Who Was Richard Garrett ? 

The Argument:

In Lunenburg in the middle to late 1700's, a family named Gerhardt arrived in Nova Scotia.  So did the Gerrard's.  And from this point on, the families appear to have fairly consistently gotten mixed up with one another, though (amazingly) never intermarried with one another. 

I remember a Richard Gerrard as a child of William and Ann Gerrards, our Nova Scotia founding family.  I also believe that through mis-spelling, which was rampant in all surnames at the time, Richard Gerrard evolved into Richard Garrett, and his children subsequently went by Garrett.  Still, he was originally a Gerrard.

Dear cousin Phil maintains NO.  Garretts are Gerhardt's, and not Gerrards, and never the twain shall meet.  So, we've been 'duking it out' for the last couple of years, and decided to make it a public forum and see if we can find some kind of final resolution or obscure knowledge out there somewhere amongst all the descendants.

Here is our Point / Counter-Point, ala Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin... (don't worry, we're still friends!)  If anyone out there has any more information to enlighten us, send it on!

Point by Phil: 

Maggie ... Maggie ... Maggie ... you poor misguided nut ! You cannot possibly believe that William Gerrard and Ann Huxford had (yet another) child - Richard Gerrard. There is absolutely NO documented proof that such a person ever existed in real time or space. Why you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, Virginia. In fact, I can probably provide more proof of the existence of both of those fictional characters than you can of Richard Gerrard’s.  

The documentation that you do encounter relates to Richard Garrett, who is from an entirely different family ! So, let’s go through this one more time ...just you and me... manno e manno (or is it manno e femanno ?)... whatever !!! Just you and me and the DOCUMENTED FACTS ! We’ll stick to the "facts" and "logic" (I know that may be difficult for you, being a woman and all, Jane ..., er ... Maggie - but I’ll bear in mind that you’re labouring under a handicap). 

O.K. ... here goes ... we’ll take it one point at a time. Now let me know if I’m going too fast for you, dearie; 

Counter-Point by Maggie: 

Oh, Phil! You ignorant, politically incorrect misogynist of another era!! Your close-mindedness is only exceeded by your patronizing condescension! I cannot ‘show’ you air, but I believe you agree that it exists!! 

I know that in your perfect world and by your lofty standards, there may not be such a thing as a (shhhh’.) mistake, but yes, they do happen! And there was a royal goody done in the name of Garrett way back when. 

First of all, NO ONE is questioning the existence of the Gerhard family, when or why they came here, or any other such thing. It’s all irrelevant.

Counter-Counter-Point by Phil: 

Maggie ... Maggie ... Maggie ... What colour is the sky in your universe? It must be RED to match all of the "red herring" that you netted up in your last (so-called) "Counterpoint." Let me "gut" some of your fish for you and dispel some of the new myths that you’ve created. Do I smell something rotten in Denmark ? ... or could it be on Gerrards Island ? 

I think it’s time to either fish or cut bait ... time to separate the men from the "buoys" ... and the facts from your fiction. And I can see that once again you’ve managed to ignore the facts and slip into your dreamy little world of "make believe" and "let’s pretend." 

There’s a difference between "intuitive genealogy" and "wholesale fiction" One is based on the correct interpretation and extrapolation of those pesky little "facts," while the other one always uses words like; "might," "maybe," "probably," "possibly," "I believe," "what if" and "once upon a time." 

I wish that my glasses were as rose-coloured as yours, but since they’re not, I’ll just have to view the world a little more pragmatically. I agree with you that you can’t see air, but I too know that it exists ... it’s used to fill up basketballs and some people’s empty heads. 

As for the existence of the Gerhardt family being "irrelevant" ... they are as long as you’re willing to misplace them in the Gerrard family. I, however, do not enjoy that luxury, and must travel the more difficult road that ultimately leads to the "facts" and the "truth."   My latest rebuttal continues below... 

Maggie backatcha:

Oh, poor, poor misguided Phil!! Such a sad case of researcher gone hidebound! You have to take refuge in ridicule because that is your only recourse and it distracts others from your lack of a case!! Okay, Mr. "Fact Man", start showing us some!

