Mary BANKHEAD m John ARMOUR can 1000+ trees be wrong ?

[brigidmac]

I have Mary BANKHEAD
as wife of John ARMOUR mother of janet ARMOUR b dec 1710

Janets marriage record to Hugh dunlop 1735 states daughter of john amour bonnetmaker deceased and mary
BANKHEAD

There are several baptisms for children of john ARMOUR + mary Bankhead at Kilmaus Ary

 maybe There are two (or three ?) couples with the same name as majority of trees On ancestry
have  couple of this name emigrating to USA in 1740 and dying there

 not possible if john amour was deceased in 1735

Also there is an inscription on Flesher stone for death of mary Bankhead spouse of john ARMOUR of Kilmarnock
Ages could fit but profession flesher is surely some kind of butcher dissimilar to bonnetmaker
# https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=834002.0

Flesher stone now defaced, 'Here lyes the corps of Mary Bankhead, spouse to John Armour, Flesher in Kilmaurs who died Nov 1728, aged 62

Which would make her born 1666 unless those are husbands dates

[brigidmac]

The  kilmaurs marriage i have for Mary Bankhead + john ARMOUR is dec 1699
With children born 1700 -1713
John 1700 robert 1705 janet 1710
Margrat1713 all born kilmaurs
 

[brigidmac]

The 1000+ trees that have Mary Bankhead as mother of janet ARMOUR 1710
Dont have many records and some are dubious such as the baptism of Mary age 16 in 1698 with parents William BANKHEAD & jean CRAWFORD

Its possible she got baptised before marriage but

I think so many people have copied all details because they are trying to establish a link to the janet ARMOUR who was Robbie BURNS wife

[Forfarian]

The short answer to your question is yes. Any number of trees can be wrong.

One sloppy researcher or wishful thinker submits a tree to Ancestry or MyHeritage or some other commercial web site. Other people find that tree and copy it, and before you know it there is a whole proliferation of trees with the same wrong information.

Online trees can be useful as pointers, but you are absolutely right to go back to original sources and question every link.

Yes, a flesher is a butcher.

[brigidmac]

Thanks Forfar
I think the problem is original researchers may be good then sloppy ones follow and the trees with most documents get to top

In this case those who have mary Bankhead s parents as William B & jean Crawford have not noticed that she would have been age 16 at baptism and that Mary went on to marry James Broun
Some even have her baptized again in Pennsylvania  in 1770 she would have been in  her 90s
 the document they include actualy shows a totally different child baptized BY  a william BANKHEAD


i have  DNA matches to some of these USA ARMOUR descendants so would like to work out
The correct line

[mattfrombann]

Brigid

I have PMd you about the story of the early Scottish Bankhead family which I have exhaustively investigated over decades. This is taken from primary sources, not the baloney on Ancestry or Family Search

Matt ( Ulster Scot Bankhead, living in Scotland)

[brigidmac]

Thanks so much for the   pm matt
Im working my way through the BANKHEAD  history
Slowly
 
Hoping to find confirmation of the AMOUR. Connection

[Macharskin]

My SP copy of Janet's marriage to Hugh Dunlop dated 27 Jul 1736 (not 1735), mentions late father John, bonnetmaker - but not Mary Bankhead. Is there another record I have missed?

M.