Last night a distant Burrell relative told me he thinks that Daniel had been appointed guardian of John W Burrell, son of Richard T (1800-1844) and grandson of John (1774-1834). If true, that could be an indication that John (1774-1834) was Daniel’s father and that Daniel was appointed guardianship of his nephew.
I immediately went to look up guardianship records in the FamilySearch catalog. As an aside, I recommend always checking their catalog because a lot of times the records will be available online. It’s a wonderful resource. Anyway, not far into my search I came across a guardianship record for a John W Burrell!
When I read the record, however, I was more confused than ever. The John W Burrell in question was not the same John W Burrell I was looking for. It turns out that this John W was Daniel’s son. He and his brother, William, had been appointed a guardian, Daniel Edwards, because Daniel was deceased. This record was from 1851 when Daniel was very much alive & well!
I was stunned. I am stunned. I simply do not know what to make of this. Why would this record state that he was deceased when he was decidedly not? Furthermore, I didn’t find guardianship records for all of his other children of which he would have had at least five more at this point in time.
Also, what is with this man naming his kids the same names? He had a William and a William H who would have been living in the same household. He also had a George (the lad who had been dumped off in Holmes County) and a George F! See? Everything about this guy is weird!
I do not believe that there are two different Daniels; however, that’s what this information is pointing to. I’ve researched the Burrells of Tuscarawas County for 20 years now, and I thought I knew every Burrell there. Could I have missed something? Census records point to there being only one Daniel in Tuscarawas County; if Daniel I died in 1851, there should be 2 Daniels in the 1850 census. But this record makes me question things. Also, how likely would it be for a man to have 2 Williams and 2 Georges? It seems pretty preposterous.
I am at a loss on how to proceed at this point. I am just absolutely floored that I could have missed the fact that there were two Daniels. Well, this really demonstrates how genealogical conclusions are never set in stone. As with science, we must be prepared to change our conclusions when new evidence is presented. I’m just having trouble doing that this morning.