My troubles over an 1811 Massachusetts marriage intention

For years I have recorded Massachusetts marriage intentions in my family file. Sure, there are errors and suspected omissions, but I never thought about these intentions in terms of record bias.  

All that has changed because of the case of John Preston and Mary Cook, 1811, Gloucester, Massachusetts. 

I'm on a quest to learn more. 

In order to figure out if these intentions were subject to bias, I think I need to understand how the process actually worked. According to the City of Gloucester: Marriage Licenses site, filings today require both parties to appear. 

Would both parties have been required to appear in 1811? How did these intentions (aka "publishments") come to be and what form did they take? For example, did someone ask the town or church to publish the intentions? Were the intentions just announcements pinned to the church or courthouse door? In 1811, would these have been published in a local paper? Who could order the publication?

For the most part, I wouldn't think record bias would be very likely if both people were from the same town. In the puzzling case of John Preston and Mary Cook, however, the intended parties are not even from the same state. 

Here's the story. 

A long, long time ago, the marriage intention between "Miss Mary Cook [of Gloucester]" and "John Preston of Rumney, State of New Hampshire" dated 22 June 1811 was recorded in the "Publishments" of Gloucester, Massachusetts (partial page image follows). A corresponding New Hampshire intention has not been found; no record of a marriage between the couple has been located in either place. 

From separate research, the man noticed in this record is almost certainly John Preston born 5 Dec 1789, at Rumney, son of William Preston and Elizabeth Clark John was the brother of my ancestor, William Preston. These two brothers are said to have been soliders in the War of 1812 who became the first white settlers of modern day Defiance, Ohio, after the war.(note 1) John Preston died at Defiance 7 May 1819.(note 2) 

As part of the bigger task to advance the proof about these brothers, our family has worked a timeline at both New England and Ohio. The last (latest) known record about either of the brothers at New England had been this 1811 marriage intention.(note 3) Likewise, the earliest record of either man at Ohio is the Miami County marriage 13 October 1814 of John Preston to Sophia Ewing, dau. daughter of Alexander Ewing of Fort Wayne fame.(note 4) Ewing family materials refer to Sophia's husband separately as "Captain Preston" or "Captain John Preston." 

I had assumed John Preston was present when the 1811 intention was filed and was working from the hypothesis that he remained at New England long enough for the intention to somehow dissolve, but left soon enough to see service in the war and court his bride, Sophia (probably both at Ohio).  


Sex? Scandal? We took the case to Jane Walsh and the Gloucester Archives a year ago, hoping to learn more about how the intention was resolved (breakup, marriage, divorce).  Jane could find no record of a marriage or marriage dissolution, but she found research partially identifying Mary Cook (note 5) and reporting her first two children as Martha Perkins (said born 4 November 1810) and John Preston (said born 5 February 1813).(note 6) 

Wow. 

As "Miss Mary Cook," the 1811 intended bride married Zebulon Parsons some 10 years later ; it seems the only marriage associated to date with this Mary Cook. Births of three Parsons children to Mary and Zebulon were recorded at Gloucester. 

Failure to confirm birth of John Preston, 1813:  John Preston's birth is not reported in Gloucester's vital records (nor seems the earlier birth of daughter Martha Perkins). While the research is recent and ongoing, notice of these births is yet to be found in the Gloucester town books (now browsable as part of the FamilySearch Historical Record collections). 

If Mary Cook's son John Preston was born in 1813, it seemed not impossible, but less likely that he was the son of John Preston of Rumney.  However, the information I developed about this son suggested a birth in 1812, quite possibly 5 February 1812. For example, 

• John Preston died 31 August 1868, said age 56 years, 6 mos. [Rockport, Mass. death vital record] (Computes to a birth in February 1812.)
• John Preston's gravestone reports an age of 56. [Union Cemetery, Rockport, Mass.]  (So, born ca 1812.)
• John Preston was was age 53 at the time of the Massachusetts 1865 state census. (So born ca 1812.)
• John Preston was age 48 at the time of the 1860 U.S. census. (I viewed at Ancestry.com.) So, born ca 1812.
• John Preston was age 38 in the 1850 U.S. census. [Ancestry indexed as 38; FamilySearch indexed as 35.] Again, so born ca 1812.

If Mary Cook's son, John Preston, had been born in 1812, it seemed likely he was son of my Rumney man--but that analysis supposed dear John Preston (1789-1819) had been a participant in filing the marriage intention. 

Wondering whether or not he had been a participant brings us full circle to inquiring about the customs and practices of filing marriage intentions at Massachusetts in 1811. 

