GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-06 > 0991444672


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Forbes-Smith with a note on Gifford
Date: 02 Jun 2001 01:17:52 GMT
References: <ONNZJLv6AHA.88@cpmsnbbsa09>



>JSG in his recent Forbes-Smith article mentions the tombstone of a Jane
>Forbes, who died in 1758, in the 24th year of her age.


The cemetary where she was buried was a family cemetary, connected to Forbes
ONLY through his wife's first husband, the Jowles family. It was not a public
burying ground, or a Forbes burying ground. The only Forbes entries were James
Forbes' family. Further, the burial entry gives her age, which would agree
with the wife of James Forbes. There is more that was taken into account than
what appears in the limited pages of the article.

BUT, THIS IS ALL MUCH LATER THAN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD.

Your comments on that evidence and interpretation would seem better placed on a
Maryland list.

What you state about the immigrant Mr. John Gifford and his possible ancestry
is on topic.

pcr

This thread: