Insufficient proof for the ancestry of Experience (Abell) Baldwin

[binky]

Here's what Farmerie said about Experience Abell:

"Regarding the belief that William Webber descended from William I,
King of Holland, it turns out not to be the case. However, the search
begun over a hundred years ago to identify royal ancestry for the
descendants of William and Lois (Baldwin) Webber has recently met with
success.

In identifying the father of William Wibber, we are a little farther
than we were in 1879, but more work is required. His first wife Lois
Baldwin, however, can be traced on her father's side to Experience
Abell, wife of John2 Baldwin. She was daughter of colonist Robert
Abell, descendant by at least ten different lines from King Edward I
of England, and hence from monarchs and nobles from every corner of
Europe, including such as William the Conquerer, Charlemagne, and
Alfred the Great."

_________________________________________

Unfortunately, there's no proof of the paternity of Experiene (Abell)
Baldwin. The assumption is that because Robert Abell's widow
remarried and moved to Norwich, CT, and Experience Abell married John
Baldwin in 1680 at Norwich, that Experience must be the daughter of
Robert Abell.

I can only give my honest opinion:

Proof of the paternity of Experience Abell is lacking. She might have
been an illegitimate daughter of Robert Abell, or related in some
other way to him.

[binky]

And if Experience (Abell) Baldwin was illegitimate, she couldn't
inherit, and wouldn't be one of the 7 children numbered in that
probate record. Right?

[binky]

Hey Todd! Are you ducking the Experience (Abell) Baldwin debate?
Things look grim--the only proven child of Robert Abell is, uh, Mary
Abell. Since there's no record naming Experience as Robert Abell's
daughter, do you have one naming Experience as the sister of Mary?
That might help, huh?

Look, here's what you do: if you don't have any evidence, just make
some up! Yeah--who needs documentation?

You know, reading your "many posts" here, I thought you were some big
time pro genealogist. Maybe out in Boston. But... you're just a
moonlighting prof, and as far as I know, you don't have any real
training in genealogy, do you? Isn't it true that most of your
ancestors came through PA?

Well, I'll leave you in piece [sic], Todd. I'm not a bully who's
going to steal your lunch money or duck your head in a toilet.

I'm actually a pretty good guy.

[Christopher Ingham]

On Sep 29, 12:22 pm, binky <bin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I'm not a bully

Um, then would that term apply to the other rampaging poster in SMG
who was so psychologically unstable that he melted down after a
certain ancestor of his was shown to have an insufficiently proven
royal descent?

Christopher Ingham

[binky]

Yeah, that's right Christopher.

You can contact a lawyer, too. The VA bar will be happy to hear from
you.

And you might have a look at the Elizabeth Wilke Spencer Man case I
posted. It was illegal to contest a will after it was proved;
therefore Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers had no claim against her father.

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/30/2009 9:16:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bin...@gmail.com writes:

> It was illegal to contest a will after it was proved;
> therefore Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers had no claim against her father.>>

-----------

Do you even know what the word "illegal" means?
What did they do lock her up? Sue her? Haul her before a judge for the
effrontery to contest a will?

I'd be glad to send you a Webster's since you seem to be light on meanings.