unknown mother of Stephen Batchelder - Discussion Info

Reposting to make a couple corrections.

Tagging Private User to try and answer her questions also.

It may take me a bit to work through all of it because it's been a minute since I looked at the Bachilders (of many spellings).

Copying over the posts:

https://www.geni.com/discussions/286438?msg=1739838

Karrie Amelia Anderson Welborn, LK138808C1 - if I am looking at the right record - the one Confirmed Match on unknown mother of Stephen Batchelder - I see that that record shows that "Philip Bachiler & Anne Flanders (born Bate)" were a couple - and gives the name of Anne's father - But how does that tell me anything about Stephen Batchelder and/or his parents?

https://www.geni.com/discussions/286438?msg=1739847

I wasn't the person who originally noted the name in the bio. I only added he source and the * comment with my name. I see your point though. This confirms: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/collaborate/LY3L-GF3 It seems to be a situation that is ongoing, with no resolution. I'm not sure what to think about the Canada records souce "auto populating" the profile?? I can remove it, but I was not sure who added Anne's name to the bio with the question mark, and if it might be of use. Thanks

From the "about" for Rev. Stephen Bachiler, of Hampton

All references that may be found in various places on the Internet to his "father" Philip Bachiler are incorrect and should be ignored or, preferably, corrected. Much research has been done to search for his parentage in England, but to date there has been no success.

So what I'm not quite understanding yet is why Stephen on Geni seems to have siblings now, as I don't think he had siblings the last time I looked at it?

Last question first:

Is Quebec marriages a valid source?

Short answer: It's reporting a marriage and that's accurate. Is it attached to the right person? Not unless something that would make "headline news" in the genealogy world has happened. Why is geni suggesting it as a match? Because that's the technology's "job" to do.

Here's about the collection, which is fairly new to me:

https://www.myheritage.com/research/collection-20881/canada-quebec-...

Canada, Quebec Couples
This collection contains records of couples from the province of Quebec, Canada, from the year 1500 onwards. Records typically include the name of the groom and the bride, their date and place of birth, date and place of baptism, the date and place of marriage, and the names of their parents. Some records may also include the date and place of death and the place of burial.

Most of the records were compiled from Church and Civil records.

These records were made public by the Drouin Institute.

For those who may not know, this is their site: (English version)

https://www.genealogiequebec.com/en/

They are respected. I would not trust them for Great Migration immigrants to New England, however. The reliable source is Anderson's "The Great Migration Begins."

These are the details of the record:

Marriage: 1559 Stoneham Southampton Hants, England
Husband:
Name: Philip Bachiler
Birth: 1534 Wherwell Hampshire, England
Death: 1559 Wherwell Hampshire, England
Wife:
Name: Anne Flanders
Birth: 1538 Wherwell Hampshire, England
Death: 1561 England
Father: John Bate

The rule of thumb I would use is that for research notes on a curated colonist this early with an unknown parent designation - and research notes are always helpful - I would add as text or link, and not an attached record.

I'm going to add a curator note to Rev. Stephen Bachiler, of Hampton

Off to look at why he's got so many siblings.

Hatte Rubenstein Blejer - Relationships were unlocked on the much married minister! I'm going to recurate and lock, lock, lock.

For all of us who had to read "The Scarlet Letter" in school, Nathaniel Hawthorne is thought to have used this ancestor of his as his fictionalized Puritan.

http://newenglandfolklore.blogspot.com/2015/08/is-scarlet-letter-tr...

I'm rereading the notes at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bachiler-22 which may help explain the literature on him.

You'll notice that I added "unknown father / mother" profiles in 2013. We had no ability to lock relationships only, then, so the workaround was to set up "unknown parent" placeholders. The idea was for anyone to merge in the (very popular) ancestors and for the spurious parents to disconnect harmlessly. That is indeed what the revisions tab shows us happened, time and time again, as it was meant to do, including the latest merge.

For some reason (GEDCOM?) at some point the siblings got added.

There are cases where we know siblings and not parents, but a quick check of other sites (not personal files) - if we don't believe what curated geni profiles tell us (why don't we?) - will show us that it's disputed.

I would add this rule of thumb based on what I know of the Drouin Institute / Quebec origins versus New England origins.

• Drouin Institute sourced "from 1500," and probably there are many "submitted pedigrees." Early Canada genealogy brings its own difficulties (names) but does indeed have good records for its first arrivers. The population was much smaller, record keeping was better (Catholic baptisms), and current day research that updates is excellent and ongoing. So to go back to Karrie's reliability question for using the Quebec marriages collection: I've been adding the "source" when I "know" from other records that its reliable. And if it's bringing in parents: stop.
• By contrast, do not trust English origins to New England before 1600 unless documented by "The Great Migration Begins" books (this includes the passengers of the Mayflower in 1620/1) its published updates, and other journal articles. For whatever Puritan reasons, these some 20,000 colonists were exceedingly quiet about naming their English parents; sadly for all of us who descend! There were good parish records for England, but matching those records "there" with the person "here" is an ongoing challenge, and not for the amateur.

Sorry if I sound like a soapbox. I feel like curators (me) could have done better to make it easier for members on this one. What I'm going to do is set up a separate profile for the married couple and link them as a research note.

Hatte already updated "the real" Philip Batchelder and his wife Anne Batchelder

No, the Quebec Marriages match didn’t bring in the spurious siblings, they were gedcomed in before MyHeritage acquired the collection. It’s a popular but spurious connection, I’m sure there are many ancestry trees for example that shows it.

At some point in the last couple of years Rev. Stephen lost his relationship locks, and that’s when they got attached. Possibly a temporary unlock?

I need to finish the cleanup.