David or Daniel??

Today was a great day---weather-wise, anyway!  I spent the better part of the day at the Connecticut State Archives on some client work.  They're trying to establish the parents of one of their ancestors.  Truthfully, it's a contract farmed out to me because I live close to Connecticut and getting to the Archives isn't a big deal.  The problem arises with the background they supplied.  The target is David whose father is allegedly also David.  The mother "might be" Lydia.  Miles of microfilm later, I realized that "David" is often read "Daniel" and vice versa.  Back to the index.  I pulled the proper drawer of the Barbour collection and there he was...."Daniel" married Lydia, not "David".  OK, they were married in 1766.  My client supplied data stated that the target David was born in 1767.  Makes sense, I figured.  The first child is born anytime while the rest take 9 months, right?

Back to the drawing board (microfilm reader) and the search resumed.  After scrolling through 12 rolls of microfilm covering approximately 60 years of the vital records of 3 colonial towns turned up exactly....nothing!   Apparently, Daniel was never born...or at least not in Connecticut....nor was his alleged son David.  The only concrete evidence we have of David is his grave marker: "Died 1853 aged 86".  Well, I shouldn't say that exactly.  I did find 3 children born to him and "his wife".  But not on the microfilm, just in the Barbour card file.  At least I confirmed a little more of the sketchy data from the client.

So, back to Connecticut, but not tomorrow or Thursday for that matter.  Lots more records to review.  I spent too much time on the Vital Records due to the name defugalty.  Now there's probate, land and church records.

By the way, vital records in this time period and area include birth, marriage, death and earmarks!

I'll keep you posted!