Jeanene and Others, I have done a great deal of research into the earliest Kincheloe family records. In the course of my research, I did a thorough review of all we know about "Hugh Kinselo." (Incidentally, that's the way the genealogical record should have spelled his name.) I have included my findings in an appendix to my book _Kincheloe Origins_. I have posted the complete book on the Kincheloe website. You can get to the section on Hugh Kinsel by going to
<http://www.kincheloe.com/origins5.htm> . Please read that section! After much research I have concluded there never was a Hugh Kinselo. The records of another individual (entirely unrelated to the Kincheloe family) were incorrectly copied at some point & this resulted in the genealogical myth of so-called "Hugh Kinselo." In fact. there never was such a person. Isn't it interesting how people have even created a date of birth for him? And a place of birth?! Originally I had hoped there was a Hugh Kinselo, but when I went back to the earliest citations regarding him, I saw that everything about him in the McPherson book was wrong -- the spelling of the name, the spelling of his wifes' name, the location of the marriage record. The sole document for a "Hugh Kinselo" was actually for a Hugh Kinneloe from the eastern shore of Virginia -- not from the County where Cornelius appears in 1693. Hugh Kunneloe clearly was not the father of Cornelius Kinselloe (Kinshello, Chenshello).
Please read http://www.kincheloe.com/origins5.htm
I have all of the documentation at the end of my book -- all on the website & free. My gift to the family.
Not to offend anyone, but the LDS record you saw is a very bad and misleading piece of genealogical work. Let's get rid of these bogus Hugh records once and for all!
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|