Comments on John Lee Esq: Why is Mary Bryan attached as his wife?

Question

On 17 Nov 2023 Ken Bashford wrote on Lee-1662:

What is the case for (1) attaching Mary Bryan as John Lee’s wife and (2) stating they were married in 1723 in Nottoway, Isle of Wight county, VA?

Comments

Reminder:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Family_Data_Collection_-_Individual_Records

“Family Data Collection - Individual Records” is used as a ‘source’ for John Lee’s date-of-birth and for several of his children.

Answer 1

John's Will names wife Mary.

The case for the marriage of a Mary Bryan to John Lee does not appear to be reliably sourced. Source [8] Family Records in the profile is a Family Data Collection - Individual Records, so just someone's family tree.

When Mary's profile was created, her identity was Mary Lee, daughter of John Lee-1662 and Mary Bryan-269. She was subsequently made the wife of John Lee-1662 and merged into Mary Bryan-269. All unsourced from Ancestry trees! But anyway, her identity was Mary, wife of John Lee.

She was subsequently attached as daughter of the Bryans.

So if it is decided John Lee did not marry a Mary Bryan, then her identity should be preserved by:

1) Changing her last name at birth to Unknown.

2) Moving any reliably sourced facts for a Mary Bryan, daughter of the Bryans, to a new profile attached to them.

3) Revising Mary Unknown's profile to include a research note for the "disputed" last name Bryan and revising the profile Biography to reflect what is reliably sourced.

US Southern Colonies Project will make her profile project managed based on disputed relationships.

Comments

Thank you, Ken.  Excellent analysis!  And I completely agree with your plan of action.  

Minor quibble. In my view, it’s not a matter of someone deciding John didn’t marry Mary Bryan. Maybe he did. It’s a matter of acknowledging — as you have done in the first part of your reply — that the evidence thus far presented for this marriage is not good enough for making it ‘official’ in the Vital Data section.

Thanks again … Ken