Can someone who died in 1768 be a United Empire Loyalist?

Question

I thought I understood the definition of United Empire Loyalist, then I encountered this profile for Daniel Walker, who died in 1768. Am I correct that he doesn't belong in this category and shouldn't have UE after his name? Or does he qualify on some basis I wasn't aware of?

Comments

History was never my strong suit. If it is wrong then it can be changed: But I thought it was right because of these sources:

http://www.uelac.org/Loyalist-Info/detail.php?letter=w&line=27

http://www.uelac.org/Loyalist-Info/detail.php?letter=w&line=28

Now explain to me why it's wrong!

 

---

The profile has that he died AFTER 1768.

---

There is no proof given on the site, just that it is proven. That simply means that the association decided he was a Loyalist despite having no proof of his "loyalty" other than service during the French and Indian War, at which time there wasn't a question of loyalty. He died in Vermont. That alone should disqualify him since he never settled in Canada during or after the war.

---

By the way, his son's inclusion as a loyalist by that association was expunged. If inclusion on their list is the standard, then the son should not be in that category.

Answer 1

Correction made.

Answer 2

In 1789, Lord Dorchester, then Governor of Quebec, initiated the branding of people loyal to the British Government before the Treaty approved in 1783 with the letters U.E. (for United Empire Loyalists).  I don't believe this was awarded posthumously.  I

Answer 3

It looks like they are confusing the father with the son, and possibly the Battle of Quebec during the French and Indian War in 1759 and the Battle of Quebec during the Revolutionary War in 1775. As far as I can see you are correct, he should not be in that category.

Comments

Ah, yes, confusion over the Battle of Quebec could explain this situation.

The son also has the UE template on his profile, but it's buried in the middle of his profile, and he doesn't have the suffix.