Hi Terry:

> Patricia, You missed one important step in my
> last email. William Mabley also had other children,
> one being a JAMES ... He is possibly the father
> of Albert.

No. I did take note of that, and addressed it thus:

>>So, I was thinking that the son James would be
>>born about two years or so earlier than John
>>(he's listed right before him. That would make
>>him about the right age to be a father to our
>>James Albert.
>>
>
>James then born abt 1811. So his first child
>possibly born as early as 1827. Your Albert
>(or James Albert, if what you have is correct),
>was born 1840 (possibly 1839), and certainly
>could be his son. But that is rather a
>stretch, since Albert was born in England.
>
>>The article also says that William returned to
>>England for a while where John was born. The
>>article doesn't say where the other children
>>were born as the story was about John. It's a
>>lead.

I just took another look at Albert's marriage record. The
above is immaterial. His father wasn't James, it was
John.

John, born 1813, could most certainly be "our" Albert's
father according to the time frame. What rules against
that, is the fact that John's son, Albert, appears on the
1871 census as age 26. That extrapolates to a birth of
1844-1845. "James Albert" was born 1839 or 1840.

It is essential to obtain the 1871 census films (C-9964
and C-9965), to find out who was in each of those
households (John, age 58, and Albert, age 26) in 1871. If
John's wife was Elizabeth, then that pretty well says he's
"ours." If Albert's wife was Mary, that virtually
clinches it. I'm not overly optimistic on the likelihood
that these are the right people. The reason that I'm
pessimistic, is that the first child of Albert + Mary,
James Albert, was born in the USA in 1871. If Albert (26
in '71) is married to Mary, then they must have moved
Stateside that summer, and not stayed for more than three
years.

> Don't forget, Albert is really James Albert Mabley.

Is he? Yes, you've told me that before, but have you run
across any official documentation that verifies it? I'm
not being argumentative here. I'm just pointing out that
some caution needs to be exercised when you're dealing
with narrative and/or familial sources.

Even extremely close family members can be mistaken. Case
in point, is one of my own first cousins. My Dad's eldest
brother was William Earl SHERMAN. Uncle Bill's second son
is known to all the family as Earl. All my life, my Dad,
and several of my Dad's siblings told me that Earl was
William Earl, Jr. So, for decades, that's how he was
entered in my records. About three years ago, I had the
opportunity to have a meeting with Earl, and to gather
direct information on him, and his immediate family. You
can only imagine my surprise when he produced his birth
certificate for me, and it showed that he's Earl Gregory
SHERMAN. Even more surprising, is the fact that an elder
in my family still alleges that my updated record is
incorrect despite the evidence of my own eyes that she's
wrong.

I'm not discounting that Albert may have been James
Albert. But I do hope that you'll find some corroborative
proof of it.

All best wishes to you and yours,
tricia