|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ Reed, Jacob Whittemore. History of the Reed Family in Europe and America. (Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States: John Wilson and Son, 1861)
page 48.
Estimated marriage date of bef 1649 is based on baptism of daughter Susanna, listed as the eldest child by Source:Reed, Jacob Whittemore. History of the Reed Family in Europe and America, p. 48, which baptism occurred on 23 Sep 1649 (see Source:Salem, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849, p. 2:228).
- There is some evidence of two Read families in the Salem Vital Records, and it is possible Jacob does not belong in this family.
According to Perley, the Col. Thomas Read returned to England by 1642, and so doesn't appear to be a factor in this discussion, himself. According to Reed, three Salem property owners Thomas, Abraham and Jacob Read were his sons, but no evidence is given to support this, and the will abstract in Great Migration does not show Abraham or Jacob. The 1662 will of Col. Thomas does name children Thomas, Samuel, and Priscilla, but they are all minors, and so could not be the father of born/baptized in Salem. A Samuel Read of England (according to Reed, he was Abraham's son, but the will abstract shows he was Col. Thomas' son and was willed the Salem property) was "only son and heir" according to the deed when the property was sold in 1701.
The baptism of Susanna in 1649, of Elizabeth in 1651, and Jacob in 1663 do not name the parents. Without Jacob, these would fit into this family, but the addition of Jacob creates issues because he is baptized before another Jacob dies, and this is primarily what suggests there are two families. Despite his discussion of Abraham and Jacob, Reed gives all these children to Thomas and Mary, misreporting or massaging dates to make it fit. Meanwhile, Perley gives Elizabeth and Jacob to an unnamed "--- Read" and ignores Susanna. There is no sign that either was doing more than guessing.
Of course, there could always be errors in the records, which would allow for many possibilities. So any conclusion is speculative, unless more evidence is found.
|
|
