Robert Seabrook of Stratford, NEW possible identification. How would we like to handle it?

Question

A Feb 2022 Connecticut Ancestry article, by Randy A West, FASG, has provided an entirely new scenario for the origins of Robert Seabrooke^. In addition, he has found information to disprove some of the previous theories.

Given that Robert had two known daughters: Unknown born say 1619 and Sarah born about 1623. An English records search found baptisms in Chilcote, Derbyshire (now Leicestershire) that fit the criteria.

• 15 Nov 1620/1 "Em[m]e Seabrooke the daughter of Robert Seabrooke"
• 1 [November?] 1623 "Sara the daughter of Robert Seabrooke

No other baptisms or burials were found in the Chilcote registers for this family. The ages are a good fit for previous estimates of the daughters ages and Thomas Fairchild and wife named a daughter Emma.

A search for wills in the area of Chilcote, found "William Seabrooke of Chilcoate in the Countie of Derbye" dated 26 Oct 1618, proved 12 Feb 1618/9. This was not the will of Robert's father, but his father-in-law. William left a bequest to "Sara Seabrooke my daughter beyng ye wife of Robert Seabrooke.

^{GENEALOGICAL SUMMARY: Robert Seabrook of Chilcote married Sarah Seabrook, daughter of William Seabrook of Chilcote. There children were:}

1. ^{Emme bpt 15 March 1620/1. Emma married Thomas Fairchild}
2. ^{Sara bpt 1623. Sara married Thomas Sherwood.}

^{This is not 100% proven but likely. The pieces go together nicely.}

^{The question is: What do we do about this on Wikitree?}

• ^{Do we change the unknown wife to Sara Seabrook or leave her unknown, with appropriate notes in the biography?}
• ^{Do we change Thomas Fairchild's wife to Emma? Put Emma in the nicknames field? Or some other solution?}

Answer 1

Hi Anne B., 

Thank you for the well outlined issues. 

With appropriate profile comments, I am in favor of, 

1. changing the unknown wife to Sarah Seabrook as you propose.  
2. adding "Emme"/Emma in the nickname of Thomas Fairchild's wife.

My reasoning is influenced by the recently published article. Is there are reason we would not consider Randy's work to be a modern, curated sketch? 

Thank you again, Anne B.  --Gene

Adding: 

(a) While not considered proven, the changes are supported by multiple historical records, including those from multiple record groups, and reasoning. There also seems to be a lack of contradictory evidence. 

(b) Anne wrote, "This is not 100% proven but likely." While I see that phrase used, I'm not sure we ever reach 100% certainty when working on these early ancestral families.

We only know what we know at a given point in time. Whether something is considered proven, uncertain or a worthy research note is often a matter of whether we know "enough" and how exhaustive the search has been. (Even when someone believes the search has been exhaustive, we might still not know enough.)  

Whether a finding is proven or uncertain, etc., all genealogical work is subject to review and update based on improved historical discovery and reasoning. 

Answer 2

For the first daughter, I would probably opt for using Emme as her first name, and Emma as her preferred name. I am not sure a nickname would be required. As for his wife, Sarah, I would add her as Sarah Seabrook, with the parentage the author notes, but marked uncertain with explanation in the bio