Covey - Family History & Genealogy Message Board

Re: Cyrenus (Cyrenius) Covey

mrs_mommy_jellybean — 2012-03-24 02:41:32Z

I just found out that "BIG DADDY COVEY" is my 10th great grandfather!!!!

Re: Error in Census Reports

schomakers1 — 2012-03-05 19:06:39Z

I'm confirming the error you found. In the 1840 Census, Niles Township (clearly marked on the side margin of the 15 pages) is "filed" in Barry County, Michigan. However, Niles Township properly belongs in Berrien County, Michigan.

Combined with your information, it appears that the images or microfilm reels for Barry and Berrien counties in Michigan have been interchanged somewhere along the filming/digitizing route.

With a little effort, Ancestry could fix this in their database. At a minimum they should put a note in the source field for all the records of these counties explaining that the county identification is in question.

Re: Lucius (Carey) Covey - New York

monardillon — 2012-02-17 02:42:22Z

I don't know if this helps or complicates but the Whitby Twp., Ontario County, Upper Canada Directory includes all of the following: Thomas Cary, Lucius Cary, Lucius Covey, Henry A Covey, and Nathan J Covey.
The 1850 census does show pretty clearly that Lucius was listed as Carey while Nathan was listed as Covey. Most of the children on this list as Carey do show up as Covey in later census and vital records though.

Re: Egbert E. Covey, Sandy Creek, New York

miltel836 — 2012-02-09 17:39:37Z

E-mail be at "wescovey52@hotmail.com" Have ifo on parents....

Egbert E. Covey, Sandy Creek, New York

casacovey — 2012-02-08 01:36:57Z

In searches of the Covey surname in old newspapers from Oswego County, New York I came upon Egbert E. Covey. Egbert was a Civil War veteran and appears to have lived his entire life in Sandy Creek after the war. His occupation was carpenter. I have been unable to locate any records of his parents. Does anyone have any information on his parents?

COVEY Lawrence L - Vietnam Wall section 3E

t42Vietnam_ParkerCoTX — 2011-12-22 14:43:47Z

COVEY Lawrence L - Vietnam Wall section 3E

Honor our Veterans. This is one of many photographs of the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Parker Co, TX. Feel free to use this picture for your personal records. This is one of the 223,486 photos free at http://teafor2.com where they are listed in order by state(Texas), county(Parker), cemetery(Vietnam) and Surname.

If you know more about this person please reply here instead of contacting me because this is not my family.

Re: The Story of Jonathan and Eunice Covey with TIME LINE

kjohns2486 — 2011-11-28 05:02:06Z

Sounds as though you have found the key. The Full name would be a truly good key. As to her birth date, you may be able to tell more by looking to see what the date of the census reports were taken. If the census taker did their job right, they were to list the age, as of the LAST birthday. Not proof, but may get closer to the truth. If the ages are a year off, chances are it pretty near accurate.

You must feel proud of yourself to get this far and find as much as you did - Bravo!
Karen

Re: The Story of Jonathan and Eunice Covey with TIME LINE

jking7171 — 2011-11-27 23:27:50Z

Kjohns -

With the long Thanksgiving holiday, I've been spending some time on my elusive SMITH-COVEY line, and the more I look, the more I believe my Louisa Covey Smith is probably the daughter of Jonathan and Eunice.
As with your timeline, exact evidence is hard to come by – but the circumstantial evidence would tend to bear this our including the name of one of her daughters. For years, I have carried my 2nd great grandmother as Ambrosia Smith Rhodes. Further investigation shows that as many did, my ancestress used her middle name – her full maiden name was Eunice Ambrosia Smith.
There is a marriage record for Hiram S. Smith and Louisa on 4 Dec. 1842 in Pike County. By the 1850 census they are still in Pike County. Louisa’s age would indicate she was born about 1820 but I have always been a bit suspect of that since her age seems to waver by a year or two.
1850 Census (Pike county, part of, Pike, Illinois)
Household Gender Age
Hiram S Smith M 31 Indexed by Ancestry as Haram
Louisa Smith F 30
William A Smith M 12
Lydia A Smith F 6
Hiram B Smith M 4
Mary J Smith F 3
I’ve never been able to find this family in the 1860 census. They may have been on the move because at some point about this time they moved to Rockbridge in Greene Co., IL, and at some point they were in Scott county for a while. By the 1870 census, the family is in Carlinville in Macoupin Co., IL as Hiram Smith, 51, New York, and wife, Louisa, 51, Ohio, which would make her birth around 1819.

They seem to disappear by the 1880 census although I have not been able to find evidence of their deaths either. Most of their children remained in the Macoupin or Montgomery county area.

I’m reaching a bit, but Eunice is not a family name in any other family I have. I continue to look for more evidence of this family. Eunice Ambrosia, b. 21 May 1852 in Scott Co., IL, is married to William M. Rhodes in Macoupin on 3 Dec 1868.

Nova Scotia Covey's

Carman_Covey — 2011-10-11 18:13:40Z

I am not sure exactly where my line started though the family has always claimed Scottish decent. This would make them a sub clan of the Cowie's and part of the Fraser's from S.E. Scotland. I do know that the first of my ancestor's to set foot in Canada did so on June 02, 1749. This was also the day Halifax was ordained a city. Charles Covey was a misdshipman on the H.M.S. Revenge, came to Canada after the decommissioning of that ship and immigrated through Halifax Nova Scotia. He brought with him two sons, James and Charles Jr. He died in Halifax in 1751, his two boys went on to settle in the Peggy's Cove area of St. Margaret's Bay. The majority of their descendants remain there to this day, to my knowledge. My father was born on the wrong side of the bay, he was born in Fox Point. My great grand father, Josia Covey was instrumental in getting my family to move west and they settled in Swift Current Saskatchewan, there both my Grand father, Hibbert Maurice Covey and later my Grandmother, Born Grono, passed away. Her primary family were actually englishmen, coolens. Boutilier, Dauphanee and Robert also play prominant roles in the early years of my family. The Covey's married into all of these families. The Coolens also married into the Grono's and the Maxners. My father passed away in Calgary Alberta and I am the first of that family to return east, I now live in New Brunswick.

I would appreciate any and all who may have who may have information on the history or geneology of this family would contact me. My email is carman_201@hotmail.com

Thank You

Covey-Hall, Covey-Cayer, Canada 1790-???

kfhelectric — 2011-09-22 22:00:35Z

Archibald Covey married Susan Hall,in Northern Vermont,Northern New york, or Canada. Son- Gilbert Y. Covey Born 1815,married Julianne Cayer, 1845, in Canada. Julianne is the daughter of Louis Cayer and Angele Gauthier. Julianne born 1826-28 in Canada. Anyone have records of the Louis Cayer family? Vitals, church, baptism's, children, marriages, deaths and burials.

Re: The Story of Jonathan and Eunice Covey with TIME LINE

kjohns2486 — 2011-09-21 15:22:07Z

Jackie,

If I remember correctly, there was also a brother of Smith in the same area. Louisa could be one of his too. All depends on her age. Good Luck!
kj

Re: The Story of Jonathan and Eunice Covey with TIME LINE

kjohns2486 — 2011-09-21 15:07:50Z

Jackie,

We may be on to something. The Pike County connection is a big one. As the girls are harder to locate than the son's, she may well be part of the family, and could be of Jonathan, or Smith himself.

You found them in 1850 census. Did you look any later? As I have no age, don't know how far into the future the census records could go. But, according to the time line, you might want to look at census reports in line with the path they may have taken. It may be that Louise and Hiram followed out west.

