Re: 1796

["Richard Torrens (genealogy)" <torrens@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 06 Dec, Lunney Family <jglunney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Richard, I looked at our database at work; 55000 names of people
> who lived from mediaeval times to now, mostly in Ireland or moved to
> Ireland.

That should be good for a statistical anayysis! Fancy transcribing them?

> There were 2  Jewish Aarons; three Aarons in two related
> families, three isolated Aarons.

Dates? We have 8 in 55,00. Not a high percentage, but folks play the
lottery on worse odds!

What are the chances of these Aorons being transcription errors?

> There were 8 pre-victorian Alberts, of whom possibly 3 had Scottish
> connections. So not many.

Yes: clearly we have two of the last names we should see in unrecognisable
script!

> I also looked up some sites on handwriting. 17th century registers
> sometimes write x as a sort of e shape, and the final r of the
> abbreviated form of Alexander flies in the air and looks distinctly like
> an n. I also found Alexr written with the x and abbreviated flying r
> sort of intertwined together; it was still to my eye clearly
> Alexr, however.

Yes. The misredding seems unlikely. But so too is the name Aaron!

> But since there are so few Aarons around...and since the
> register or other source might have been faded or whatever, and perhaps
> written by a Scottish-educated minister....and since the nameless
> careless amateur genealogist didn't seem to know much about Scottish
> christian name distribution.....For good measure, I looked at early
> forms of Robert; I found from a site on the Delaware tax lists of the
> late 1700s that it would be relatively easy to read Robert as Albert;

I had a look at the photocopies I had. It would need wishful thinking to
misread. But then I WISH them to be Robert and Alexr!

> the initial capital R in  the handwriting of colonial America comes out
> rather like a B--very flat at the front. I'm going to see if I can get
> sight of a couple  of recent books on Sc. handwriting.

I think we have a good theory. One which we may convince ourselves is
probably true. However: since Aaron had grandsons Aaron, you would have to
explain away that link.

The truth is that it was probably some descendant of the second,
documented Aaron, looking for ancestors, who saw Alex as Aaron.

There are 7 Aaron Torences in Sgt Hugh's tree, as well as Aaron Barnett
T, Aaron Burr T, Aaron Freeland T, Aaron Walker T and an Aaron Call
Ullery. If these Aarons did NOT start from Samuel & Thomas' brother
Aaron/Alexr, then how? If John had more brothers that Sam & Thom, why
were only these two mentioned? My theory is that the other 'brothers'
were brothers to different Samuels and Thomases!

Problem: how then do we separate fact from myopia and put the fabricated
records right? It's all very well having a theory!

I suggest we get some good pictures of the names, sigs etc that could have
been misread and put together a www page explaining the possibility. Maybe
it will set some of the Americans thinking. But it's not hoing to be easy
separating reports of original documents from report of theories based on
the documents!

> Do you want the addresses of the sites?   How does a genealogy in
> Culnama/ Mayoghil/ Caheny or wherever  that runs Hugh, Robert,
> Alexander, Thomas, Alexander appeal to you?

We know that John had brothers Thomas and Samuel. We know Hugh, Robert,
Alex are important names.

> Don't worry, I'm not going
> to rehabilitate Sergeant Hugh. He can stay in Clogher where he belongs;

Oh, we both agree to that!

> this would be HMR Hugh. or perhaps more likely HMR's father.

> This is this month's hobbyhorse--I need about a week of solid Christmas
> shopping to settle me down!

Then you can get back to it when you're bored after boxing day!

-- 
Richard Torrens  - torrens@xxxxxxxxx
Torrens families Genealogical site  http://www.4QD.co.uk/torrens/
Torrens Mailing list: to join, click on the link below.
<mailto:torrens-l@xxxxxxxxx?Subject=subscribe>