Re: Elizabeth Baker

[Connie Sadler <csadler72@computermail.net>]

Okay, the two Elizabeths are starting to make a little more sense, IF the death of the first Elizabeth is not iron-clad bound to 1753.  I think the idea that Elizabeth I had the children and Elizabeth II raised them probably makes the most sense without more information.  However, if Elizabeth I died in 1753 and Eliz II died in 1755, that leaves just two short years for Elizabeth II to make her mark on the family, leaving future generations to believe she was their ancestor.  It seems to me it would take more than two years to do that.  It seems more likely that Elizabeth I died earlier, perhaps after 1746 (the birth of Captain William Q).  Or even earlier, leaving Elizabeth II as the mother of some of the children.  Without knowing how David established the two Elizabeths, I can only guess at the death date for Elizabeth I.



>>The children were born on the following dates:
>>John Junior, (perhaps born 1733, if 21 when he married in 1754).
>>Thomas Sr. was born 1738.
>>Robert born 1742.
>>Captain William born 1746.  
>>
>>Although it would make sense to assume these children would be born to Elizabe
>>th dau of Thomas, the previous wife,
>
>That would make sense.
>
>> the book just says that Stacy seems to be
>>lieve the children were from Elizabeth dau of Richard, who had to have married
>> John Sr. in 1753 or thereafter.
>
>I think we hit press time before we finished working on that.
>
>>Did Stacy, in his book, use any sources to back up his belief that these were 
>>the children of Eliz. dau Richard?  The dates just don't seem to add up, unles
>>s they were all born out of wedlock (tongue in cheek, of course--John Sr. main
>>tained a high standing in a Puritan-descended society).  
>
>My guess would be that they were children of the earlier Elizabeth
>and the second Elizabeth raised them.  It's quite possible that
>most relatives believed they were the second Elizabeth's children
>because they never had any reason to believe otherwise.
>
>>So I guess my question is two-fold.
>>1/ Why did Stacy believe these to be the children of Eliz. dau Richard?
>
>We don't know.  If I had to guess, I'd say because that was what he
>could find in church and society records and family tradition.
>She was his great-great-grandmother.  See:
>
> http://www.quarterman.org/chart/leonora/
>
>>2/ Why do we continue to follow that line if the dates don't add up?
>
>Because we haven't finished straightening it out.  Looks like your
>reading of the book is helping to do that.
>
>>I'm still enjoying the book, by the way.  I keep going over and over it and ca
>>tching new things.
>
>Please keep doing that.
>
>>  I love the stories!!
>
>Thanks.
>
>>-Connie
>
>John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org>
>
>PS: The previous generation, involving Robert Quarterman d. 1710 S.C.,
>is even more confusing.  My Aunt Jane managed to establish that he was
>probably the father of John Quarterman Sr., and we've found some further
>evidence of that.  Exactly who his children were is still very confusing.
>And before that, only silence; we don't know where he came from.
>[ This is the Quarterman book discussion list, book@quarterman.org
>[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.quarterman.org/booklist.html
[ This is the Quarterman book discussion list, book@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.quarterman.org/booklist.html