Question

would someone with 1500 certification merge this please?

Answer 1

Born half a century apart and one married 20 years after the other died?

Comments

She seems like a perfect match according to the sources and biography of the proposed husband. I postponed her a bit until I investigate further down the two lines. I promise to follow through on them.

Answer 2

The basic source is FC Pierce's 3rd Pierce book

https://archive.org/details/pearcegenealogyb1888pier/page/36

The Percys are OK through the 7 Henrys to Ralph.  No evidence that Ralph had a son Peter.  Peter is borrowed from a different family.

Then we get 4 successive Richards.  The first 3 are fictitious.

But the internet hasn't left it there.  The bio here

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/James-13671

has a version with two Peters, father and son.  The father marries Catherine and the son marries Anna James.  No idea whose imagination they came from - not FC Pierce's.

But then the two Peters have been collapsed back into one and the two wives conflated.

Comments

How Pierce works it.

"From the foregoing... it will be seen that Peter Percy* was son of Ralph Percy"

* see note page 18

This note gives us a long rigmarole about the Percys of Worcester, with a sentence tacked on:

"John Percy of Newton-on-the-Sea was, according to Brydges' Collins, brother of Peter Percy and the son of Sir Ralph Percy of the text."

This is the only mention we've had of Peter.

Brydges' Collins has 150 pages on Percys without any roadmap.  But John is on page 287

https://archive.org/stream/collinsspeerageo02colliala#page/287/

which makes him the grandson not son of Sir Ralph.  Ralph (p. 282) has 3 sons, Henry, Ralph and George, and John is the only son of Henry.  No Peter.

So Pierce is perfectly honest - he points us to the source that contradicts his claim and breaks his pedigree, if we have the stamina.