All your poetry and cutesy put-downs notwithstanding, you still aren’t providing any kind of proof positive here. Talk all you want about smells (and that’s a fact!), strange fishing similes, rose-colored glasses and empty air in peoples head’s (did someone blow in your ear and give you a refill?) ~ but that still doesn’t address anything! 

 Phil's Point One

"There is no documentation of William and Ann Gerrard ever having had a son, Richard." 

Maggie Wrote: 

We actually have no "documentation" of ANY of William and Anne’s children ~ we have a couple of marriage bonds here and there, but technically, nothing to say that these people were children of William and Anne Gerrard ! You and I are both working from primary research of Terry Punch’s (our joint cousin, who may now never acknowledge it !) and we do not know what his sources were. But, it all fits in well, so we accept it as correct. This is where I will point out that genealogy is more than ‘facts only’. A certain amount of extrapolation is a must. 

Phil Replied: 

With the greatest of respect for Terry and all of his great research; he too is fallible and his research can also be subject to change and revision as new "facts" come to light. Having said that, I don’t recall having ever seen ANY document by Terry (or anyone else, for that matter) that lists a "Richard" among the children of William Gerrard and Ann Huxford. If you have such a document, then please provide the reference for it. Otherwise, this is only "theory" and "conjecture." You can’t just take any errant "Gerrard" for whom you have documentation and say, "Oh, he must be a son of William and Ann !" Extrapolation must be based on more facts than the mere existence of a person with the same name, who was present on the planet at the same time and place. Particularly when there is documentation of someone in another family who had the same name and existed at the same time and place. Methinks that they are the same person - Richard (Gerhardt) Garrett ! 

Maggie backatcha:

(Poor Terry!) Uh… Phil, dearest, I don’t think EITHER of us has seen a primary source for any of that information. Regardless, you are forgetting that I DID have information (from Terry, to be sure, and taken via another party) listing a Richard as a child of this family. 

As I already pointed out, BEFORE the internet and possibility of information contamination via this wonderful but fallible medium, I knew there to be a Richard Gerrard in this family, based on Terry’s work. Sure, information can and does change…I think Henry and John are safely brothers again…but there has to be a definitive reason for the change. We don’t have one. 

Our question is, who did Richard Garrett evolve/originate from? Gerhardts or Gerrards? Just because there is a Richard (he actually was Reichard in earlier records) Gerhardt, you assume that all information for Richard GARRETT is for him! Why? It as easily could be Richard Gerrard.

Phil's Point Two

"Richard Garrett, or as he was originally known (before the English establishment of Nova Scotia anglicized his name), Richard Gerhardt, was born in Lunenburg in 1754. He is recorded as being christened on October 10^th 1754 at St. John’s Anglican Church in Lunenburg. The baptismal record lists his parents as Johannes and Magdalene Gerhardt ¹ (i.e. not William and Ann Gerrard)." 

Maggie Wrote:

Again, no one doubts the existence of Richard Gerhardt. NOT relevant. 

Phil replied:

It is ABSOLUTELY relevant if this is the person who is mistakenly been identified as "Richard Gerrard !" Richard Gerhardt has as documented history - "Richard Gerrard" does NOT ! 

Maggie backatcha:   

No, Phil sweetie, it is not relevant. We accept that Richard Gerhardt existed. It’s a GIVEN already. Get over it. That is not the issue. The only question is, is Richard Garrett yet another aberration of Gerrard, or an Anglicization of Gerhardt? Yes, one of them has a documented history, and that is the question of the hour, isn’t it? WHICH one!? There aren’t two conflicting histories here. We aren’t changing children or marriages. We only have one set of data, and want to know who to apply it to.

Phil's Point Three

" The marriage of "John Richard Garrett" to "Mary Ann Linth" (Linck) is documented at St. Paul’s Anglican Church in Halifax on November 24^th 1783. ² Both the Garrett (Gerhardt) and Linck (Linth) families are well documented in Lunenburg County, dating from their arrival there from Germany in the early 1750's to well into the late 1770's. " 

Maggie Wrote:

I refer you to the footnote you cite as follows, which is information you sent me yourself ( a compilation of Gerrard/Garrett’s to prove your point).

