In a previous post about Sandford Palmer, in relation to a theory that he is a relative of Blaney Palmer, Sr., I listed Robert Sandford Palmer [Sr.] to having two wives, Mary Ann Davies and Mary Catherine Reeves.
I was wrong. The elder Palmer did not have two wives.
I have come across an entry, for Sandford Palmer, on page 492 in The County Families of the United Kingdom by Edward Walford published in 1882. The entry was for Sandford Palmer born in 1803 (the blank Christening record I mentioned in the previous posting that many want to ascribe to being for a William Palmer) and he is listed to being the one who married Mary Catherine Reeves in 1826 and his father is listed to having married Mary Ann Davies.
In FamilySearch.org family trees section, someone has linked (or merged) Blaney Palmer Sr. and his brother, John Palmer, to being linked to William Palmer and Jane Martin (daughter of John Martin and Jane Craig), who married in Mallow Parish, and then linked (or merged) the same William Palmer to being a twin of Sandford Palmer who was born in 1803. The only citation used to link William Palmer to Sandford Palmer and Mary Ann Davies is the 15 Jun 1803 Christening record that does not list the child's name on it, only that is for a male child of the couple ... and the certificate does not mention twin males either.
And somehow in the process William Palmer has also gained a middle name of James. Which may been done as a way to link William to being the James and Jane [Morton] Palmer who had a son, named John, in 1822 in County Antrim.
I am still not sold on the connection that William (James) Palmer is the twin brother to Sandford Palmer (b. 1803) therefore the son of [Robert] Sandford Palmer [Sr.] and Mary Ann Davies due to it appears to be some hammering of square pegs into round holes to force things to "fall into place" or "fit".
I am not saying that William Palmer, who married Jane Martin, may have not been somehow related to Sandford Palmer - just that it may not been as a son or brother. James Palmer, in County Antrim, may been a totally different Palmer who happened to have a wife named Jane whose maiden name was "close to" Martin. Jane's age is not listed on the christening record for a son, named John, born in 1822 and we know the Jane, who married William Palmer in Mallow Parish in Cork, was born in 1805 due to her Christening record. And if James Palmer is not William Palmer, who married Jane Martin in Mallow Parish, and William was born to another Palmer branch (so not a twin brother of Sandford Palmer) then all the force fittings to try to make the pieces fit is not leading us anywhere - let alone figuring out Blaney and John Palmer's lineage.
Yes, the theory is interesting. However, on FamilySearch's family tree, it is not presented as a theory that has not been proven [as in no notations shared to share it is a theory and not proven to being fact], but now listed as a "fact" in a way that others will copy and carry on to have others copy while thinking "research has been done to confirm this". I, however, would like more than a blank Christening record pulling double duty for two different people to even give William Palmer a birth year thought of 1803, let alone being the son of Sandford Palmer and Mary Ann Davies. I also think, even the church was conserving on paper for the Christening record, that there would been a notation the record itself was for a pair of twins somewhere on it (to have it count for more than 1 child). However, right now, it appears that he name line was possibly left blank due to the male child being christened was a Junior (named after his birth father) and the person, writing the record, may have not felt necessary, on their side, to list the child's name due to the male child being a Junior.
It is about as bad as some family trees that list a James Palmer, whose wife may or may not be named Jane, being Blaney and John's parents and that same James listed to having two sons named John who were born within 2 years of each other (with the same wife, who is either a Hannah or a Sarah) ... and no explanation nor citations of how Blaney and his brother are linked to the James Palmer. With the latter, it may be due to latching on to a "naming of children" theory (where sons often named their 1st or 2nd son and/or daughter after their parents or grandparents) and some people erroneously think that Blaney and John Palmer each had a son named James due to the 1860 US Census where the census taker mistakenly listed Blaney's daughter, Jane, as a male named James. However some folks like to point that Blaney's 1st born 'son' was named James and John's 2nd son was named James therefore both men named a son after their father, who was therefore also a James. The census error, for Blaney's 1860 US Census, is revealed in the 1870 and 1880 US Census reports that list Jane with the same birth info originally ascribed to a "James" in Blaney's 1860 US Census. So Jane is the James Palmer listed in 1860 US Census and that makes Blaney's 1st born son being John P. and his 2nd born son was Blaney Jr. Looking at naming thoughts on John's side, the 1st born son was named after his wife's grandfather, David L., and his 2nd born son, per family lore, James Sylvanus, was named after the captain of the ship he came to America on ... his other two sons was named William Sherman and Robert Martin Palmer. Blaney's daughters were named, in order, Mary Elizabeth, Jane [middle name unknown], Mariah [middle name unknown], Eliza Ann[a], and Isabel[le]. John's daughter was named Sarah I. [unknown what the I was an initial for].
I suppose one could look at John's younger two sons and point to one named William and Robert and then Robert having Martin as a middle name then Blaney's 2nd daughter being named Jane as a way to then point to the Mallow Parish marriage record for a William Palmer and a Jane Craig to go "A-ha! Blaney and John were the children of William Palmer and Jane Martin!" I would like something more to help support it than a spreading of names across the two brothers' children [and none repeated across the two brothers].
In summation, I have not nixed the idea that William Palmer, who married a Jane Martin, may been related somehow to Robert Sandford Palmer. I am merely not convinced William Palmer was a son of Robert Sandford Palmer [Sr] and Mary Ann Davies, therefore William not being a brother to Jonathan Tanner, Simon Davies, Sandford Robert [Jr], Henrietta, or Mary Ann Palmer - let alone a twin to Sandford [Jr]. There is, so far, no proof found that William and Jane [Martin] Palmer was Blaney and John's parents. I am also not convinced a James Palmer who married a Jane, Hannah, or Sarah [spousal thoughts is dependent which James is listed on an online tree] was Blaney and John's father either due to "naming thoughts", which was already proven to being a flawed theory from the get-go ... and John Palmer, who came to America and settled in Ripley County, Indiana with Samantha Gray as his wife, was born closer to 1825. Blaney Sr. is said to been born in 1822 but the 1822 Christening record is for a child named John and I don't know how it could been for Blaney either (who was born in September and the record is for a December Christening). Therefore I still have Blaney and John's parents technically listed as Unknown - with William and Jane Martin listed, in notations, as "a theory only" due to when they married, but even the time frame of when they married may not help lead them to being Blaney and John's parents.
