A word about Methodology

Thus far the relatives I've written about are well known to the family.  There is no doubt in any one's mind that these are indeed the correct people with the correct names.  They are people we have grown up with or at least have had first hand reports about.  Moving forward (or rather backwards) progressively becomes more problematic.  With this is mind I will present my evidence that convinced me (and hopefully will convince you) that each person presented belongs in the illustrious ranks of the Hicks or Barkers.

In general the primary methodology used is "logic" and "probability".  For instance, if I have evidence that a John Smith is an ancestor and I find a census report of a John Smith living alone in a town somewhere, it does not stand to reason that he is THE John Smith we are looking for.  On the other hand, if a John Smith appears on a census living with a wife and five children all of whom are known to be relatives, and living at an address known to be his residence 10 years earlier then he is very very likely to be the correct John Smith.  I suppose it is "possible" that the original John Smith left and a new John Smith moved in, but the likelihood is acceptably low.  Also something not to be ignored, is the issue of illegitimacy.  If great grandpa was actually sired by the milkman, and it was never recognized, then the DNA lineage will take a wrong turn.  There is no real defense against this problem.  So a better way to express our family tree is our "believed to be family tree".  I suppose if royal families operate on the premise that once a child is "certified" as legitimate, then they are so beyond any argument, then that's good enough for the Hicks/Barker family.