No.	Bridegroom’s Name	Date of Marriage	Bride’s Name	Church
P 331	PURCELL, John, b	6 Aug 1803	GARRET, Catherine Elizabeth, s	St.Peter’s R.C.
W 204	WEEKS, Daniel, b	2 Dec 1823	GARRETT, Hannah, s	St. Paul’s A.C.
X 41	McCARTHY, John, b	4 Sep 1823	GARRETT, Mary, s	St. Peter’s R.C.
T 251	TUCKER, Capt. Richard, b	20 Dec 1798	GARRITT, Mary, s	St. Paul’s A.C.
H 443	HILCHY, Jacob, b	4 Jan 1800	GARRETT, Sally E., w	St. Paul’s A.C.
H 642	HUBLEY, Benjamin, b	6 Dec 1838	GARRET, Sarah,	St. Paul’s A.C.
W 197	WEBBER, Samuel, b	24 Dec 1826	GARRETT, Susan,	St. Paul’s A.C.
S 286	SITEMAN, John Peter, b	24 Nov 1825	GERHARD, Regana, s	St. Paul’s A.C.
C 257	CLAYTON, Robert, b	30 Nov 1816	GERHARDT, Sarah, w	St. Peter’s R.C.
H 245	HAWES, Castin, b	6 Oct 1785	GERRARD, Ann, s	St. Paul’s A.C.
B 187	BEAVER, John, b	26 Dec 1816	GERRARD, Lucy, s	St. Paul’s A.C.
X 278	McKENZIE, John Jr., b	15 Jan 1837	GERRARD, Lydia, s	St. George’s A.C.
A 9	ABRIEL ("Abrill"), Richard, b	19 Dec 1839	GERRET, Mary Elizabeth, s	St. Paul’s A.C.
G 141	GLAWSON ("Glouson"), Casper, b	19 Nov 1798	GERRART (Gerrard), Nancy, w	St. Paul’s A.C.
P 289	PRICE, James, b (Negro slave)	18 Sep 1791	GERARD, Nancy, s (Negro slave)	St. Paul’s A.C
N 54	NEWCOMB, Charles, b	31 Dec 1831	GERRARD, Sarah Ann	St. George’s A.C.
A 10	ABRIEL ("Eboral"), Thomas, b	16 Nov 1794	GERRARD, Susan, s	St. Matthew’s Pres. C

Notes: The marital status of the parties is indicated by the letter following their names (i.e. b = bachelor, s = spinster, w = widow/widower 

Nowhere is the marriage you reference listed.

[Phil says: "I transcribed this information from Terry’s publication, "Religious Marriages in Halifax, 1768 - 1841, From Primary Sources" at the Public Archives in Ottawa. In doing so, I relied on the Index at the back of the book, which did not show a reference for "John Richard Garrett" or his son "John Garrett."]

 However, in the interim, I managed to obtain my own copy of the book, and when I went through it page by page, I encountered the record of both men’s marriages. 

Maggie wrote:

Additionally, this information is not without it’s errors. One is Sarah "Garret" who married Benjamin Hubley. While she is noted as a spinster in this information, on the marriage bond she is noted as a widow. In fact, she was the widow of Henry Gerrard (John and Mary Eva’s son), her maiden name was Prest. That is at least one "Gerrard" spelled incorrectly.

[ Phil says: I agree, but this is off the topic and a "red herring." ] 

Maggie backatcha:  

OH MY GOD!! I show you an absolute error, one making a Gerrard a Garret no less, which is EXACTLY the whole argument here, and you have the unbelievable nerve/gall/naivete’ to merely say it is off the topic, and FURTHER, a red herring???? And there are several more errors just in that little bitty reference! You CANNOT tell by the spelling who is a Gerrard and who is a Garrett. I took the liberty of putting Gerrard ladies in blue. In this short space, we have the spellings "Garrett", "Garret", "Gerrard" (amazing), "Gerret", and "Gerrart" ~ every single one of them a Gerrard lady!! Excepting the slave and Catherine Elizabeth Garret, all the other ladies are the daughters of the bolded black Mary Garritt (yet another spelling!!) and Richard Tucker. Catherine Elizabeth is a purported sister of Richard Gerhardt and the ONLY possible legitimate contender from that entire list for a Gerhardt being mistakenly taken as a Garrett, and even then, it’s not spelled with two t’s!

