>>>I think the idea that Elizabeth I had the children and Elizabeth II
>>> raised them probably makes the most sense without more information.
>>
>>It does make sense, although it is simply speculation.
>
>Very true.
Sometimes speculation is all we have, which I suppose is OK as long as
we explictly label it speculation. Since I first brought up this particular
speculation, I can't really object. :-)
>>> However, if Elizabeth I died in 1753 and Eliz II died in 1755, that
>>> leaves just two short years for Elizabeth II to make her mark on the family
>,
>>> leaving future generations to believe she was their ancestor. It seems
>>> to me it would take more than two years to do that.
>>
>>Well, you know Quartermans can leave an impression quickly. :-)
>
>Also very true.:-D
>
>>> It seems more likely that Elizabeth I died earlier, perhaps after 1746
>>> (the birth of Captain William Q). Or even earlier, leaving Elizabeth II
>>> as the mother of some of the children.
>>
>>It's possible.
>>
>>It does seem odd that there's a big gap between 1746 and 1757 (10 years)with
>no children.
>
>True. I guess that means Elizabeth I was probably the mother of all John Q's
>children (through Captain William), and probably died shortly after William.
>This is pure speculation, of course!
Yes, more plausible speculation.
>>> Without knowing how David established the two Elizabe
>>>ths, I can only guess at the death date for Elizabeth I.
>>
>>He's travelling this week, so we probably won't hear from him for a while.
>
>Looking forward to his input when he gets back.
John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org>
[ This is the Quarterman book discussion list, book@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.quarterman.org/booklist.html