Talk:Harry Dorsey Gough

Dubious sourced claim
The fred/ source in the article supports the claim that
 * During the Amercan Revolution Harry served on the staff of Col. John Eager Howard

but (a) the source actually (and erroneously) calls Howard a general and (b) seems hard to square with the numerous other sources calling Harry a Nonjuror who sat out the war on the sidelines without swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the rebel government. It seems like that would be a necessary precondition to being an aide-de-camp to one of the principal military leaders in his area, so I'm leaving this out for now until there's an explanation about how to square this. — Llywelyn II   12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that probably puts an end to that idea. Archive.org's list of the Archives of Maryland Muster Rolls for the Revolution doesn't seem to include this Gough. — Llywelyn II   11:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This family...
The article is well-sourced but clearing up disputes in the sources will probably require someone visiting the Maryland State Archives.

In addition to H.D. Gough's brother having a son and grandson both named H.D. Gough (?!!), it looks like the relatively penniless Thomas Gough who worked as the Clerk Asst to the Committee of Laws and got thrown in debtor's "goal" may have been a different one from the English immigrant who left a wealthy son behind. H.D. Gough's Papenfuse bio makes him the son of the poor one, but that (a) doesn't square with the marriage with the Dorsey planters or the inheritance from the wealthy son or (b) make as much sense as the poor one being the third-generation Marylander whose grandfather was responsible for the Goughs Purchase in Calvert Co. in 1677. (Or an entirely different one. There were also servants and slaves named "Thomas Gough" listed in Maryland's 1760s emancipation records.)

And at the same time, £70,000 seems like an impossible sum for someone with an assessed value (per Papenfuse) of £871, 5s in 1783. Maybe the 70k source missed some dots, turning £700.0.0 into something altogether different? — Llywelyn II   12:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)