|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ "Smithfield Friends Record - Marriages", in Arnold, James N. Vital Record of Rhode Island, 1636–1850: First series, births, marriages and deaths. A family register for the people. (Narragansett Hist. Publ. Co., 1891)
7:160.
ALDRICH, Samuel, of Seth, deceased, of Uxbridge, and Huldah Hill, of David, of Bellingham, 21d 1m 1745.
[Note: In old-styles dates, the first month is March. More info may be found here.]
- ↑ Baldwin, Thomas W. Vital Records of Uxbridge, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. (Boston, 1916)
p. 259.
HULL, Huldah, d. of David of Bellingham, and Samuel Aldrich, s. of Seth dec., 21st day, 1st mo., called March, 1745. CR3
- ↑ Mendon, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Mendon, Massachusetts to the Year 1850. (Boston, MA: Wright & Potter, 1920)
p. 319.
HILL, Huldah and Samuel Aldrich, int. Feb. 1, 1744.
- Many of the children in this family were recorded in both Uxbridge records, and in Smithfield Friends records. Unfortunately the dates do not agree. Adding additional complication, in 1752, month numbering was re-aligned so that there were only 10 months in 1751, and January was month number 1 in 1752, instead of March as before. Because the Friends records relied on month numbers, and as Arnold printed them without any indication, it is difficult to know which to interpret using old-style numbering, and which using new-style numbering. For the most part, it would be expected that the Friends records would probably follow the legal numbering system, so after 1752, new-style is assumed. Nevertheless, for some of the children, the apparent discrepancies caused by all these various error sources are significant and exceed a year... Some births, especially those between 1750-1755 appear at a minimum to be erratically spaced, and in the extreme, may be pushed closer together than is physically possible. If there appears to be alternative interpretations possible, the one giving a regular spacing of births has been favored.
|
|
