Should Matthew Grant's mother be attached or is she a clerical error or misread

Question

There is a profile for the mother of Matthew Grant, pgm immigrant to Windsor, Connecticut. I found it floating loose.  There is in the Windsor records a statement that Matthew Grant's mother died 29 May 1640. These early records were kept by Matthew Grant himself. Stiles, who wrote the Hist of Ancient Windsor, suggested it might be a misread, but generally it is accepted (including Anderson's Great Migration) that she was Matthew's mother.

Should she be attached as his mother?

There is already some discussion on Matthew's profile.

Answer 1

Hi Anne,

Matthew Grant, as I recall, was the record keeper for Windsor, Connecticut. I found this out when I signed up to become a descendant of ancient Windsor. He is a 10th GGF along with several other early Windsor settlers. I expect his keeping his own records led to his keeping records for the community.

If he listed his mother and her death date, I agree with Gene that this would be first-hand information! He should know his own mother. Hence, she should be connected and be PGM.

Thanks, Anne!

Answer 2

Yes. 

You wrote, "These early records were kept by Matthew Grant himself." 

I'd call that first hand information. 

Answer 3

i felt it wasn't reliable info and didn't feel it should be added.  there's no record of the person's name, birth, death, anything other than a random entry that may or may not say Matthew Grant's mother died on that day.  did he get a letter from England?  she didn't live in Windsor, CT.  so while i would LOVE to have Matthew's mother on wikitree, i don't think it's possible.  another thing to consider is there is a note on Matthew's page stating that "This is a Project Protected Profile. All significant or controversial changes need to be discussed prior to changes actually being made. Adding parents qualifies as significant. Please do not add them until it has been agreed on by the project members. Langholf-2 09:48, 19 November 2013 (EST)"

Comments

the reason for this note on the profile is many different times parents were added to the profile in error.  one of these times created a mess that took me 3 weeks to fix (hundreds of descendant profiles were severed from Matthew).  Matthew Grant's profile here is literally the one spot on the internet where factual genealogy info can be found on him w/ sources and notes.  if we know for sure we have good info to add, with sources, i say add it.  if we don't know, i don't think we add it.  that's my 2 cents.

---

Hi Geoff, I would not have added his mother, if I had not felt that it was absolutely correct. The Puritan Great Migration project uses Anderson's Great Migration series as the "base" for it's information on many of these settlers.  Anderson mentions Grant's mother in his sketch on Matthew Grant. I added the comment on his profile by way of discussion, even though it wasn't prior.

The profile is for an Unknown, so it's not claiming that she has a name or pedigree of any kind.

And although Mrs Grant Sr. has no other records in Windsor, women in early New England frequently left no records at all, so it is entirely possible that she was in Windsor without leaving a footprint.

---

I'm also in agreement that she should be profiled. She existed, although we know little about her, but there is the documentation as explained by Anne where her son recorded her death. That seems to fit the Minimum requirements for creating a profile, as there is a relationship and a source for her. 

If Geoff's concern in having a profile for her is that she will then have additional children or other family members attached, she could certainly be PPP'd under the PGM project as an adjunct, or another appropriate project, to keep that from happening. Matthew is currently protected, so no additional connections can be made to him without the project or PMs agreement. 

---

My concern is accuracy.  I just want to be sure we are making factual changes to the profile that IMPROVE it as well.  To me, adding "Unknown Unknown" as a mother doesn't contribute at all to the profile.  Should we add the same Unknown Unknown to every profile that doesn't have a  known mother?  That's one of the questions I've asked myself.  Also, we don't know what her surname was or where she died, we just have a vague reference telling us she died.  Did Matthew get a letter from a cousin back in England?  Or did she die in his guestroom?  There are so many unknowns!  Her name or existance wasn't mentioned in his diary (I checked).  I think everyone can respect that I'm laser-focused on the integrity of this profile and I'm not trying to be a pain.  But this is a community.  It's not wikigeoff, it's wikitree.  This has been great discussion and I appreciate everyone's time on it.  I'm looking forward to hearing Carol's update after talking with the Ancient Windsor folks.

Answer 4

When I return from my travel I'll contact the ancient Windsor group and see if the have any further information. Meanwhile, I'd still support (Unknown) Grant attached as mother with Matthew Grant's death source and Anderson's source. And Anne B makes an excellent point about women not being recorded. Women's information didn't get the same status as men, which is why we have so many Unknowns for women. At least her son recognized his mother's death and I'm grateful for this maternal clue.

Comments

I definitely would like to hear what they say.  Stiles doesn't mention her, and neither does Arthur Hastings Grant in his book on the family.  Those are by far the two best sources on Matthew Grant's history and lineage.  I agree it's possible this person left no footprint in Windsor, and I want to be clear I don't have the answers on her either.  I've researched this family for 20 years, it's like Matthew's parents were ghosts.  I've gone through OPC's throughout SW England and elsewhere.  Nothing.  No record of his marriage or birth.  I have to assume the church that had the records burnt down in the 17th century.

Answer 5

I think this profile should be attached, and prominent warnings added that there have been erroneous earlier identifications rejected.  We can be pretty sure that Matthew had a mother and it seems likely that he knew, by some means, the date of her death.  That may be all that we ever know, but having the date here may sometime connect a newly discovered record.

Comments

"we can be pretty sure Matthew had a mother"

I am 100% in agreement! 

---

I am in agreement as well. Sadly, no matter what we decide Matthew's mother will likely remain unknown. Attaching a profile with warnings makes the most sense. I realize there are those who have researched this for decades. You never know, something might turn up. We can hope.

Answer 6

Since Matthew Grant was the record keeper of Windsor, and he wrote the record about his own mother, it appears reliable, and should be attached. And as others have said, with her name being Unknown Unknown, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will add fraudulent lineage to her based on having her profile attached to Matthew's.

As a co-leader of the PGM Project, I feel confident in the profile being attached as his mother.