Family:John Capen and Ruth Thayer (1)

Parents: Samuel Capen and Anne Stone John Capen b. 21 Mar 1700/01 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States d. 12 Apr 1748 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States	Parents: Ephraim Thayer and Sarah Bass Ruth Thayer b. 1 Apr 1704 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States

Family tree▼

Facts and Events

Marriage^[2]^[1]

20 Sep 1722

Children

		Birth
1.	Ruth Capen	16 Mar 1723/24 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
2.	Sarah Capen	21 Jul 1725 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
3.	Esther Capen	5 Apr 1727 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
4.	Nathaniel Capen	19 Jun 1728 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
5.	Christopher Capen	20 Apr 1730 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
6.	Rebecca Capen	12 Jun 1732 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
7.	John Capen	9 May 1734 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
8.	Anne Capen	20 Mar 1736/37 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
9.	Elizabeth Capen	22 May 1739 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
10.	Ephraim Capen	24 Mar 1745/46 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
11.	Philip Capen	24 Mar 1745/46 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States

References

↑ Buckland, Harlheigh Heath, in Copeland, Alfred Minot. A history of Hampden County, Massachusetts. (Boston, Massachusetts: Century Memorial Pub., 1902, c1902)
Vol. 3; p. 570.

Ruth Thayer (4), born April 1, 1704, married John Capen.
↑ Bates, Samuel. Records of the Town of Braintree, 1640 to 1793. (Randolph, Massachusetts : D.H. Huxford, 1886)
p. 746.

John Capin & Ruth Thayer 20th September 1722.
Source:Thayer, Bezaleel J. Memorial of the Thayer Name from the Massachusetts Colony of Weymouth and Braintree, p. 625, includes a son Samuel with no additional details of any kind. Because John's father appears to be named Samuel, and there is a gap in children from 1739 to 1746, and because a Samuel Capen m. Braintree in 1767, so probably born before 1745 (wife b. 1741), it seems plausible. But no evidence to support this has been found.