Gott family of Kildwick, Yorks. Cryer family possibly of Grantham

[arthurk]

Sephardictyke - you asked for help with a problem in your research and I offered it. As a newcomer to your particular family I am - probably unwisely - going to offer you a further critique of some of what you assert, since you seem not to have taken it on board. It's up to you what you do with it, but I shan't be adding any more to this thread.

- I did not give the year of the Calverley / Cryer marriage because it is irrelevant. The question here here is was Elizabeth married previously and if so what was her maiden name? William has nothing to do with this. I only mention him for context. Otherwise it just muddles the issue.

You initially suggested that "the most likely possibility" for Elizabeth Cryer was that she was née Gott, and widow of William Cryer who was buried in Kildwick in 1598. To re-iterate the points I made:

(a) Since there are others named Cryer in Rothwell, isn't it more likely that Elizabeth is related to them, rather than coming from over 20 miles away?

(b) If you nevertheless want to pursue the idea of a Kildwick connection, Elizabeth cannot be the widow of a William Cryer who was buried there in 1598, because that burial was for William Cryer's wife. (If you had read the printed copy of the register at the Internet Archive carefully, you would have known this.)

(c) There was a burial of a William Cryer in Kildwick in December 1600. However, you can't claim Elizabeth as his widow either, because the marriage in Rothwell to William Calverley was in November 1600. (This makes the year of her marriage extremely relevant, not irrelevant as you claim.)

Unless you can prove that Elizabeth Cryer was originally a Gott, the question of a link between her and Benjamin Gott in Leeds in 1762 doesn't arise.

(d) You also haven't explained how Grantham comes into it. Some might find this helpful or interesting.

Finally, I don't have anything to do with running RootsChat, but it has given me much enjoyment over the years and I feel a great deal of goodwill towards it. Newcomers and infrequent users might have valid points to make, but just charging in and saying things like "Someone needs to clean out this site then start again from scratch. It really is a dogs dinner" isn't going to go down too well.

[sephardictyke]

I was not asking for help in my research. I have already explained that you very clearly in my previous email. Once more, when all the work I and a professional genealogist have done - neither of us are beginners - do you understand??  the most likely scanario is the KIldwick.

I boiled the whole thing down precisely in an attempt to avoid all the muddle headed ------- that you have thrown at me these past 2 emails. One thing I have found over the last 10 years following my family lines is that the amateur genealogist world is infested with know know-alls who assume that everyone they speak operates on the same level as they do, or 10 levels below.

a) No it is NOT more likely. I have been through that one ad nauseam and I am not going to spend the next 30 minutes explaining that one to you.

b) You made that mistake as well as my genealogist. Uxor is latin for wife. We actually agree on something

c) Yes. Thank you I am well aware that November comes before December. I learned that some time back in junior school

I do not give a fig whether Elizabeth was related to Benjamin Gott. Its just that BG was a famous guy, so there is more of a likelyhood that there might be a family tree lurking somewhere. That is the only reason BG is or could be remotely relevant. Incidently there is a suggestion that Elizabeth may have been a Gott but it does not come from parish registers. 

To spell it out in very very simple terms,
- I want to find out whether Elizabeth was previously married
- The reason for that is because I want to find out what her maiden name was
- The reason for that is because I want to find who her parents were

- We, after lots and lots of study have determined that, for now, Kildwick is the most likely spot to look.

- Part of the reason is that we have done the maths in and around Grantham and we have done the maths in and around Rothwell and have come up empty handed. Nothing fits so we have determined that, for now, the most likely possibility is that Cryer was not her maiden name and until that comes up as nil we will pursue it. 

[BumbleB]

Can anyone help us here please?

Thank you.

I was not asking for help in my research. I have already explained that you very clearly in my previous email. Once more, when all the work I and a professional genealogist have done - neither of us are beginners - do you understand??  the most likely scanario is the KIldwick.

Make your mind up AND don't be SO RUDE! 

[sephardictyke]

Oh God just get a life will you.

And while you are at it close my account because I, unsurprisingly, cannot find a way to delete my own from here.

[BumbleB]

I've got a life, thank you AND I've had it for 80 years!     

Now, please, do us all a favour and DISAPPEAR   

[sephardictyke]

Just GO.............

[Little Nell]

I have to confess that I didn't understand what your aim was in your original post either. Am I to be shouted at, ridiculed and generally abused?  That is generally the case when one is a moderator.  Ah well......

One of our guidelines here:

https://www.rootschat.com/help/posting_guide.php

is

RootsChat discourages flaming. What is flaming? Flaming is treating others rudely online. Sometimes you might offend someone unintentionally, or they may offend you. Do not attack back, report it to a moderator who will deal with the situation. To contain the heat, the best response usually is no response at all.

What a pity that you chose to ignore that and showed such little respect for people who tried to engage with you to offer suggestions on the problem.

This topic is topic is now locked.

sephardictyke - if you wish to continue using the forum, please abide by the guidance that you agreed to when you originally registered with the site.  Thank you.