Re: obvious errors in KIDWELL genealogy

Hi Susan,

I'd be willing to bet that Elizabeth Baimes Kidwell did not then go on to have ANOTHER child 9 years later (viz., at age 55), which was rather the thrust of my message. I didn't say that having a child at 46 was an impossible feat. Perhaps you overlooked what I said, so I am going to quote it here verbatim, so that it cannot go unnoticed again:

"I find it VERY unlikely that Sarah (___) Kidwell (said to be a daughter of Benjamin Colclough, and born 17 MAR 1719/20) could have given birth to a son (Joshia) in 1775, as the probability of a mother giving birth at 55-ish is approximately zero."

So you see, my problem with age of Sarah at birth of her child didn't even apply to Marshall Parker Kidwell, but rather to Josia (of various spellings). My problem with Marshall Parker Kidwell's dates are that according to what I see online he had a child of his own at age 12. That was another thing which I doubted very much. So I was trying to get someone who knew what they were talking about to clarify these impossibilities.

But let it not be lost in this...Sarah is not a Colclough. The idea that Sarah is the daughter of Benjamin Colcough comes from a CLEAR ERROR in the will abstract of Rachel Colclough. The abstract says "my daughter Sarah". But the will exists, and anyone who reads it will immediately recognize that is says "daughter of my daughter". Rachel's daughter, Mary, married a KIDWELL and had a daughter Sarah. So this Sarah Kidwell was a Kidwell by birth, not by marriage. So all the supposed "documentation" that Sarah is a Colclough is refuted.

The idea that Sarah was born in 1720, and was having children in 1775 (at age 55) just goes that further step of showing that not only is the "documentation" refuted, but is moreover impossible.