----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean" <sinead@milamba.com>
To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2000 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Sinclairs in Georgia
>
>
> Just a brief response that I have never before seen JSQ so informative or
> involved!
> And it is true that names do not rigidly adhere to the format of Given and
> Surname.
> We have one family member whose name is Duncan Winburn Patton - mother was
> Sinclair, Winburn is for the family property which was sold the day he was
> born.
> And on the given/Christian name format - one of my uncles was baptised
> James Clarence and known as Clare until he was twelve, when he announced
> he would only answer to Jim. Typical Sinclair determination - he won and
> was known as Jim from then on.
> Jean
> > >> >
> > >> >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
>
>
> [ 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
[ 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