If you could find an 1870 census for them, it would tell where their parents were born. Think it is 1870. Or 1880 for sure. And of course the 1900 census. Not always accurate, but may solidifiy the state the parents were born in.

Good luck and let me know what you find.
kj

Re: The Story of Jonathan and Eunice Covey with TIME LINE

jking7171 — 2011-09-21 02:18:01Z

Kjohns -

Fascinating.

I have long looked at another Pike county Smith-Covey relationship and I wonder if this one does not tie into Jonathan.

My 3rd Great Grandparents were Hiram (sometimes Hyrom) Smith and Louisa Covey and they have been my roadblocks for sometime although once in a while I find a snippet of information on them.

Hiram S. Smith was born somewhere in New York and based on census reports, his birth must have been about 1819. Louisa Covey was born about 1820 and according to the censuses, was born in Ohio.

Hiram and Louisa were married 4 Dec 1842 in Pike County, Illinois. They later moved to Rockbridge, Greene Co and then Carlinville in Macoupin county, Illinois. They had seven children - only three of whom I have much information on.

Ancestry indexes him as Haram Smith in the 1850 census. The 1850 census also shows a 12 year old William A. Smith with Hiram and Louisa. William would have been born before their marriage and the 1850 census does not show relationships so it is unknown if William is a son.

I have often thought Louisa might be an unknown daughter of King Covey or James Covey, but after reading you note, I have to wonder if she might fit in with Jonathan and Eunice.

Any thoughts?

Jackie

COVEY William F Jr - Vietnam Wall section 2E

t42Vietnam_ParkerCoTX — 2011-09-17 18:03:05Z

COVEY William F Jr - Vietnam Wall section 2E

Honor our Veterans. This is one of many photographs of the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Parker Co, TX. Feel free to use this picture for your personal records. This is one of the 222,447 photos free at http://teafor2.com where they are listed in order by state(Texas), county(Parker), cemetery(Vietnam) and Surname.

If you know more about this person please reply here instead of contacting me because this is not my family.

Re: Lydia Ann Covey - Attention: Paul Young

kjohns2486 — 2011-08-31 05:50:48Z

Bill,

I am not sure of the Stephen Mumford you refer too. Stephen Mumford of the Sabbatarian Church in Newport came from Tewkesbury, Glouschestershire, England in 1665, and had been a Baptist. According to James McGeachy in his paper titled "The Times of Stephen Mumford," published in 1964 by the Seventh-Day Baptist Historical Society, Stephen Mumford had become a member of the Bell Lane Sabbatarian Church before he left for America.

His New Port church (though never called a church), was supported by several of the Bell Lane Church leaders and members. I do not know if he led the 7th Day Adventist movement in England and in all that is written of him, it is unclear. Stephen and his wife were referred to as Christian Sabbath Keepers, or Sabbatarian's. The 7th Day Adventist title, or name, came much later. But, suffice it to say he was in the English movement in it’s beginnings, prior to moving to the US, where it is said he came (or was sent) to establish the movement here.

Hope this helps.
Karen

Re: Lydia Ann Covey - Attention: Paul Young

eohnavi11 — 2011-08-29 01:34:35Z

Hello,

My great grandmother was Marintha Covey Plum of Oskaloosa, Iowa. I would be greatly interested in your history of the Lanphere's in France. Do you know if the Stephen Mumford associated w/ the Lanphere's in Westerly was the Mumford that led the 7th Day Adventist movement in England.

Cheers,

Bill Rowe
wer61537@yahoo.com

Daniel Covey Revolutionary War

jwcovey1 — 2011-08-07 23:58:23Z

I have just discovered a Daniel Covey in the revolutionary war records. Muster Roll of Captain Francis Williams Company in the Colonel William Grayson's regiment dated 01 April, 1778. This Daniel Covey is listed as a Sergeant.
I do not have anything on this person in my files.

Is there anyone here who can identify the family of this man?

Thanks for any help you can give.
Wanda

Re: Silas Leroy Covey

gwenb61444 — 2011-07-23 04:27:34Z

In spite of it saying that this is from Gwen, she's my employer.

http://www.bassett.net/gendata-o/p12484.htm is where you'll find everything I have on Silas and his ancestry. His sister Mabel May is my husband's grandmother. My email is kathryn@bassett.net

Re: Silas Leroy Covey

Robert_Tate1 — 2011-07-23 03:40:15Z

Silas LeRoy is my ggGrandfather. He, his wives Emma, Olvie (my ggGrandmother) is buried in Willet. I can forward pictures of the grave site and photos if interested.. I am trying to locate their parentage.

Re: Hazel Irene Cummerson

adelebrannelly1 — 2011-07-18 12:16:20Z

Hi , just fell onto this website having read my name Adele Cummerson married to Michael Cummerson. Seems weird that someone else was also Adele Cummerson, my maiden name was Brannelly which was also an unusual surname, both of which i have to spell out constantly !!:)

Re: Hope's children from Quist - David mystery anew.

jhs1649 — 2011-07-12 19:07:43Z

David Covey born 1742 had a son David born abt 1780 in vermont who married Lydia Post 1804 in vermont.In about 1804 both father and son relocated to Hopkinton,Saint Lawrence,New York. Both appear on the 1810 census for Hopkinton listed separately as Sr. and Jr.
There is a website for Norhtern N.Y. historical Newspapers and if you search under the name there are many articles with David Covey's name mentioned,in one it says how he buried his Father in 1811,and later his wife and 2 children.I think this was written in the mid 1830s,which would make sense as Lydia Post died in 1832 and David Jr.in 1837,The person who wrote these diaries was Elisha Risdon who married Amanda Post,a sister of Lydia.These entries were reprinted in the paper many years later. I can find no other evidence to prove or disprove the above theory on David Sr.

Re: Alva Covey, Monroe Co., NY

jhs1649 — 2011-07-10 00:01:39Z

Alvah Covey's wife was Jane Hardick,sister of my gg grandfather Jacob Hardick. In fact Alvah was also a second cousin of Caroline Covey who married Jacob.I do have some definitive and also some not proven info on Alvah and his ancestry and would like very much to share with you.My e-mail is jhs1649@aol.com

Re: New Info

MarthaCramer50 — 2011-06-01 00:12:59Z

I was wondering about your info on the Shaw family that Rhoda Covey married into. Working on Bejamin Shaw.

Thanks,
Marty

COVEY Charles A - Vietnam Wall section 10W

t42Vietnam_ParkerCoTX — 2011-04-25 11:13:09Z

COVEY Charles A - Vietnam Wall section 10W

Honor our Veterans. This is one of many photographs of the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Parker Co, TX. Feel free to use this picture for your personal records. This is one of the 220,674 photos free at http://teafor2.com where they are listed in order by state(Texas), county(Parker), cemetery(Vietnam) and Surname.

If you know more about this person please reply here instead of contacting me because this is not my family.

CATHERINE COVEY married RICHARD JAMES KERMER

rivrratjim171 — 2011-04-23 00:47:07Z

I am looking for any information on who I believe would be my great grandmother, CATHERINE COVEY from my father's side.

Catherine was married to RICHARD JAMES KERMER. They had a daughter named FRANCES KERMER, who married RICHARD HENRY TOBIN. They had two sons, VINCENT JOHN,(my father)and FRANCIS TOBIN.

Catherine is at the end of my search, unless I can hopefully get any help for possible relatives to help me out. Thank you so much! James Tobin

(Richard James Kermer- Born Oct.2, 1845)

Re: Simon J. Covey, Bosque Co., TX

bcknievel — 2011-04-17 04:50:35Z

My great grandfather was Simon J. Covey and my grandfather was Irwin Wooten Covey.

