Clearing of error on PPP; 3 year effort [closed]

Question

John Farlow-14 needs to be removed from his current father, George Farley-754 (PPP Southern_Colonies) because John was born many years after George's death. There have been multiple requests over 3 years to no avail. It appears John was attached as a son several years ago during a bad merge. Would be lovely to get this corrected.

Comments

The profile for this man says that there is "no proof" for the uncertain parents connected to the profile, but there's not much in the way of reliably sourced evidence for most of George's biography.   The Project Leader(s) responsible for project protection are unlikely to be willing to completely disconnect the uncertain parents without seeing more evidence.

---

Holly, have you so far found any Quaker records for John Farlow. None appear to be cited on his profile. The Quakers Project is willing to assist with this...please let us know what Virginia or N C records have already been searched or found.

---

An initial look at the Marlborough NC MM records show it was not formed until 1816 (though it appears some form of preparatory meeting was meeting at Salem Meeting House). It grew out of Center Meeting where the first mention of a Farlow is in 1811 per Hinshaw. I’ll check other NC records tomorrow but I do wonder on what the suggested burial at Marlborough meeting is based. In this period there would not have been a grave marker other than, possibly, a field stone with no markings. The assistant clerk at Marlborough in 1816 was a Michael Farlow.

---

I inherited this profile, warts and all. The Find A Grave memorial (and John's burial) is not sourced and there is no headstone. I suspect the burial location was presumed from the headstones of children. I've found no Quaker records for a John Farlow during his life span, but I'm not very adept at using Quaker sources. There are NC compiled censuses for a John Farlow in 1755 and 1759. Also, supposedly a deed for purchase of land in 1758 in Rowan Co., NC. One issue is that John would have been 73 years old in 1755 when he supposedly moved to NC. Seems unlikely.

The 1963 online book "A brief history of the Farlow family" lists John (son of Thomas) and his children. However, it's not sourced so of limited value.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Answer 1

Reviewing the scant available information on John Farlow (Farlow-14), I would suggest that USSC leaders go ahead with the suggested disconnection and leave in its place a note with link that it has been made. A summary of notes and links is on his profile under Research Notes.

The only primary evidence of Farlow-14 possibly in Carolina comes from records used by Jackson for his substitute census index. That Farlow-14 was Quaker is perhaps questionable. He does not appear in extant Quaker records (Pennsylvania, Virginia or North Carolina) nor in the official extant colonial records of North Carolina. It is known that all of the mentioned records are incomplete. Hinshaw's surname index shows no known records of a Quaker Farlow or Farlo in Virginia but does show them in Goshen, Kennet and New Garden of Pennsylvania. However, specific records are not found in the Pennsylvania volume of Hinshaw's transcription of meeting minutes leading me to think the records are not transcribed or digitized (many are not in this period in this geographic area, see TriCollege Library research division which untranscribed index I have not yet searched).

The connection of Farlow-14 to Farley-754 appears to stem from someone's interpretation of a published family history where the earliest generations are unsourced and it clearly states multiple interpretations of what is listed. Farley-754 profile states that SAR "establishes" a connection when it clearly does not, appearing to rely upon a 1655 (headright?) record where the connection appears to rely upon similarity of surname and nothing more. The date of execution of Farley-754 is established as 1676. The record of an immigrant John Farley (with no documented relationship to to Farley-754) is dated 1655 indicating a birth some time prior to this. There is nothing to suggest a John Farlow is that person or that he was even alive in 1655 (or 1676). From what little information there is about John Farlow, a birth by 1676 or earlier is very dubious. The conclusion I draw from a review of what is known indicates that the detachment should be made.

Answer 2

I have detached John from George per Todd’s research and recommendation.