http://www.wargs.com/other/hogan.html
This doesn't affect the Mayflower line as far as I know, but I just want to
point out that 36 and 37 are wrong.
We already know that Houston Hogan was born Mar 1895 in Arkansas.
Note that Zella Cochran was born at Siloam Springs, Hico Township as that is
an important clue as it turns out.
Now look here (if you have the census subscription)
_http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=7602&path=Arkansas.Benton.H
ico.16.27&fn=Houston&ln=Hogan&st=r&pid=35156928&rc=&zp=75_
(http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=7602&path=Arkansas.Benton.Hico.16.27&fn=Housto
n&ln=Hogan&st=r&pid=35156928&rc=&zp=75)
It should be pretty plain that this Houston Hogan, born Mar 1895, in
Arkansas, with father born in Missouri.... is the same person. There are only a few
people in all the records, with this unusual name. His mother probably had
recently died and that's why he's living with his grandparents while his
father is out somewhere doing something else.
Note that Houston is living only a few pages away from his future wife Zella.
Will Johnson
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
What were the grandparents' names (as I don't have access to the
census records)? Was this Houston Hogan's paternal or maternal
grandparents?
Oh sorry, yes the grandparents were John Hogan and Sarah unknown in the 1900
census
They are listed as the head of the house and his wife, with various children
(none of them Otis), all the children are single, and then two grandsons,
one of them is this Houston, b MAR 1895 (as there stated), in Arkansas. I
would suspect he was *probably* born right there in Benton County, but I'm not
sure.
I just checked and you can find them, with Otis, in 1880 Brunswick, Chariton
Co, MO
John is there listed as 35 b KY, Sarah is 32 b OH
Otis 7, Henry 5, Ollie 3, Cordie 1
Fred Chalfant
Thanks to John Brandon and Guy Perry for allowing me to post so far
http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Anna_Nichole_Smith#Clarence_Eugene_Hogan
This shows *part* of the controversy of the "two Clarence Hogans".
I will shortly be adding John and Guy as the sources for part of this,
and then add the sources that led to this confusion, and possibly even
link Marilyn Monroe!
What an interesting trip!
Will Johnson
Only through the mythical connection, but I still like to note it. I
like to note the errors and explain them. Without that, in my
opinion, other researchers just hit that "the sources conflict" wall
and don't know how to proceed.
I had last year found a New England descent for Marilyn but never
completely sourced it. Just put it on a back burner for... sometime
later. Maybe this is that time!
I fixed the spelling of the name, thanks John.
See
http://countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Anna_Nicole_Smith
Will Johnson
I should have stated that I had found a "NEW" New England descent for
Marilyn Monroe. I'm aware of the ones that have already been
published.
Will Johnson
Other than Anna Nicole Smith being a wench, what does this have to do
with medieval genealogy?
The claim that he was an ancestor of Anna Nicole, however, still
awaits validation. Wynn and Cheatham may be correct about the lineage
of S. S. Huntsman. And Cheatham does claim to have used the 1850
census and some kind of marriage records from Charlotte County,
Virginia (perhaps in abstract/summary form -- one of the weaknesses of
this presentation is that IT IS HARD TO TELL.) Even this show of
assurance, however, pales next to the anonymous author of the
"cheathamranch" website that is supposed to link the Huntsmans to
Branch using no sources, or even places. I may not be familiar with
the Branch lineage, but I know that you (and Reitwiesner too) can do
better than this.
> But if you think you will be able to curtail my posting habits by a
> few snarky questions, you are sadly deceived.
Perhaps not, but postings like this can give us hope or make us
dream ...
Austin W. Spencer
If you think that sitting in a library mis-spending your working day
by posting off-topic trash on a mediaeval genealogy news-group
constitutes "making something of yourself", then you have set your
sights remarkably low.
Do you have anything relevant to this group to contribute, or have you
descended to being a full-time troll? There's plenty of good stuff
currently being posted about colonial GARDs - such as the thread that
Brad Verity initiated - that you would be eminently qualified to
participate in, instead of pathetically seeking attention in such a
manifestly negative fashion. How sad.
MA-R
Er, you work in a library, remember? I do hope you haven't lost your
job as well as your dignity.
When you first started posting to s-g-m, your contributions were
insightful, on-topic and interesting. You clearly have an excellent
knowledge of your period which gained you sufficient respect here that
several posters have stuck by you even when you have been a loutish,
immature boor. In one of your few lucid posts last week, you yourself
acknowledged that it was probably best that you stopped posting here,
because you seem to have descended to the lowest quality of posts.
It's none of our business what kind of personal rut you are stuck in,
but it's not too late for you for return to useful, on-topic
contributions, using your knowledge and ability in the field of
colonial GARDs for instance, rather than pursuing the route of
attention-seeking through trollery; if you do not, I expect you will
go the way of all trolls: you will burn out internally. Up to you, of
course.
Kind regards, Michael
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tigge...@yahoo.com
"John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175695308.5...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...