Re: Covey - Snyder, Texas

teacolleen — 2011-03-26 13:59:41Z

I'm married to Chris...

Austilena Hill Shaw Covey

kac38049 — 2011-02-27 03:18:09Z

Looking for any information about Austilena. She was born somewhere in Ohio in 1884. Her parents were Almond Hill and Ellen(Reeder) Hill. She married someone with the last name of Shaw before 1911. On September 30, 1911, he married my grandfather, Milton Harry Covey in Los Angeles, California. By 1916, she was no longer married to Milton because he married my grandmother April 29, 1916. Hope someone can help me locate Austilena and her family.

Re: Hope Covey- son of James/ca.1615

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-26 04:14:53Z

Point taken and you have missed my entries saying that what I have been working on for the last four years will, I pray, be finished this summer and will be posted on the web and/or in book form. When it is, it will be documented as to all that I have found.

As you may, or may not know, James' name was COUVEY, never Covey. On the documents we have concerning James, listing his name seven times, his surname is spelled COUVEY, even his daughter's birth announcement. The spelling of Covey was a spelling adopted by researchers, and by Quist and Helen Noel who were COVEY'S.

I had the actual name and the Coats of Arms and began tracing back - in France. Lo and behold, a plethora of information poured forth and the first documented person named COUVEY, in Manche, NORMANDY where the family was centered, was an aid to the son of William the Conqueror in the 1st Crusade, in 1096. It's really pretty exciting as they were Knights and Nobility mainly in Manche and later grandchildren moved to Ille-et-Villaine, around Rennes, Brittany.

The Normandy and Brittany Arm belonging to the Couvey's, which by the way is listed in Quist's book, but ignored is: azure, with gold chevron, two Quintefeuilles above and one below, a variation of which is found to also belong to Bardolph, the Engineer of arms for William, the Conqueror - implication being that a COUVEY's served under Bardolph and was in Normandy, from at least the time of William, although I have not been able to prove that except for the Arm. The second arm, also in Quist's book is: gules, with a silver bend (banner), cottised, with two thinner gold banners on either side of the silver Bend. It is a documented french military arm, dated from about 1300,s and shared by many other families who would have served in the same war(s). And the story goes on from there.

You have also missed my posting that if his name was COUVEY, how could his birth record have been found in Stepney England, under the name COVEY? - going on to explain why he was not! Quist and Noel were guessing that he was born in England, probably because he settled in an English settlement in Braintree. Interestingly, whoever listed his birth in Stepney, having allegedly found some documentation, listed no date, making it suspect from the get go.

As the spelling was incorrect in looking for a COVEY, to exclude all possibility, I checked English Birth Records, to dispell the highly suspect stories of his place of birth.

Thus, searched English birth records dating from 20 years before, up his alleged birth, and there is no James COUVEY, or James COVEY born in Stepney. There was a James Covey born in a parish some miles away, whose date could fit, but then I found his death record and he was ruled out. Continuing on, for more than 20 years, found a James Covey born, in STEPNEY. But, if that was our James, it meant he came to Braintree as a 5 to 8 year old child, who married at the time, had two sons? and seven years later, at age 12-15, a third child, daughter Mary. Never mind the fact he had to be aged 21 to obtain land in Braintree. NOT!!!!!!!! Whoever found the "20+ years later” birth date, apparently did not check the year. Or????????

It's hard to prove a negative, especially about a name that was misspelled from the beginning. As far as I know, no one but me has ever searched for James COUVEY, in France, or England. He was NOT born in England.

Am just finishing up with the Lanphear's in France and then will put all together for dispersal. Hopefully you can wait a few more months, but if you can't, the information is in France just waiting for you. Do be my guest. Would love to have someone to work on it and find what I did not, or correct and add to what I did find.

Re: Hope Covey- son of James/ca.1615

asakgage — 2011-02-25 05:25:17Z

I greatly appreciate your questioning of the Covey family origins, as I have long been frustrated with the unsourced assumptions that have been recycled over the years.

However, when I see statements like "JAMES COUVEY - was not born in England. He was born either in Manche, Normandy, or Ille-et-Villaine, Brittany . . . " my first question is "what is your source for this information?". Even if you haven't proven the actual location, your statement implies proof that "our" James Covey immigrated from France, either directly or through another country. If a sourced publication is forthcoming, please let us know - I'll get in line to buy it! Or if you don't need short term confidentiality, please fill us in on the source(s) of your statements.

Quist wrote in a knowing, authoritative manner, but that was negated by her un-sourced statements. While certainly tantalizing as a new area of research, I'm not ready to accept a French birth without some sourcing that can be validated. I'm ready to praise your findings to the skies, but not until you provide the same level of sourcing that you rightfully criticize Quist for not providing.

Re: Hope Covey- son of James/ca.1615

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-25 04:05:03Z

JAMES COUVEY - was not born in England. He was born either in Manche, Normandy, or Ille-et-Villaine, Brittany, 25 miles apart. Still trying to verify which.

We have NO idea the year of his birth. 1615 is a guess.

The marriage date is an assumption, made to fit into a constructed story. The 1638/39 date is based on land records of land awarded for "four heads." We have no idea who those "heads" were. The constructed story to prove a connection in lineage contends the four were James, Mary John and Hope. But records show John would have been to old to be a son. Hope was added only because he was found in R.I. in 1680, even though there is NO indication he was ever in Braintree, let alone born there. His name was Hope Cove, the same surname of the "too old to be a brother," John Cove, in Boston.

At that date and time, it would be very unnatural for James and Mary to have been married and have two boys in 1639, now only one, then wait seven years to have a daughter. No record of any other children born to James COUVEY have been found, at birth or after.

Therefore, we have no idea whether he was married to Mary at the time he was awarded land. Or, whether he and Mary married the year before Mary was born.

As it stands now, no son has been documented to have been born to James and Mary, at least in Braintree. It is very possible that two boys, if there were two, were born after daughter Mary.

As to Mary's death, that is pure unadulterated Speculation. James left Braintree in 1651, with a family and moved to Virginia.

HOPE COVE - (was never called Covey) We do not know the date of birth for Hope. Again, the birthdate given was to fit into a constructed story and his birthdate given to make him fit into the story. Actually, there is no proof he is the son of James COUVEY, although chances are he was.

The 1st we know of Hope is in 1680 when he arrives in Newport, Rhode Island, from Virginia. In the constructed story we were told he was married on arrival, and an old man with very young children.

But, from church records and letters, we find he was NOT married, and did not have his first child until seven years AFTER he arrived in Newport. His next two children were born within two years of the first and each other.

It is more likely Hope was born around 1660, and was much younger when he died, than all have been given to believe. According to church records, there was an illness (flu, plague, etc.) that hit Westerly about the time he died.

His death date is more accurately - between Nov. 8, 1704, when his will was written, and Feb 19, 1705, when his will was proven.

Nothing is known about Mary, other than what is in his will.

JAMES HOPE COVE, later COVEY - The birth date and marriage date you have is correct. Both he and Sarah moved to Stonington, CT. from Westerly in 1737, where he bought land through 1740. In 1746, he was in South District, Duchess County and paid taxes, Feb and June 1747, along with son's, Hope Jr., Joseph and John. The next existing tax record is June 1753, and (James)Hope Sr. is gone. Only Hope Jr. and John remain. It is not known if he died there, or returned to Connecticut. So it is safe to say he was alive as of 1747, at age 60.

