryland State Archives Reference Services Department was referring to by the *their* in the "their sons" comment which occurred in the last paragraph of their letter? If the two had children together, as this letter seems to confirm, they carried the genes of their mother as well as those of their father. What difference does it make from a genealogical point of view whether they were married or not. Just because a *record* of a marriage can't be found doesn't necessarily mean it never hapened. If your original birth record were lost would that mean you weren't born or that your parents were no longer your parents?
Granted, *proof* of their marriage doesn't seem to have been found yet but lack of such proof doesn't prove they weren't. This letter you quote mentions documented births of at least three children to this couple so they must have spent some small amount of time with one another even if they weren't married, their marriage wasn't documented, or documentation of such marriage hasn't survived or simply hasn't been located to date. Would a church in those days record the births of illegitimate children?
A fabrication is the same as a lie in this context. If you're going so far as to call other people liars, doesn't that place the burden of proof on you? Where's your proof that these two *weren't* married?
This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.
Classification: Query
Message Board URL:
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/BaI.2ACEB/101.1.1.1
Message Board Post:
On Feb 28, 2005 I received from Ms. Younger of California a copy of a letter that she received from the MARYLAND STATE ARCHIVES dated March 24, 2003.
Quote:
Dear Ms. Younger:
"A check of LIBRARY, Maryland Marriages 1634-1777, MARYLAND INDEXES (Church Records, Marriage Index) 1686-1958, LIBRARY,Anne Arundel County Church Records of the 17th and 18th Centuries, SPECIAL COLLECTIONS (St. Pauls's Parish) Index to Registers 1704-1933, LIBRARY, St. Thomas Parish Registers 1732-1850, LIBRARY, Index to St. John's Parish Register 1696-1788 and MARYLAND INDEXES (Marriage References, Index) 1674-1851 has shown no reference to the marriage of John Chilcote (Chilcott) and Margaret Robinson.
As you may know, the births of their sons Robinson (December 8, 1739), James (June 4, 1741) and John (March 30, 1743) are recorded in the St. Paul's Parish Register 1710-1789, p. 36, but their marriage is not."
Sincerely yours, Reference Services Department
I was hoping when I opened the letter and seen the letter head of the Maryland State Archives that someone had found the information that I have been waiting on for 30 years.
So those of you who have fabricated this marriage of John and Margaret you can remove this information from your records.