Hi
In my ancestors I have often found that when I am trying to prove a theory and try to prove whether a person is my ancestor and all the info matches up then you just need a bit of logical thinking to work out that it must be true.
You might get one coincidence if they werent ancestors, but 3 or 4 then you probably have the right person. There is no such thing as a "string of coincidences". If likely events happened all in say a year then they are not coincidences, they are related events.
My ancestors were George & Sarah Coombs. George was last heard of in 1830. Their eldest child Matthew Coombs wedding in 1835 and 1845 was both witnessed by a Sarah Bradford. Sarah also registered the death of one of Matthew's sons and first wife. She was the right age to be the Sarah once wed to George Coombs. To top it all, I found her in 1841 as a laundress, with a son with matching first name and matching age to George & Sarah's youngest son William Coombs.
Ben
In my ancestors I have often found that when I am trying to prove a theory and try to prove whether a person is my ancestor and all the info matches up then you just need a bit of logical thinking to work out that it must be true.
You might get one coincidence if they werent ancestors, but 3 or 4 then you probably have the right person. There is no such thing as a "string of coincidences". If likely events happened all in say a year then they are not coincidences, they are related events.
My ancestors were George & Sarah Coombs. George was last heard of in 1830. Their eldest child Matthew Coombs wedding in 1835 and 1845 was both witnessed by a Sarah Bradford. Sarah also registered the death of one of Matthew's sons and first wife. She was the right age to be the Sarah once wed to George Coombs. To top it all, I found her in 1841 as a laundress, with a son with matching first name and matching age to George & Sarah's youngest son William Coombs.
Ben
