|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ Foote, Abram William. Foote Family: Comprising the Genealogy and History of Nathaniel Foote, of Wethersfield, Conn., and his Descendants; Also a Partial Record of Descendants of Pasco Foote of Salem, Mass., Richard Foote of Stafford County, Va., and John Foote of New York City. (Rutland, Vermont: Marble City Press, 1907-1932)
pp. 38, 39.
Moses Foote, b. Jan. 13, 1702; m. 1st, June 22, 1726, Mary, dau. of John Byington. She d. Jan., 1740. M. 2nd, Ruth, dau. of Jonathan Butler, Nov. 5, 1740; d. Feb., 1770. She d. Aug. 7, 1792, in Gill, Mass. Res., Branford and Waterbury, Ct.
- ↑ Branford Vital Records, in Connecticut, United States. The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records
Vol. 3, p. 54.
Foot, Moses, of Branford, m. Mary Byintun, of Branford, June 22, 1726, by Rev. Sam[ue]ll Russell [Vol. 3, p. 65]
- Source:Foote, Abram William. Foote Family : Comprising the Genealogy and History of Nathaniel Foote, of Wethersfield, Conn., and His Descendants; Also a (1907) shows two daughters named Lydia and two daughters named Dorothy. Altogether he has Lydia b. 1728, Deborah b. 1729 Lydia b. 1743, Deborah b. 1745.
*Source:White, Almira Larkin. Ancestry of John Barber White and His Descendants (1913), which also covers this family, shows Lydia 1729, Lydia 1743 and Dorothy 1745.
*Barbour (compiled between 1918-1928) only shows Deborah b. 1729, Lydia b. 1743.
There are is another major discrepancy between the sources as well, notably interpreting how to handle the death of wife Mary.
*Foote says Mary d. Jan 1740, Ebenezer b. May 1740, marriage to Ruth Nov 1740, Obed b. Nov 1741. This is clearly impossible.
*Barbour does not give a death record for Mary, but the other three dates match Foote.
*White reports Obed's birth as Nov 1742. Thus she interprets Mary's death as Jan 1740/41. But the marriage to Ruth is reported as Nov 1741.
It is clear the original records need to be consulted before too much speculating can be done.
|
|
