(Note: If you like background music
Click Here and select 'open'. If not, don't click.)
This article is a bit different because, in sharp contrast to the situation with John Albros I, II, and IV, all of whom are associated with major unresolved controversies (see the corresponding articles on this board), there seem to be nothing but trivial disagreements about John Albro III and/or Abigail Ballou. I thought it might make a nice change of pace to write about an easy one.
Major John Albro was born August 23, 1694 in Portsmouth, Newport, RI, the son of John Albro and Mary Stokes. He died some time after 1748 in North Kingstown, Washington, RI. He married Abigail Ballou, daughter of John Ballou and Hannah Garret, June 7, 1713 in Portsmouth. Abigail was born abt. 1695 in Providence, Providence, RI, and died bef. 1760 in Rhode Island. They had six children.
The above is primarilly from an LDS Ancestral file for AFN:GQ0V-B9 and AFN:GQ0V-CG respectively. The data for this file was submitted by Christopher Gleason Clark, Santa Barbara, CA; Willis H Muse, Salt Lake City, UT; Keith Ellis, Midvale, UT; and D Jason Hatch, Bountiful, UT. The data have been modified in regard to the dates of death for reasons that will become clear shortly.
The V. Price site on www.genealogy.org and the Whipple site (www.whipple.orem.ut.us) agree with the basic information above, the latter adding the information that John III was usually designated John Jr. Roman numerals designating the length of a chain of identically named descendants had not come into use at this time. One discrepancy does slip in with the georgen gedcom (www.my-ged.com/db/surnames/georgen/A ), which has the date of birth of John as 23 March instead of 23 August. This is the old 3 vs. 8 reading problem. Since everyone except the source for the georgen gedcom read it as an 8 (August), we will assume the 3 (March) is in error.
The basic information above agrees with what is provided in the Sawyer Family Tree, originally on www.willowtree.com, and with what is written in Austin's "Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island", p.235. The latter reference adds that John became a freeman in 1717, and moved to North Kingstown abt. 1739. Martha Benns' "Notes on the Albro Family", RIHS, 1942, also have no disagreements with the information above. John Victor Duncanson's "Newport, Nova Scotia. A Rhode Island Township", Mika Publ.Co., Belleville, Ontario, 1985, p.81, shows no disagreement either.
The R.I. Genealogical Register, Vol.7, No.1, Exeter Land Evidence, p.69, states that John Albro, yeoman, and Abigail Albro his wife, of Ex, sold land for #1650 to Edward Green of Ex dtd. 21 May 1748 and acknowledged 25 May 1748, rec. 15 April 1749, signed John Albro, Abigail Albro. Thus John was still alive in 1748 and "of Exeter", suggesting that he had moved there from North Kingstown. Previous genealogies including Austin's had his date of death as "after 1739."
Now we begin to get to disagreements, but rather trivial ones under the circumstances. John's name is spelled [1] John ALBRO, [2] John ALBROUGH, [3] John ALBORO, [4] John ALBOROUGH, and [5] John ALBRAUGH in different records referring to the husband of Abigail Ballou. These include: [1] LDS Ancestral File (c) 1987; Sawyer Family Tree cited above; [2] LDS Ancestral file (c) 1980, 1997; LDS IGI film 1985682; LDS IGI batch A170518 source 170518-9; LDS IGI film 184291 p.957 ref.21351; [3] "It Must Be My Side Of The Tree" by Debbie Gordan, WorldConnect 28 Jan 2000; [4] R.I. Genealogical Register, Vol.3, No.4, Apr 1981, p.334; [5] LDS IGI film 170682 p.248 ref.7178. Most trees will have John ALBRO, by convention.
This is no worse than what census takers did to most people other than those with the commonest of names. In all cases the pronunciation will be similar, and in the early 1700s the concept that there was a "right" way to spell a name had not been proposed. There is no controversy to resolve here - just an awareness that one may find reference to these early Albros with a wide variety of spellings.
When we begin to consider Abigail (Ballou) Albro, there do seem to be some actual disagreements. While most sources consider her parents to have been John Ballou and Hannah Garret (also spelled Garrett and Jarret in various places), the Inman Compendium Genealogical Database (inman.surnameweb.org) has them as John Ballou and Hannah Larkin. Fortunately, we are able to resolve this discrepancy. It seems John Ballou was initially married to Hannah Larkin, who after less than a year filed for divorce on the grounds that the marriage had never been consumated. In that case his second wife, Hannah Garret, was clearly Abigail's mother. This information was provided to us in a personal communication from April (Larkin) King, July, 2000.
That Abigail was born in Providence is attested by the V. Price Gedcom, and is consistant with the fact that all her siblings were born there. The date of birth is approximate, but we have found no disagreements concerning it. The date of death, before April 1760, is based on the will of Maturien (Maturin) Balloue (Ballou), Abigail's brother, written 3 April 1760. He refers to "sister Abigail Alborough, deceased" and five of her children (all who would have been alive in 1760.) This will abstract is in the R.I. Genealogical Register, Vol.3, No.4, p.334.
The marriage of John Albro and Abigail Ballou is claimed to have occurred:
Abt. 1716 - in Portsmouth, RI - LDS IGI films 1904022 and 2034759.
Abt. 1713 - in Portsmith, RI - LDS IGI film 1985682.
7 June 1713 - in Providence, RI - LDS IGI batch A170518 call no. 170519.
Please note that none of these agrees completely with the information stated originally, that is, 7 June 1713 in Portsmouth, RI. That date and place are taken from John Osborne Austin's "Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island", Albany, NY, 1887, p.235, and from Arnold's "Vital Records of Rhode Island", Vol.4 - Newport County. There is no "Portsmith, RI", the guess about Portsmouth associated with "Abt. 1716" is probably based on the fact that all the children were born there, and the guess about Providence, RI associated with the 7 June 1713 date probably comes from the fact that weddings were usually held where the bride's family lived. In this case one can certainly choose to prefer one of the alternatives above, but we prefer to accept the conclusions drawn by the early professional researchers unless real evidence appears to refute it. As with any set of alternatives in genealogy, nothing is derived from heavenly revelation. If you assign probabilities differently, fine. That is your right, as stated throughout the Controversies series. How we chose is as stated.