Re: Sinclairs in Georgia

["John S. Quarterman" <jsq@matrix.net>]

>> >
>> >BOISSY
>> >Sex: F
>> >Marriage(s):
>> >Spouse: Jesse CARVER
>> >Marriage Abt. 1811
>> ><>, Tattnall, Georgia
>> 
>> Do you have a source for this marriage record?
>
>Yes, the source is the IGI, to find out the film no. go there. Never
>mind, here it is;
>
>Source Information:
>Film Number:1903589 

Thank you for citing a more complete source.  However, that still doesn't
say where the marriage record came from, or why the "Abt. 1811".  Is the
date anything more than speculation from her birth date or the birth date
of her first know child?

Regarding the reliability of LDS records, there are various opinions,
and yes, varying parts of the LDS records.

>>And just because
>> they recorded a single name as a surname isn't much evidence that it
>> was a surname and not a first name.
>
>My statement that the name Boissy normally is a surname is NOT only
>based on findings in familysearch.com. Why don't you try your self to
>find out how common it is/was by just searching the net or the white
>pages in any country. That would basically give you a good hint on
>whether it's a surname or a christian name. I am quite sure that you
>after that will make the same assumption.

I said nothing about whether Boissy normally is a surname.  I agree
that it normally is a surname.  But for this specific person, the woman
who married the Carver man, Boissy was according to Huxford a first name,
not a surname.

This happens.  There are people out there with Sinclair as a first name.
For example, in our family database there is a Sinclair MacDonald, whose
mother was a Sinclair.

Or a middle name (me, for example), even though you could say with just
as much evidence that "Sinclair normally is a surname".

>I am not really sure what you meant to say by your comment.

I meant to say what I said, as is almost always the case with anything I say.

> And I am
>sorry if it all made Christine confused as it was all meant to help out.
>Maybe this just gives her the information that there are different
>points of wives. And when it comes to "the standard reference" for that
>time and place, as you put it - of which I know nothing -

That's not surprising.  Pioneer Georgia was a universe unto itself.
However, anyone who studies genealogy of that time and place finds out
about Huxford pretty quickly.

> I just want to
>point out the fact that there are just one reliable source and that is
>parish records and such not an old published book.

Um, no, there are numerous primary sources, including land records,
church records, family letters, family bibles, etc., as I'm sure you know.
Huxford is also not just an old published book; it is a ongoing series,
currently up to ten or twelve volumes, and a quarterly journal.  It mines
all such sources.  It isn't always correct, but it is a good place to start.

> And if I understood
>everything right there where no reference to this Boissys parents or her
>past for that matter. And to me it is not good enough with a book who
>tells me that there are no further information on a particular person as
>long as it does not show a thorough investigation into the known Boissys
>then coming up with proofs that there where no connection what so ever.

Huh?  Huxford shows the connections between the two Boissy Carvers;
they were grandmother and granddaughter, as I mentioned in my previous
message.

>So I stay with my conclusion that as long as nothing else is proven she
>is the daughter of NN Boissy and not the daughter of any unknown
>Sinclair.

I'd say the more appropriate conclusion is that we don't know what
Boissy Carver's maiden surname was.

>Just a last thought, why on earth should a Scottish Sinclair choose a
>French surname as christian name for his daughter?!

Perhaps because his wife was a French Huguenot?
For example, we have the case of Anna Maria Macintosh,
daughter of Charlotte Nephew
daughter of Mary Magdalene Gignilliat
daughter of James Gignilliat
son of John Gignilliat and Mary Magdalene Dupre
whose parents were both from Switzerland.

This case wasn't French, but there was quite a bit of French Huguenot
emigration into the Carolinas and Georgia after the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes, so a French Huguenot case would not be unusual.

>Regards 
>Lena

John S. Quarterman <jsq@matrix.net>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html