Boynett/Boynet 1790s
Replies: 5
Re: Jacob BOYNETT <1793>
| Korvis_Albion (View posts) | Posted: 19 Jul 2009 11:13PM GMT |
Classification: Query
So you have done some serious research here and I have not. The BOYNETT lines are fairly well established, but the data to clarify Jacob’s connection is missing. I found the first listing for him in the 1851 Census where Ancestry has him as Jacob Bboynett <1793>, so straight away some difficulties are oBbvious.
The LDS listings for children of this Jacob Boynett and Ann appear to begin with Jacob <1817>. Why do you think the 1816 marriage is wrong?
I tried looking for relevant Boynett research and turned up next to nothing for results. Perhaps you’ve noticed that there is no Boynet/Boynett surname forum on RootsWeb/Ancestry. And as far as I’ve seen all the LDS listings are from extracted sources. While these do provide excellent referenced data, the absence of contributed listings indicates that there are no signs of previous investigation by others here either.
Meanwhile, as you may know, the listings extracted to the internet by the LDS represent only a modest portion of their total film archive. In what I’ve seen so far, it appears that Hackney may be an omitted location, and you’ve gone directly to the source in this case, but could there be other possibilities? Perhaps by investigating the other Boynett families of St. Dunstan etc. as they move prior to this period of before c. 1800, you will find clues to your Jacob’s father or grandfather.
Regarding data from transcribed sources, it can not be determined whether all information from the original document is to be found on a given transcription. It is generally assumed that the format followed by certain transcribers will omit certain details of the original data which are sometimes present. Whether such details actually exist on a marriage, death or other document can only be determined by accessing the original resource in some way. When an investigation is blocked by a lack of information, then a greater effort must be made to examine all potentially relevant sources that are known.
Regards,
KA
The LDS listings for children of this Jacob Boynett and Ann appear to begin with Jacob <1817>. Why do you think the 1816 marriage is wrong?
I tried looking for relevant Boynett research and turned up next to nothing for results. Perhaps you’ve noticed that there is no Boynet/Boynett surname forum on RootsWeb/Ancestry. And as far as I’ve seen all the LDS listings are from extracted sources. While these do provide excellent referenced data, the absence of contributed listings indicates that there are no signs of previous investigation by others here either.
Meanwhile, as you may know, the listings extracted to the internet by the LDS represent only a modest portion of their total film archive. In what I’ve seen so far, it appears that Hackney may be an omitted location, and you’ve gone directly to the source in this case, but could there be other possibilities? Perhaps by investigating the other Boynett families of St. Dunstan etc. as they move prior to this period of before c. 1800, you will find clues to your Jacob’s father or grandfather.
Regarding data from transcribed sources, it can not be determined whether all information from the original document is to be found on a given transcription. It is generally assumed that the format followed by certain transcribers will omit certain details of the original data which are sometimes present. Whether such details actually exist on a marriage, death or other document can only be determined by accessing the original resource in some way. When an investigation is blocked by a lack of information, then a greater effort must be made to examine all potentially relevant sources that are known.
Regards,
KA