Sarah's death date is given incorrectly, as 1726, the year she had her last child, in Westerly. She lived much longer, being alive to co-own and sell property in 1738/39 in Stonington. Whether she went with James Hope to Duchess is unknown.

JAMES COVEY married to Mary - Birth dates and marriage are correct. As to the death date of James, we have NO idea.
The date of 1782, has never been verified and confirmed. No source has ever been given for it. One should tend to question it as he was barely 60. - IF - the 1782 date is correct, he died in Fredricksburgh,(South and Southern District)Duchess County, New York, where he leased land.

CAUTION, as this is pure speculation at this point - It is suspected he left Duchess with Hope and William and went to Cambridge, New York, before moving West toward Butternuts.

Hope Covey- son of James/ca.1615

hardysv — 2011-02-23 05:54:02Z

After reading some of the info about the Covey family- I think I'm more confused- than ever. I have been working on a family tree for a gift. This is also my line -too. I hate to give someone something- and not be correct. Here is what I have-would appreciate any corrections or help. Also any sources for info..if available

*James Covey* Birth- ca. 1615/England
Death- September 5, 1712/Westerly, RI
Marriage- ca. 1638/39
*Mary* Birth- England ..Death- Westerly, Rhode Island

*Hope Covey* Birth- ca. 1640/England or Mass.
Death- before Feb.19, 1705/Westerly, RI
*Mary* Birth-marriage-death unknown

*James Covey* Birth- March 1, 1687/Westerly, RI
Death- Unknown
Marriage- March 21, 1707/08/Westerly, RI
*Sarah Lanphere* Birth- ca.1689/Little Compton, Newport Co
Rhode Island
Death- Unknown/Westerly RI

*James Covey jr* Birth-June 24,1715/Westerly, RI
Death- ca. 1782
Marriage- Nov 26,1738-Westerly RI
*Mary Lanphere* Birth- December 14, 1721/Westerly, RI
Death- Unknown/Stonington New London Connecticut

*Samuel Covey* Birth- 1761/Duchess Co. NY
Death-September 15, 1840/Jefferson Co. TN
Marriage- ca. 1780/Duchess Co. NY
*Elizabeth Knapp* Birth- ca. 1762
Death- After-1830/Jefferson Co. TN

I have been able to verify from Samuel- down to our generation..
S.Hardy

Re: Lydia Ann Covey - Attention: Paul Young

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-19 23:29:10Z

Paul,
Apparently you tried to go through Ancestry.com to send me a message at my home e-mail. Got the message, but cannot answer you back and you left me no e-mail address for you.

So, I leave one for you here, hoping it will get to you.
I am just finishing up with the Lanphear's (Lempirere's) in France. Once done, will put all together and all will be posted on a site, and/or in book form, by summer. It will include all I have been able to and find, although not all there is to learn, I am convinced!

We've waited 1,000 years, so hopefully in six more months, or so, the majority of it will be ready to share.
Karen

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-15 22:28:36Z

KJohns2486 wrote:
While we can’t be held accountable for what is not known at the time of writing, we are morally bound to ACCURATELY record what IS known and to find what CAN be known.

> Fiddlesticks and Phooey! I now understand your over-the-top outrage and SHOUTING about Quist’s book. You may feel a moral obligation about genealogy, and that’s fine for you. But don’t push your religious agenda onto other people.

Do you believe everything you read?

How’s this for accuracy? You wrote: “Hostility is never unhelpful!”

And I am happy to let you have the last word. You wrote: “Hey, I learned today’s current research practices and principles 50 and 60 years ago in high school and collage.”

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-15 20:20:42Z

Kathleen963 wrote:
> Quist’s book is and always has been a secondary source. Her book is a snapshot of how genealogy was done 30+ years ago. You put all the responsibility for fact checking on Quist when it is also the Reader’s responsibility.

No, I put the responsibility for the ORIGINAL fact checking, not done, on Quist. Again, I reiterate, while you say it is the responsibility of the reader to check on Quist, it was Quist’s responsibility to check on her secondary sources. So, for me, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You talk about 30 years ago as though it was the dark ages. Had she taken the family contributions, full of clues and possibilities and checked them, as she did with contributions made for Walter, rather than just accept them as fact, it would be a different story. She didn’t and we have a mish-mash.

The point of any research document, today, 30 or 100 years ago, is to provide credible evidence, supported and RESEARCHED, based on fact, alleged or not. And if not, to disclaim it.

Kathleen963 wrote::
> She used secondary sources such as Arnold, which was standard procedure for that time for genealogical writings.

Give me a break! What about seeking actual documentation, actual records, actual data sought from the County Clerk offices, which held that evidence. All the documents pertaining to our early family were available and retrievable then and still are. Arnold got them, although he transcribed them improperly. Bartley got them. I got them with writing letters, making phone calls and horror upon horror, traveling to Boston to get them. I think that is what she was paid to do, not just to take the word of a writer who wrote 100 years before, as gospel.

Kathleen963 wrote::
> Information is sourced or it isn’t. It is the Reader’s responsibility to decide if they agree with what is written, want to fact check for themselves or to disregard the information.

I refer to how Quist listed her sources - at the bottom of a section, with no indication in the body of work to tell you WHAT is being sourced. How is a reader to know which is which, based on your theory? Other than Noel, we have no idea what was contributed by anyone, at least in the first four generations and 90% of the 5th. I haven’t even gotten to the sixth generation.

Kathleen963 wrote::
> This is why we have thousands of online family trees where the only “source” is someone else’s family tree. Some people want their family history handed to them on a silver platter without any more effort that downloading someone else’s research.

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I still have to ask the question why would they, or should they, when for the last 30 years, Quist’s work has been touted as THE DEFINITIVE WORK on the Covey family, by the Covey family? People thought they could TRUST her work, as it had been FULLY researched. While great researchers like Bassett and Wood have researched their own lines for a specific family member, it was not until recently, that anyone has gone back to the beginning to research the first five generations, our very foundation, to find the many, many errors. At least it didn't take as long as it did with Austin and Savage.

Kathleen963 wrote:
> Common sense has a role to play, too. And is the Reader’s responsibility. This reminds me of a case where an online tree had skipped a generation. The stated mother had died 6 years before her supposed child was born (two records of her death date exist) and would have been 70 yrs old at the time of the birth (one record of her birth date). When I tried to let the tree owner know that a generation had been skipped the reply was “I wondered about that but the “family genealogist” said it was correct.” and was not interested in the records I offered to share with her. She was blindly accepting something that was illogical because she was relying on someone else to do her research.

Oh, pshawwwww! She wrote it and put it out there. Where was her common sense? You hold everyone else responsible to fact check, but exonerate her. Makes no sense!

But, I agree with you on the family genealogist, who just passed the junk on. I sure hope she wasn’t being paid. If she was, served the lady right for blindly accepting.

Kathleen963 wrote:
> Again you are putting all the responsibility on the author. The Reader shouldn’t blindly accept everything that is written.

Yes, I am putting all the responsibility of the original written document on the author! As Genealogist's, we are educator’s. We are Historian's, writer's of history, whether in a book, on the web, in a genealogy site, in a research paper, or just our immediate family. And, it IS our responsibility to make it as accurate as it can be made, at the time we are writing it. What we write, or post, will be left behind for ages to come.

While we can’t be held accountable for what is not known at the time of writing, we are morally bound to ACCURATELY record what IS known and to find what CAN be known. That was as true in 1971, as it is today in 2011.

Kathleen963 wrote:
> Are you threatening me? If so, with what?

No - just trying to prevent cutting off open and honest discussion, which occurs when one is rude and demeaning. Hostility is never unhelpful!