References:

 1. Nevin O. Winter, History of Northwest Ohio (Chicago: Lewis Publishing Co., 1917) 1: 405. 
 2. Isabella H. Taylor (Fort Wayne, Indiana),“Genealogy of the Ewing Family,” 22 Nov 1929, part of p. 1 (of 3), citing "... a few data from my own knowledge gained through many letters from Emily"; full manuscript referenced as “Indiana Biography Series [4]: 99-101,” supplied by Indiana State Library, Indianapolis, Indiana, correspondence of 13 Feb 2009.
 3. The latest notice of the older brother in New England is 1808, at New Hampshire (both a deed and comments about an engagement to work on the dam for Dartmouth College).
 4. Michael Hawfield, "Ewings played hardball in business, with Indians," archives of The News-Sentinel, cites April 4, 1994; transcribed version, News-Sentinel.com. 
 5. Stephanie Buck for Jane Walsh to GeneJ, "Re: John Preston - Mary Cook intention, Gloucester, 1811 ...," e-mail of 28 June 2011; privately held. At least in part, the information Jane worked with about Mary Cook was recently published in a work by Mary H. Sibbalds (1926-2009).   
 6. The Gloucester Archives work suggested yet another child, "Martha Perkins," b. 4 November 1810 could have been aka "Martha Preston." Birth records can not be located about either Martha or John. I work on the assumption that Martha was a Perkins, not a Preston.

What kind of a source hound are you?

Do you limit your research to online sources? Or, are you more the "No scrap should be left behind" researcher?

On the new Genealogy.se Q&A site, Garry asks, "How should I record my sources correctly?" 

Are you able to help develop a great response to Garry's question? 

My thoughts follow. 

Most genealogists, including esteemed professional genealogists with related day-jobs, engage in the work because they enjoy it. Helen S. Ullmann once quoted another, writing "Work is more fun than fun."

Only some of us come to genealogy as language or research experts. Assuming you had some other education or vocation, then the style and format you choose likely depends on the array of source materials you access, where your research takes you (and/or where you take your research), the kind of evidence you believe you utilize in your work. Comments below consider a couple of these notions.

• What kind of source hound are you?

Do you mostly limit your sources to those considered highly stable, recognizable and accessible (by you and by others)? This would include almost all published materials, census, birth/marriage/death certificates (incl. parish registers), and the like. It may even be influenced by your regional research preferences. If this broadly defines how you work, then you may find more scholarly approaches to genealogical citations are awkward/unnecessarily burdensome. Ala, it won't be fun; the more simplified "author, book, page and URL" approaches are better for you.

In contrast, you may be a katy-bar-the-door researcher who brings an empty suit case whether you are visiting the grandparents or an archive. (Let there be no scrap left behind.) If that is the case, then you routinely utilize a wide variety of source materials that are not highly stable ... recognizable ... or accessible ... (this greater array includes privately held and/or archived family papers, clipping files, ephemera, annotated bibles and photographs; untitled work of sometimes unknown origin, unindexed/loose paper folders ...) If this describes your approach to the research, then you will likely become frustrated with approaches to source lists and citation styles that seem "too simple"/don't support your needs for accuracy and consistency. Ala, it won't be fun; a more scholarly approach is better for you.

• What kind of evidence hound are you?

If you believe "direct evidence" characterizes by far your approach to recording family information and solving problems, then you may well see the purpose of your source notes and citations as "telling people where to find the material (so they can review it for themselves)." Again then, the more simplified, "author, book, page and URL," approaches are better for you.

In contrast, if you long for direct evidence, but rely mostly on an assortment of indirect, circumstantial, negative evidence, etc. (all of which must be weighed over time as part of the research process), then your source records and citations serve a purpose including but extending beyond "where you found it." If your work so extends, then you will want to take a more scholarly approach not only to "proof" but to your source notes and citations.

• What kind of a sharing hound are you?

Do you mostly play in your own sandbox or not? If not, are you tethered to the "database" style of sharing? If you choose the simplified approaches to sourcing your work, you'll usually be able to make that fit into a GEDCOM schema, which will allow you to share what you have. Unfortunately, for those of us who choose the more scholarly approaches, sharing our "database" can easily turn it into something that looks like a bad plate of spaghetti.

There are other ways of sharing your work, of course. This includes that most of the time we are able to develop wonderful narratives, including great online narratives.

If you decide that the more scholarly approaches are right for you, then there are many options available. See the genealogy.SE Q&E/answer to "Citation guides ... "

And yes ... remember to have fun! 

You'll permit me a shameless plug. I'm one of many, many voices who want to see better standardized support for how we source our work. It probably shows in my answer above, we shouldn't have to make these kinds of choices.