Margaret GRIFFITH nee ROBERTS c. 1750ish (General)

by mrsbruso , Friday, June 17, 2011, 14:08 (4912 days ago) @ m p griffiths

That seems like a significant hint! But it puts the age of the deceased Margaret even further out of whack (assuming she was baptised as an infant) but I know that age is frequently not overly accurate. The 1757 makes a certain amount of sense when you consider that James and Margaret's eldest son, James, was born in 1784. Her youngest, Sarah, was born in 1800.

No hints in the sons' names here . . . she had neither a John nor a Daniel. She did have a daughter Elizabeth, though, and no Ann. Another point for Daniel and Elizabeth as her parents.

So the next question is: Is the age (of the deceased Margaret)inaccurate, or is it not the same Margaret?

So now I need to look to see if Hannah is Margaret's half sister . . . (Daniel and Elizabeth had two children together that are in the parish records . . . Robert, c. 1853 and Margaret, c. 1757.

The Awre Margaret (Blakeney again!) had a sister, Anne, c, 1738.

The Newland/Mitcheldean parents have a son c. 1753 named Robert. Robert Roberts. Seems appropriate for my family tree -- given that I am a descendent of two people named Lewis Lewis.