Kathleen963 wrote:
> That is not how these types of books were written. She made the same research mistakes – blindly accepting what was given to her by other Covey descendants. Most authors of family history compilations, 100 years ago or 30 years ago wouldn’t think of questioning the research of others contributors. You expect modern research techniques when they were not the norm at that time. And, again you put all the responsibility of verifying information on the author.

Hey, I learned today’s current research practices and principles 50 and 60 years ago in high school and collage. They are the same today, and were the same as used in books written in the early 1800's that Quist did NOT consult. The only thing that has changed about research today is it’s easier to identify, and to make footnotes & indexes on the computer.

Kathleen963 wrote:
> In the PREFACE Quist writes:
“Mrs. Irwin Covey’s records located at Westwood Village”, “These records were submitted by Helen (Covey) Noel”, “His [speaking of Walter, Jr] records were obtained from various sources, later a direct descendant was located at Long Island, New York, which led to a number of them in Michigan. This person was Frank Howard Covey of Long Island, New York.” Quist is using the word “source” in reference to people, not records. Also in the Preface: “These records have been submitted and compiled by two sisters . . .”. In the section about Benjamin Covey, Quist makes it plain, to me anyway, that the research about Sally Vanderhoof Covey was done by Dr. Caryl Hill, the early family records were submitted by Mrs. Neta Clark, Doyle Bauman and Quist. “Enoch’s records by Grace (Covey) Jorgenson” and several others. I believe that Quist made it abundantly clear that the work was a compilation and she did so in the PREFACE.

Yesterday, I wrote that she had used family contributions as sources. Just didn’t list them. Again, as stated yesterday, most of those contributions were attributed to the fifth, sixth and later generations (Walter was 5th, Benjamin and Enos the 6th) The data for the first four and all but Walter Covey, in the 5th, on whom I believe Quist’s work was actually focused, belong to Quist and Noel - based on badly, badly, badly flawed data, never researched or verified.

IN CLOSING -
Let me say this before I leave for France to do Lanphear genealogy - we are not going to agree. To carry on this interesting, but time-consuming dialog, is not going to change that, so let us amiably agree to disagree.

While I believe that Quist did a disservice to the actual truth of the first five generations, with the exception of Walter, it may be that our conversations will serve to enlighten new and some present genealogy devotees, that they should trust NO data, Quist’s or anyone else’s, without checking it themselves. Today, with the Internet, there is no excuse not to do so.

It would be great if every genealogy site would put a disclaimer on their home pages, to warn others to check their facts for themselves, and for those who are aware they have posted erroneous data, to change it, every place it has been placed, today! There are a few of mine on this site I wish I could delete. Realized the mistake and responsibly corrected them, but the original errors linger.

That our conversation may make a difference, may be wishful thinking, and not sure how to get to those in Japan, Australia, Cuba and across the world, that the info from Quist is not what they think it to be. Yet, if we start here, maybe it will spread as did Quist’s work to all shores near and far.

Again, thanks for the mental exercise. I wish you well in your endeavors on Kingsbury. You would be doing the family a service if you could unravel his mystery. Good Luck!
Sincerely,
Karen

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-15 12:10:13Z

kjohns2486 wrote:
Oh, I agree to that - and in providing her sources, that is exactly what she didn’t do. For years, Quist’s book WAS the source. It was written as THE source.

> Quist’s book is and always has been a secondary source. Her book is a snapshot of how genealogy was done 30+ years ago. You put all the responsibility for fact checking on Quist when it is also the Reader’s responsibility.

kjohns2486 wrote:
And, you are right, shame on those who didn’t check her work to find the facts for themselves, instead of taking her questionable secondary sources as gospel.

> She used secondary sources such as Arnold, which was standard procedure for that time for genealogical writings.

kjohns2486 wrote:
But, it is difficult for her reader’s to know what information is unsourced, when it is presented as factual and/or is sourced.

> Information is sourced or it isn’t. It is the Reader’s responsibility to decide if they agree with what is written, want to fact check for themselves or to disregard the information.

kjohns2486 wrote:
Thus, what she didn’t qualify, verify and correct, all errors and math that just does not make sense, have been copied by others throughout the world.

> This is why we have thousands of online family trees where the only “source” is someone else’s family tree. Some people want their family history handed to them on a silver platter without any more effort that downloading someone else’s research.

kjohns2486 wrote:
It is difficult to explain how whole generations have been skipped in at least six families, tying persons to the entirely wrong family, but is presented as accurate.

> Common sense has a role to play, too. And is the Reader’s responsibility. This reminds me of a case where an online tree had skipped a generation. The stated mother had died 6 years before her supposed child was born (two records of her death date exist) and would have been 70 yrs old at the time of the birth (one record of her birth date). When I tried to let the tree owner know that a generation had been skipped the reply was “I wondered about that but the “family genealogist” said it was correct.” and was not interested in the records I offered to share with her. She was blindly accepting something that was illogical because she was relying on someone else to do her research.

kjohns2486 wrote:
This puts me in mind of a Anthropologist-genealogist at University of Michigan, who told me about eight years ago, if you can’t verify information, or your source, don’t write it. OR - NOTE: it and clearly state it is pure conjecture, or a family story. Better yet, put it in a footnote, completely separating it from valid content, again fully explaining it’s mythical qualities.

> Again you are putting all the responsibility on the author. The Reader shouldn’t blindly accept everything that is written.

kjohns2486 wrote:
Don’t talk down to me Kathleen, that would be a mistake.

> Are you threatening me? If so, with what?

kjohns2486 wrote:
Did he [Bartley] find Theodosius and Rachel’s names in an original document, that I did not? Possible, but I think we both saw the same documents. I was hoping that maybe you too had seen the originals and might bring firmer clarity.

> I have not seen the originals. If Bartley had seen such a document, I’m sure it would have been included in his article. I don’t know how he concluded which Mary married James Covey, this connection is not my research goal. Way back when, I was researching the parents of Kingsbury Covey. I concluded long ago that Mary could not have been Kingsbury’s mother and didn’t want to waste time on a “non-connection”.

Kathleen wrote:
“If you are looking for certainty or infallibility, you won’t find it in genealogy.”

kjohns2486 wrote:
True, very true, but reading a document correctly, from a source that comes closest to truth, in actual documentation, or doing the correct math, is not too much to expect, don’t ‘cha think?

> You are still ranting about Quist’s research/compilation methods. Thousands of family history books were written the same way. It was standard procedure for the time. And it is still the Reader’s responsibility to check stated “facts” and to use common sense.

kjohns2486 wrote:
The issue with James and Mary is and has always been, virtually no information about them. Did not want anyone to be mislead there were “many” more records available which is NOT the case. There are only two references in Bartley’s work, the rest are about James Covey, married to Rachel.

> You are correct, it was misleading to write that there were “many” records about James and Mary. I apologize if I misled anyone.

kjohns2486 wrote:
While not the author of everything, she had the responsibility to verify everything.

> That is not how these types of books were written. She made the same research mistakes – blindly accepting what was given to her by other Covey descendants. Most authors of family history compilations, 100 years ago or 30 years ago wouldn’t think of questioning the research of others contributors. You expect modern research techniques when they were not the norm at that time. And, again you put all the responsibility of verifying information on the author.

kjohns2486 wrote:
You went on to say “Her book is a compilation of the work of several researchers.” I find that explanation no where in her book. That may certainly have been her intent, but is no where stated so others understand that her work is not at least based on fact, but rather is a mixture of lore, error, assumption and some fact.

