|
|
too many children? [8 September 2009]
This page lists four children not placed in this family by Clarence Almon Torrey in his review of Hingham, England parish registers that was published in TAG, p. 27:94. Source:Anderson, Robert Charles. The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England, 1620-1633 apparently accepts Torrey's work as it includes the same set of 10 children, citing that article.
- Person:John Hobart (5): Source:Charles Smith and Rachel Amy Bryant : their ancestors and descendants, p. 178, says the parish registers include "John Hubbert, son of Edmund Hobart baptized Oct. 13, 1604", but since this is the exact birthdate given by Rev. Peter Hobart for himself in his diary, this source assumes the entry is in error, and should apply to Peter. The Torrey article does not quote the parish entries, nor mention this confusion, but merely gives Peter, bp. 13 Oct 1604. Either way, it appears that John and Peter represent the same person, and John's page will be merged into Peter.
- Person:Mary Hobart (6): This page shows a husband of John Beal, who we know married Nazareth Hobart. The death date on this page is identical to Alice Hobart who m. Thomas Chubbuck. This page appears to be an error created out of confusion with other siblings. This page will be merged with Nazareth to get rid of it.
- Person:Mehetable Hobart (1), b. abt. 1610, and Person:Elizabeth Hobart (5), b. abt. 1612, are listed in several sources as coming over in 1633, probably with their brother Thomas. For example, Source:Hobart, L. Smith. William Hobart, his ancestors and descendants. But apparently, Torrey found no baptisms for these two children. Source:Charles Smith and Rachel Amy Bryant : their ancestors and descendants, p. 178, says there is abundant evidence that Elizabeth was the youngest daughter of the family and that she was born in 1612. Yet, Torrey provides clear evidence of a younger daughter Sarah, bp. 1617, who came over with her father, so one wonders about this assertion. These two additional children would make this family very crowded, and on the whole, this inclusion seems unlikely, but barring more specific information, I am leaving them for now. --Jrich 15:17, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
|
|