I believe that Richard was a child of William and Anne’s who either was illiterate or just let an error in spelling his name slide.

[Phil says: "A NEW myth ! Where did this come from ? NOW, Richard is illiterate !" ] 

Maggie backatcha:   

OH, PUH-LEEZE!  I believe you have seen John Gerrard’s signature, as have I, on his petition for his half of Gerrard’s Island. Laboriously done, to be kind. And, he was the youngest and most likely to have been schooled. How much more likely that an older MALE sibling was not educated? (Gotta get them men out a’fishin’, dontcha know ~ in order to support all your cute little similes!) The census is replete with Gerrard’s who cannot read and write, well into the late 1800’s. And, I believe I said EITHER illiterate, OR let a mis-spelling slide. In fact, one would lead to another.

I think the error perpetuated itself, but eventually died out as there are no lines of male issue that I can trace for him for more than one generation.

[Phil says: He "died out" and you can’t trace his lines because you’re looking for Gerrards instead of "Garretts." If you start tracing those lines, you’ll find a flock of them !" ] 

Maggie backatcha:   

You know, dearest cousin Phil, you are beginning to get on my last nerve. ~SHOW ME THE GARRETTS!!  SHOW ME THE GARRETTS!!~ Where are the parish entries? Where are the TOMBSTONES??? IS there even ONE?

And, I did not say HE died out. Richard had 3 sons, of whom we only have record of John Richard, unless you’ve been holding out on me and have some information that I do not. In fact, he may have only had two sons, since there are two named John, and it is the younger that we have information on, and it is somewhat unlikely that there would be two children by the same name living. In any case, only ONE male child on the record carries on the Garrett name. That child, John Richard Garrett, had mostly daughters and only two sons of his own. We have absolutely no information on one son, and on the other (Henry Garrett), only his marriage to an Elizabeth McDonald, with no recorded children.

Thus ends the male Garrett line. Or Gerrard line from this one son. My original point being that the surname wasn’t a matter of huge consequence since it was not being passed on!

I believe that meant that on occasion, he was mixed up with Richard Gerhardt. That is certainly the case with Richard Gerhardt’s sister, Anna Maria.

[Phil says: "Finally ! The clouds part ! There’s a case for Anna Maria, Richard Gerhardt, all of his children and grandchildren and a whole gaggle of other Garretts." ] 

Maggie backatcha:   

Grrrr… Again…I would just LOVE to see that gaggle! (SHOW ME THE GARRETTS!) There are a significant number of descendants from the FEMALE line, but they were not concerned with the carrying on of the name in the first place, let alone whether or not it was spelled correctly!

If you note in your table above, Ann Gerrard married "Castin" Hawes on October 6, 1785. Ann, known as Nancy, was the daughter of William and Anne Gerrard. On her marriage bond, she is noted as marrying "Cason" Hawes, and it is signed by her father, William Gerrard, farmer. (My pardon, documentary proof that Nancy was a daughter of William). In any case, Richard Gerhardt’s sister, Anna Maria Gerhardt is ALSO credited with marrying this same Hawes on the same day, only 10 years earlier, which we know is absolutely incorrect. AN ERROR, in fact. She is also noted as about one year later, marrying her correct husband, John Nicholas Rosti. However, our Hawes is not deceased, which would make that rather inconvenient, n’ c’est pa?

[Phil says: We agree -this is WRONG ! The only sources that show Anna Maria Gerhardt marrying "Cason" (actually "Costin") Haas are secondary gedcom files that have erroneously confused her with Ann (Nancy) Gerrard (William Gerrard and Ann Huxford’s daughter). Using only the primary resources it is obvious that this is a "Gerrard." In fact, the marriage bond actually lists her as "Nancy" and not "Ann."]