> In the PREFACE Quist writes:
“Mrs. Irwin Covey’s records located at Westwood Village”, “These records were submitted by Helen (Covey) Noel”, “His [speaking of Walter, Jr] records were obtained from various sources, later a direct descendant was located at Long Island, New York, which led to a number of them in Michigan. This person was Frank Howard Covey of Long Island, New York.” Quist is using the word “source” in reference to people, not records. Also in the Preface: “These records have been submitted and compiled by two sisters . . .”. In the section about Benjamin Covey, Quist makes it plain, to me anyway, that the research about Sally Vanderhoof Covey was done by Dr. Caryl Hill, the early family records were submitted by Mrs. Neta Clark, Doyle Bauman and Quist. “Enoch’s records by Grace (Covey) Jorgenson” and several others. I believe that Quist made it abundantly clear that the work was a compilation and she did so in the PREFACE.

kjohns2486 wrote:
The only reference made to another’s work, other than her own research, is that of Helen Noel, on page 49 -
“Note: Helen Noel record printed in full even though
much of the material is given in the first part of
this publication.

> see the quotations from the Preface above.

kjohns2486 wrote:
Other’s should consider Quist’s writing as a secondary source and check and verify, but Quist didn’t have to check her secondary sources and shouldn’t have been expected to? Hmmmm! Have to think about that one.

> According to current research procedures, yes, she should have checked her secondary sources. But that was not the style of research at the time she wrote her book. Researchers accepted what had been published before them as “gospel”. If it was in a book, it had to be true. Current research methods are more skeptical. And the Reader still has the responsibility to understand why the book was written, to check the sources given and to decide for themselves whether to accept or reject unsourced material and shouldn’t blame the author if they find that unsourced material is incorrect.

Have a nice day!

Kathleen

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-15 01:32:05Z

Hi Kathleen,

kjohns2486 wrote:
Those who read her book, took the information in
the book verbatim.
Kathleen963 wrote in response - “Quist’s book is a
secondary source. All unsourced information in a
secondary source should be used as pointers, clues
or possibilities. All sourced information in a
secondary source should be checked by the reader.
Genealogy 101.”
> Oh, I agree to that - and in providing her sources, that is exactly what she didn’t do. For years, Quist’s book WAS the source. It was written as THE source. And, you are right, shame on those who didn’t check her work to find the facts for themselves, instead of taking her questionable secondary sources as gospel. But, it is difficult for her reader’s to know what information is unsourced, when it is presented as factual and/or is sourced. Thus, what she didn’t qualify, verify and correct, all errors and math that just does not make sense, have been copied by others throughout the world. It is difficult to explain how whole generations have been skipped in at least six families, tying persons to the entirely wrong family, but is presented as accurate.

This puts me in mind of a Anthropologist-genealogist at University of Michigan, who told me about eight years ago, if you can’t verify information, or your source, don’t write it. OR - NOTE: it and clearly state it is pure conjecture, or a family story. Better yet, put it in a footnote, completely separating it from valid content, again fully explaining it’s mythical qualities.

kjohns2486 wrote:
It would be interesting to know if Bartley found in
the record, that Mary was the first cousin of James.
He sources the birth date, but not the first cousin
part, which I also did not find, in original
documents.
Kathleen963 wrote in response -
The first cousin relationship is calculated from the
records of their parents and grandparents.

> Don’t talk down to me Kathleen, that would be a mistake. I did not find a parental relationship given as I explained. But let me explain more clearly - There were seven Mary Lanphear’s born within two to three years either side of Mary. I was interested how Bartley, or Arnold before him and other writer’s who copied his work, knew that she was the daughter of Theodosius and Rachael, rather than Richard, or Seth, or? Normally, when one references a source, it is not done in the middle of the sentence, but at the end of the complete statement. Bartley is really good, and bless him, but he sourced in the middle of the statement, thus I asked the question. Did he find Theodosius and Rachel’s names in an original document, that I did not? Possible, but I think we both saw the same documents. I was hoping that maybe you too had seen the originals and might bring firmer clarity.

kjohns2486 wrote:
(I forgot about Mary's birthdates, so we have four
items of alleged fact for Mary and James - birth dates
(2), marriage date and the BotD records).
Kathleen963 wrote in response -
All records state alleged facts. Even DNA evidence is
not always 100% accurate.

> Exactly, you made my point! That's why I inserted “alleged” in front of the word fact - Which would indicate to some, that while it is verified with original documentation, I am still skeptical in case new and more valid information arises.

You continued:
“If you are looking for certainty or infallibility, you won’t find it in genealogy.”

True, very true, but reading a document correctly, from a source that comes closest to truth, in actual documentation, or doing the correct math, is not too much to expect, don’t ‘cha think?

kjohns2486 wrote:
In Bartley's work, James and Mary are only mentioned
twice, listed in the children of James and Sarah, and
Theodosius and Rachel. The rest of the references to a
James, are James, born 1687, not James, born 1715.
Kathleen963 wrote in response -
Your point being?

> In your original message referring to Bartley’s work, you wrote: “There are many records of James Covey and his wife Mary Lanphear in Westerly.”

The issue with James and Mary is and has always been, virtually no information about them. Did not want anyone to be mislead there were “many” more records available which is NOT the case. There are only two references in Bartley’s work, the rest are about James Covey, married to Rachel.

kjohns2486 wrote:
And you are absolutely right that Quist should not be
blamed for things that happened after she wrote her
book.
Kathleen963 wrote in response -
I never mentioned “things that happened after she
wrote her book”. I stated that she was not the author
of every statement in the book. Her book is a
compilation of the work of several researchers. See
above about secondary sources.

> You originally wrote:“She should not be held accountable for every error that has been discovered since publication of her book.”

While not the author of everything, she had the responsibility to verify everything.She was the “researcher and compiler.” But, I agree, unless it can be directly traced back to her book and was written as fact, no blame should be laid. If there is something found after she wrote her book, that she could not have known, that was not available to her, or that since has been clarified with new information supplanting it, of course she cannot be blamed. I should have been more semantically precise. But, as I wasn’t being mean, I thought “things that happened after she wrote her book,” was close enough. The discussion was about the errors contained within her book and her being accountable for those. At least for me.

You went on to say “Her book is a compilation of the work of several researchers.” I find that explanation no where in her book. That may certainly have been her intent, but is no where stated so others understand that her work is not at least based on fact, but rather is a mixture of lore, error, assumption and some fact.

In the PREFACE, she writes:“This book represents over fifteen years of research, extensive travel, many thousands of dollars, much correspondence and many telephone calls, visits, etc., to complete.
It was initiated at a Covey Family Organization Reunion in Liberty Park, in Salt Lake City, Utah with Mary L. Quist as researcher and Compiler.”

In her RESEARCH EXPLANATION she writes: “The discovery and connection of Walter Covey (1750-1834) to his earlier progenitors, back to James Covey (sic) of Boston in 1640, was made through Early Nauvoo Temple Records found in the Genealogical Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah.
In the Nauvoo official Temple records Benjamin COVEY name his Covey aunts and uncles by name. This was the key to extablishing the direct line back to James of Boston in 1640. The family in question was James Covey who married his cousin, Mary Lanphere.“

She goes on to write -
“Every effort has been exerted to retain the original source accounts and documents in their own descriptions and grammar. For the purpose of this book it is very important that it be this way.”

The only reference made to another’s work, other than her own research, is that of Helen Noel, on page 49 -
“Note: Helen Noel record printed in full even though
much of the material is given in the first part of
this publication.

