|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
| Marriage[1][2] |
Bef 1704 |
Based on birth of eldest known child |
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
Bef 1733 |
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ Binney, C. J. F. (Charles James Fox). The History and Genealogy of the Prentice or Prentiss Family in New England, etc., from 1631 to 1883. (Boston, Mass.: C. J. F. Binney, 1883)
p. 166.
Capt. Thomas Prentice, s/o Thomas Prentice and Sarah Stanton, m. [first child b. 1704] Elizabeth Jackson, d/o Dea. Edward Jackson Jr. of Newton.
[Note: The above summary from p. 166 is correct. The conflicting marriage on p. 165 for this Thomas Prentice is wrong, apparently an editing error, belonging instead to Thomas the son of Solomon.]
- ↑ There are two Thomas and Elizabeth Prentices in Newtown: 1) Family:Thomas Prentice and Elizabeth Unknown (1) and 2) Family:Thomas Prentice and Elizabeth Jackson (1). The town records show births for both with no distinguishing identification to tell which couple the records apply to. In particular, Deliverance b. 19 May 1704, Ebenezer b. 1706, Ebenezer 3 Mar 1707 or 1708. None of these children are mentioned in the probate of father #2. The probate of father #1 mentions youngest son Ebenezer but does not have a list of all his children.
Traditionally, secondary literature has assigned Deliverance and Eben #2 to couple #2, leaving Eben #1 for couple #1. However, the lack of evidence and various other considerations suggests that both records for Ebenezer refer to the same person and both Deliverance and Ebenezer may belong to couple #1.
Those considerations are:
-We know from probate and deed that couple #1 had a son Ebenezer, but there is no evidence couple #2 did.
-The 1706 birth records is in the Newton town copy "with additions", meaning it was added by a committee in 1851, which means it was probably based on Jackson's History of Newton, a secondary source of perhaps less than optimum reliability.
-An Ebenezer born in 1706 wouldn't have needed a guardian in 1727/28 when the accounting was exhibited in court, but an Ebenezer born 3 Mar 1707/08 would have.
-Ebenezer born in 1707 or 1708 is too close to births of other children of couple #2.
-There are no death records for either Ebenezer or Deliverance.
-There is a large gap between Ebenezer in 1706 or 1708 and the previous known child, born sometime in 1690's, and Deliverance would fall into the gap easily. The fact that the Ebenezer of couple #1 is born after her clearly indicates that it is feasible that Deliverance is theirs as well.
Deliverance has been left with couple #2, even though it is thought she might belong to couple #1 because there is no evidence tying her to either couple, so placing her with couple #2 would be pure speculation. However, Ebenezer has only been placed with couple #1, using the birthdate normally associated with couple #2 because no evidence of any other Ebenezer than the son of couple #1 has been found.
|
|
