Thomas Plummer I and II - Here we go again!

I think they're pretty much correct for the moment, but you never know when somebody is going to scramble them up again. ANd it's "when", not "if", because of all the Bad Information out there.

Maven B. Helms - where do you come up with your stuff? There was only one biological daughter of George Yate I, Gent. whose name was Elizabeth. This Elizabeth was born no earlier than 1673 and married Thomas Plummer II. Legal indenture records from the early 18th century confirms this, so please stop the garbage genealogy analysis like, "legal daughter of George Yate and Elizabeth Stockett was born and died young, etc."

Thomas Plummer I married an Elizabeth Smith not an Elizabeth Stockett. George Yate I, Gent. had two biological daughters that he bequeathed land to in his 1691 will. Furthermore, not one of George's step-children were given land, money, furniture or even mentioned by name in his will. Very strong and incontrovertible evidence of who his biological children were.

The daughter of George Yate being Elizabeth Stockett is a genealogical invention by some poor researchers in the 20th century. This Elizabeth Stockett never existed. Period, end of sentence.

You still have to get around the fact that Mary Wells *was pregnant* when her first husband, Capt, Thomas Stockett, died. This was explicitly acknowledged in his will. The child was not a boy, as son Thomas inherited everything.

I've heard arguments that "oh, she must have miscarried or the child was stillborn", but that's just as much arguing from lack of evidence as the idea that she remarried so quickly that the child was born *after* she married George Yate.

Per English Common Law, any child born *during* a marriage was legally the child *of* that marriage, regardless of who the biological father was.

Sadly, there is no possible way of using any known DNA test on this question. Elizabeth was not a boy, so no Y-DNA. mtDNA cannot tell us who her father was (it doesn't work that way). Autosomal DNA would be just "noise" that far back.

I did not put the extraneous "Elizabeth Yates (died young)" on the tree - he's the result of trying to untangle a right mess that the tree got into. For my money there was only one Elizabeth, daughter of Mary Wells and we can't be *absolutely* sure who her biological father was. But the man who claimed her, and raised her, and was her father in all the ways that really matter, was George Yate.

She, not he. Typoes.

Again you are wrong. George Yate named all of his biological children in his will. No step-children received any land from him and there were several female step-children. Your flawed logic comes through again in that George Yate knew that if Mary Wells was pregnant when Captain Stockett was alive, it wasn’t George’s. George Yate knew all of his biological children and mentioned them in his will. Your argument about legal child and the DNA of the child not known is fallacious. Sorry, but you make no valid point here. This issue was resolved in the early 2000s by Maryland Genealogical researchers Winckleman and Honneymann. Stop perpetuating your speculative assumptions which were put to rest nearly two decades ago. Your wrong, that’s life.

OOOOkay, so you're in the "miscarried or stillborn" camp. Suit yourself.

That was never the argument of Winckleman or Honeymann. This fetus of Mary Wells and Capt Stockett, if it lived, was born a Stockett and never married a Thomas Plummer. There are no records for it, living or dead! End of story!

We've gotten rid of "Elizabeth Yates (died young)", because she was an obvious and erroneous distraction.

As to Elizabeth Yate (no terminal s) who married Thomas Plummer II, she was definitely raised by George Yate and accepted as his daughter - and that's the only certainty.

Let me reiterate: Per English Common Law, any child born *during* a marriage was legally the child *of* that marriage, regardless of who the biological father was.

And yes, English Common Law ***WAS*** binding on the American Colonies.

You said, “As to Elizabeth Yate (no terminal s) who married Thomas Plummer II, she was definitely raised by George Yate and accepted as his daughter - and that's the only certainty.”

You also said, "You will not even allow anyone else to agree to disagree - no, YOU have to be right and nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion! THAT is 21st century intolerance, which IMHO is worse than 20th century 'gullibility.'"