Thus, she claims Noel’s highly flawed accounting as her own. She has indeed sourced family member information, a few for those of the 4th generation, but more often 5th & 6th generations from James Couvey. She never tells us what they provided, whether a family myth, “a pointer, a clue, or a possibility,” just that something in the previous writing includes something they contributed. For the most part, in the first five generations, except for Walter, Quist depends almost solely on the writings of Arnold, Savage, Austin, she took from their books. Not first hand information, never verified the data. And, the documents Bartley uses for the beginnings of our family were available to her. But, for some reason, she and Noel just never bothered verify any of what was used.

It is hard to believe that for the thousands of dollars paid, the Covey’s in Salt Lake wanted family myth, pointers, clues, or errors on the foundation of the family in the first 4 to 5 generations. But, then, I could be wrong.

kjohns2486 wrote:
Unfortunately, Quist is the one who created many of
the errors, either by not qualifying them as unchecked
and undocumented, or as in making a definite
assumption on the Baptism of the Dead records,with no
other proof.

> Answered above.

kjohns2486 wrote:
She sourced Arnold and Savage throughout the early
Covey history, both of whom wrote their books nearly
100 before she wrote hers. Arnold's book was last
published in 1895. Rather than checking his facts, or
checking it out for herself, even though she said she
had traveled to the area, she repeated the errors,
presenting them as fact, with no qualification.
Kathleen963 responds -
See above about secondary sources.

> Not sure I understand this response. Other’s should consider Quist’s writing as a secondary source and check and verify, but Quist didn’t have to check her secondary sources and shouldn’t have been expected to? Hmmmm! Have to think about that one.

Have a good night Kathleen. This has been an interesting exercise that made me formulate some of my thoughts. Thanks, Karen

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-14 12:25:18Z

Hi Karen,

kjohns2486 wrote:
Those who read her book, took the information in the book verbatim.

> Quist’s book is a secondary source. All unsourced information in a secondary source should be used as pointers, clues or possibilities. All sourced information in a secondary source should be checked by the reader. Genealogy 101.

kjohns2486 wrote:
It would be interesting to know if Bartley found in the record, that Mary was the first cousin of James. He sources the birth date, but not the first cousin part, which I also did not find, in original documents.

> The first cousin relationship is calculated from the records of their parents and grandparents.

kjohns2486 wrote:
(I forgot about Mary's birthdates, so we have four items of alleged fact for Mary and James - birth dates (2), marriage date and the BotD records).

> All records state alleged facts. Even DNA evidence is not always 100% accurate. If you are looking for certainty or infallibility, you won’t find it in genealogy.

kjohns2486 wrote:
In Bartley's work, James and Mary are only mentioned twice, listed in the children of James and Sarah, and Theodosius and Rachel. The rest of the references to a James, are James, born 1687, not James, born 1715.

> Your point being?

kjohns2486 wrote:
And you are absolutely right that Quist should not be blamed for things that happened after she wrote her book.

> I never mentioned “things that happened after she wrote her book”. I stated that she was not the author of every statement in the book. Her book is a compilation of the work of several researchers. See above about secondary sources.

kjohns2486 wrote:
Unfortunately, Quist is the one who created many of the errors, either by not qualifying them as unchecked and undocumented, or as in making a definite assumption on the Baptism of the Dead records, with no other proof.

> See above about secondary sources.

kjohns2486 wrote:
She sourced Arnold and Savage throughout the early Covey history, both of whom wrote their books nearly 100 before she wrote hers. Arnold's book was last published in 1895. Rather than checking his facts, or checking it out for herself, even though she said she had traveled to the area, she repeated the errors, presenting them as fact, with no qualification.

> See above about secondary sources.

kjohns2486 wrote:
Nor did she present Helen Noel's work, in the first part of her book, which gives a very screwed up history of the family from 1639 to Westerly, as unchecked and unsourced, with dates that make no sense. Rather, she uses it as the foundation of her work and adding to it, continues from there. I don't think anyone will blame her for errors that happened AFTER she wrote her book.

> Again, I don’t understand this reference to errors that happened after she wrote her book. Researchers have used her book, properly, as a secondary source and have found records that dispute the information she presented.
Happens all the time when you are dealing with a secondary source.

Kathleen

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

jponce1067 — 2011-02-13 23:21:47Z

Does anyone have a Covey member affected by the Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease? It is a genetic disease and my g grandfather had( John Morgan Covey) it as well as some of his children. Not sure where it started, could have been the double cousin thing?

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

jponce1067 — 2011-02-13 20:48:44Z

Is this the same Mary Lamphear married to James Hope Covey?
I sure hope so as his son was Samual P Covey and I am already confused enough!!

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-13 19:35:42Z

Hi Kathleen,

What you see in the gaps between children you will find comes directly from Quist's books. They are listed from the "Baptism for the Dead" records. She writes that when she found the records, she knew they belonged to James and Mary. No Question about it! Although she does says she may be missing some children.

Those who read her book, took the information in the book verbatim.

It would be interesting to know if Bartley found in the record, that Mary was the first cousin of James. He sources the birth date, but not the first cousin part, which I also did not find, in original documents. (I forgot about Mary's birthdates, so we have four items of alleged fact for Mary and James - birth dates (2), marriage date and the BotD records).

In Bartley's work, James and Mary are only mentioned twice, listed in the children of James and Sarah, and Theodosius and Rachel. The rest of the references to a James, are James, born 1687, not James, born 1715.

And you are absolutely right that Quist should not be blamed for things that happened after she wrote her book. Unfortunately, Quist is the one who created many of the errors, either by not qualifying them as unchecked and undocumented, or as in making a definite assumption on the Baptism of the Dead records, with no other proof. She sourced Arnold and Savage throughout the early Covey history, both of whom wrote their books nearly 100 before she wrote hers. Arnold's book was last published in 1895. Rather than checking his facts, or checking it out for herself, even though she said she had traveled to the area, she repeated the errors, presenting them as fact, with no qualification.

Nor did she present Helen Noel's work, in the first part of her book, which gives a very screwed up history of the family from 1639 to Westerly, as unchecked and unsourced, with dates that make no sense. Rather, she uses it as the foundation of her work and adding to it, continues from there. I don't think anyone will blame her for errors that happened AFTER she wrote her book.

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-13 15:18:21Z

There is a 3 part article in the Register of the NEHGS entitled “George Lanphear of Westerly, Rhode Island and His Descendants” by Scott Andrew Bartly. The 1st part is in Vol 153 (1999) of the Register.

The article is well researched and sourced. There are many records of James Covey and his wife Mary Lanphear in Westerly. And they were double 1st cousins – both were grandchildren of George Lanphear (d. 1731, Westerly, RI) and both were grandchildren of Hope Covey (d.1705, Westerly, RI).

James Covey and Mary Lanphear were married in Westerly, RI on 26 Nov 1738. {Source: Westerly, RI Town Meeting Records} The author examined the original records and notes the Arnold in his “Vital Records of Rhode Island” incorrectly states that James Covey’s name was James Corey. The original record states “Covey”.

My interest in a death/burial date for Mary Lanphear Covey is because of the Baptisms of the Dead records which places Kingsbury Covey (1775?-1840) as a brother of Walter Covey, Sr and thus a son of James Covey. We know Mary Lanphear was born in 1721 and it is VERY unlikely she would have had a child at the age of 54. Without a death/burial date for Mary, there is still the possibility of a 2nd marriage for James. In some listings of James and Mary (Lanphear) Covey’s children there is a 5-6 year gap between Hope and Kingsbury. This could indicate a death of the 1st wife and a marriage to a 2nd wife.