Nova Scotia Archives:  Microfilm no. 15926
Bride		Groom
Gerrard, Nancy	name	Haws, Cason
Spinster	status	Bachelor
	residence
	occupation
Note:   Co-signed by William Gerrard, farmer.
Bond dated: 05 October 1785

However, Anna Maria Gerhardt is documented as marrying (only) "Nicholas Rohsty" on October 29^th 1776 at Zion Lutheran Church in Lunenburg. He was a widower and this was his second marriage. She was the daughter of Johannes (John) and Anna Magdelene Gerhardt, and was baptized on May 28^th 1756 at St. John’s Anglican Church in Lunenburg. (from the "Birth, Death and Marriage Records of Lunenburg" on the Lunenburg County Genweb site). 

Maggie backatcha:  

REGARDLESS of where or why the errors occurred, the whole point is that they did, in fact, occur. Not once, but MANY times! Even if you say (and how do you KNOW?) that the errors "are secondary gedcom files that have erroneously confused her with Ann (Nancy) Gerrard" ~ why is that, do you think, cousin of mine? Even if they are only a recent gedcom and internet anomaly, the fact is that they HAPPENED, and could as easily have happened to other researchers who didn’t have computers! Beyond that, I am totally uninterested in her parentage or marriage or your source because we are NOT DOUBTING HER OR HER FAMILY’S EXISTENCE! That is YOUR way of tossing out colored fishies to slip up others and distract them from the fact that you have no facts! (Mr. "Fact-Man"!)

In the above records, Nancy Gerrard marries Gasper Glawson, which we know to be true. She is noted as a widow, also true. BUT, in most cases, that would have made her Nancy HAWES in the record. Another ERROR. We know she was Hawes’ widow, but even her marriage bond to Glawson uses the name Gerrard. Further, if we didn’t KNOW from compiling different information that Ann is one and the same as Nancy, it would appear as if two entirely different individuals are referenced here.

[Phil says: "I agree with these facts, but "RED HERRING". This has nothing to do with who Richard Garrett was. However, this further example of an "ERROR" in the marriage bonds may be a matter of protocol. In both examples where a widowed Gerrard female re-marries - it appears that her maiden name is used on the marriage bond for any subsequent marriage. In fact, these may NOT be errors - the use of the widows’ maiden names on the bonds helped us to identify both ladies as members of the Gerrard family.] 

Maggie backatcha:   

Anything that points to a consistency of errors in mixing up these families appears to take on a color to you! How very odd. And, I do not believe that the protocol was use of the maiden name…my experience has shown me the exact opposite. I cannot identify either other widowed lady as a Gerrard. How do you do it!? Such talent, all hidden away. The only Jacob Hubley I have who’s even close is married to a Sophia Jarret (Who’s she? She doesn’t fit in with Gerhardts!). No indication if she was married prior, or what her name might have been.

Further, even the "License to Occupy" Gerrard’s Island has written in plain, unmistakable writing, "licensed to Henry and John GERHARD" So, this is not a case of only a one-time occurrence. This familial mix-up between the two families was fairly common.

[Phil says: " I agree again ! There is no doubt that the persons mentioned in the Licence were actually Henry and John GERRARD. And once again, a further example of how these two family names have been confused. But another "red herring !" Although it is interesting that "Richard" is not a party to this Licence. If you believe him to be the "Richard" who married Mary Ann Linck, then why didn’t they settle there along with the rest of William and Ann’s children ?, They were obviously on the scene and having children up until 1809 ( seven years after the Licence was granted).  

Maggie backatcha:  

NO, not a red herring! If you agree with this as you do most of the previous points, why can you not see this as a perfectly good example of a problem that perpetuated itself? As for settling on the island, Richard married in 1783, way before his brothers or sisters. Henry, as we know, married quite late in life, and John was very much younger than any of his other siblings. My guess would be that the family possibly hadn’t even settled on the island when Richard married and established his home. We only know for sure that the family was there in 1789 when William was killed by lightning. Or, being the only married child, it’s possible his wife wasn’t interested in being part of "boys town" on the island!