What kind of political mumbo jumbo are you spouting off about. The correct genealogy of Elizabeth (Yate) Plummer, wife of Thomas Plummer II was set straight in the early 2000s not by me, but by two really great Maryland Genealogical Researchers. Below is more truth for you to swallow. Albeit, I'm done dealing with the garbage / fictitious genealogy you've been peddling for the Yate family on Geni.

The only true certainty is that Elizabeth (Yate) Plummer was the biological daughter of George Yate and Mary (Wells) Stockett. This has been confirmed and attested to by the likes of such prominent genealogists as Harry Wright Newman and Douglas Richardson. I’m really sorry that you are stuck in the 20th century where author after author asserted that Elizabeth Plummer in the will of George Yate was not his biological daughter but his stepdaughter. This notion has been debunked, delegitimized, and disproven many times over. You really need to stop drinking the dirty Kool-Aid of these error-ridden genealogists of the last century.

One more time,

The fetus of Mary Wells and Capt. Thomas Stockett III when it reached full-term was born no later than the year 1671, even if it was born! There’s no other way to get around that given the dates and what is known from the records. This male or female child would have been given the surname Stockett. There are zero records anywhere of this child being born or living, mind you.

Frances Stockett and Mary Stockett (biological daughters of Capt. Thomas Stockett and Mary Wells) were the legal stepchildren of George Yate as would be a child born to Capt. Stockett and Mary Wells in 1671. Again, your fallacious assumptions that Mary Wells didn’t know that her daughter or son she was pregnant with in April 1671 was the child of Capt. Stockett is quite absurd. Elizabeth Yate (born 1673/5) was neither the “ASSUMED “child of George Yate nor was her name Elizabeth Stockett (a genealogical INVENTION).

So, quit with your inventive genealogy that Elizabeth Yate was really Elizabeth Stockett and the “ASSUMED” (stepdaughter) of George Yate. I’ll repeat this one more time; Elizabeth Stockett or Elizabeth (Stockett) Plummer is a 20th century genealogical INVENTION (meaning fictitious / not real). You keep dismissing real facts and misinterpreting erroneous genealogical inventions of 20th century amateur genealogists. You can put this disproven analysis in a blog where it belongs instead of sites like Geni if you want to believe such stuff.

Once again, your repetitive assumptions were proven wrong by Winkelman and Honeyman decades ago. If, and I mean if this child was even born (zero records for it), it would have taken the surname Stockett, just as her full-blooded sisters, Frances and Mary Stockett (the legal stepdaughters of George Yate, not George’s biological daughters).

Furthermore, all records point to George Yate and Mary Wells marrying no earlier than 1672. Their biological daughter who married Thomas Plummer II was born between the timeframe of 1673 and 1675. She was married to Thomas Plummer II by June 1691.
Let me repeat one more time because you’re obviously stuck in the 20th century cultic belief that Elizabeth Stockett or Elizabeth (Stockett) Plummer was the child born to Mary Wells and Capt. Stockett in 1671 and raised by George Yate as his stepdaughter (or in your legal vernacular, “ASSUMED” daughter). You were told numerous times that professional researchers in Maryland had proven this fallacious assertion you’re peddling wrong!

Mary Wells was married to Captain Thomas Stockett III when she was several months pregnant (anywhere from 2-8 months pregnant) with his child in April 1671; when Capt. Stockett was still alive and writing his will (they both knew she was pregnant, and she probably had a belly bump too). This fetus, if born, whether boy or girl, would have been given the surname Stockett in 1671. This wasn’t an immaculate conception. Both Mary Wells and George Yate would have known that Capt. Stockett was the biological father when George and Mary married after 1672. Moreover, this child’s two full-blooded sisters were also to become the legal “STEPDAUGHTERS” of George Yate when he married Mary Wells in 1672/3.

The true reality, certainty, or whatever you want to call it, is that George Yate fathered two girls who were his biological daughters with Mary Wells. These two girls had the surname Yate and were mentioned not just in his will but also in other legal records of the time period together. They weren’t the “ASSUMED” children of George Yate. Elizabeth (Yate) Plummer and Ann Yate were his biological children. End of discussion!