Note about Quist: Mary Lancester Quist was hired by the Covey Family Assoc. to COMPILE all the available research on the Covey family. She put together some of her own research and the research of other Covey descendants. That is why there are discrepancies between different accounts of the families. Some of the accounts are based on family legend and some are sourced to original records. She included whatever a Covey descendant gave her. She should not be held accountable for every error that has been discovered since publication of her book.

Kathleen

Re: Mary Lanphear Covey

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-12 01:25:08Z

Unless I am mistaken, the only proof we have that they even existed is a Connecticut marriage notation, from Arnold's book, which was full of error, calling this family COREY, and really screwing it up.

That is the only reference found for Mary. And, it may not even be correct. It was this reference that stated she was his cousin, a double cousin. There were seven Mary's in the Lanphere family, all within 2 yrs either way of Mary from James and Sarah Lanphear.

There is no trace of James,in Duchess - UNLESS, it was a James who arrived in Duchess in 1761, after fighting for Connecticut in the war. Duchess records say he was cared for by Elija, son of Hope (who left Duchess to settle back in Connecticut). Unfortunately, we have no idea how old this James was.

The only other documentation that a "James" lived, was in the "Baptism for the Dead." Quist saw those two references and came to the conclusion they were one in the same and that James had to be the father of Walter, Benjamin, etc. However, she did qualify it and say that she may be wrong on the children of James, also that she may have missed a few. (It should be remembered that Mary would have been somewhere in her 50's, probably mid 50's, if she was the mother of Kingsbury. Unless back in those days, menopause started in the mid-50's and not the 40's, that might be a miracle.)

The following information comes from Covey Cousins - used by most today in reference to James, 1719 -

"James Covey and his wife mary Lamphere were double
cousins. They were married in 1739 in Westerly, RI,
and moved to Stonington, New London, Ct., and then to
Dutchess county, NY. James served in the French and
Indian war in the Great Swamp campaign of 1761 for
which he recieved a land patent in the Philpse
Division of Dutchess County, NY, lot #49."

While a James in 1761, did fight in the French and Indian War, he did NOT fight in the GREAT SWAMP CAMPAIGN, which actually took place during "King Phillip's War" in Narragansett in 1675-76, a hundred years before.

Nor did he receive land in the Philpse Patent, lot #49, or lot #9, he rented it. He fought for Connecticut, not NY. Land patents for Connecticut soldiers were awarded in Ohio, not New York, which awarded land bounties in the Military Tract for land awarded starting in 1791. see map:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simeon_DeWitt_Central...

Deadline to claim those bounty lands was 1799. Records show NO Covey received land bounty in the Tract which covered land in the present day counties of Cayuga, Cortland, Onondaga, and Seneca, and parts of Oswego, Tompkins, Schuyler and Wayne, far northwest of Duchess.

It is also said that this James received land in a bounty grant in Green County, which also is incorrect. Again, he would not have received NY land, for fighting in Connecticut. This mention belongs to James Covey b. 1772, d. 1831, who also did not receive bounty land in Greene which were awarded for the 1812 War, not the Revolutionary War. UNLESS, he fought in the 1812 War, of which there is no evidence.

It is said a James Covey lived in Columbia County in 1776, but Columbia County was not even a twinkle in it's mother's eye then, as it was not formed until 1786 from portions of Albany County So that is not correct.

There is no indication of what happened to James, married to Mary. He is last found in Putnam County,(Philipse then named South District) in 1779. He may have died in Duchess. Some have a date of death 1782, in Duchess - No source, no proof. No one that I know of has searched Duchess records, other than what has been found in Duchess tax records, info from the History of Putnam County, New York and what Quist gathered, which is sketchy to say the least.

Thus, the only information available for James, or Mary are the two items listed above - the marriage license and the Baptism for the Dead, (possibly the military records). Everything else is pure assumption, conjecture and/or wishful thinking.

That said, since I last looked at the two of them, someone may have found new additional imformation, that is sourced and documented. If so, I pray they share it with us. If not, think Duchess is the key.

Mary Lanphear Covey

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-11 14:32:08Z

Does anyone have a death/burial record for Mary (Lanphear) Covey, wife of James Covey?

Kathleen

Re: Kingsbury, Benjamin - "Baptism for the Dead," Wills, place of birth.

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-10 13:42:49Z

Thank you for the link.

Kathleen

Re: Kingsbury, Benjamin - "Baptism for the Dead," Wills, place of birth.

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-09 16:25:41Z

http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.covey/791/mb.ashx

Re: Kingsbury, Benjamin - "Baptism for the Dead," Wills, place of birth.

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-09 13:56:50Z

"Plugging" in "Nauvoo, Baptism of, or for, the Dead" at Ancestry.com Card Catalog, at Ancestry.com Message Boards and at Covey Message Board returned no results. What "site" are you referring to?

Kathleen

Re: Kingsbury, Benjamin - "Baptism for the Dead," Wills, place of birth.

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-08 16:03:21Z

Yes, they are on this site. plug in Nauvoo, Baptism of, or for, the Dead.

Re: Kingsbury, Benjamin - "Baptism for the Dead," Wills, place of birth.

Kathleen963 — 2011-02-08 13:52:29Z

Are the original baptism records available online? Or would you quote from the originals, please?

Kathleen

Kingsbury, Benjamin - "Baptism for the Dead," Wills, place of birth.

kjohns2486 — 2011-02-07 03:42:13Z

A month or so ago, in exchanges with a gal researching Kingsbury Covey, I wrote that the "Baptism for the Dead" show Kingsbury Covey to be the NEPHEW of Benjamin, son of Walter Covey. NOT SO, NOT TRUE, WRONG!

I was reading off a copy of the originals with writing on it and read it wrong. An honest mistake and a very sloppy one. I apologize if I led anyone astray.

Fact is, King, Hope and James were as Quist wrote. Benjamin being THEIR nephew. Soooo, right back where we started.

BUT, since then with the help of a friend, found the following that may give clues - Unless all already have the info.

Abstract and Probate Records, Washington County, Ohio
Wills, Estates, Guardianships 1789-1855

Kingsbury Covey Will - also James and Benet's Wills

p 27 - Washington County, Ohio Probate
• Covey, Cautious C. E-1852 pr 9-p 321, 345, 356 B-55
widow - Mary A. Marietta
3 minor children
Admx - Mary A. Covey

• Covey, James E-1847 pr 7-p 589
Admx - wife, Eliza Covey
p 28
• Covey Kingsbury W-1840 pr 6-p 84, 133, 348
Lawrence Twp.
Wife - Mary
sons - William, Benet & Kingsbury Covey (three sons)
daus - mentioned but not named
Execx - Mary Covey, wife

http://books.google.com/books?id=BQL3jAY0gacC&pg=PA28&am...

And finally, Kingsbury listed as dying in Washington County, Ohio c. 1840, but being born in AUBURN, CAYUGA COUNTY, NY,in 1775, is also incorrect.

Auburn did not exist in 1775. The virgin and forested region with no whitemen, became part of the Central New York Military Tract, a land bounty for New York soldiers serving in the military. That entire area was not inhabited by anyone but Indian's, until 1789 and was originally called Aurelius. In 1793, an army colonel created the town of Hardenbergh's Corners. In 1805, six years after the creation of Cayuga County, Aurelius was renamed Auburn and was chartered as a town in 1815.

So, in 1775, there was no Cayuga County and no Auburn, in fact, no county or town existed. As Kingsbury was found in Chenango in 1800 or so, with Hope and William Covey, suspect he was born where they were, in Dutchess County, NY.