Person:Benjamin Converse (2)

Watchers
m. 19 Dec 1698
  1. Elizabeth Converse1699 -
  2. Mary Converse1701/02 - Bef 1786
  3. Esther Converse1704 - 1737
  4. Hannah Converse1706 - Aft 1755
  5. Ebenezer Converse1708 - 1765
  6. James Converse1710 - 1737
  7. Sarah Converse1713 -
  8. Anna Converse1715 -
  9. Benjamin Converse1718 - Bef 1727
  10. Keziah Converse1721 - 1808
  11. Susannah Converse1724 - 1771
  12. Benjamin Converse1727 - 1729
Facts and Events
Name[1] Benjamin Converse
Gender Male
Birth[2] 22 May 1727 Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
Death[3] 19 Aug 1729 Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Johnson, Edward Francis. Notes on the Family of Deacon Edward Convers. Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Woburn Records of Births, Deaths, and Marriages
    3:329.

    Children of Robert Convers and Mary Sawyer: Benjamin, b. 22 May 1727.
    ["So in Woburn records, but see No. 71." Number 71 is the brother Benjamin whose death is recorded 1729 "in his 11th y.", see comments below.]

  2. Johnson, Edward F. Woburn Records of Births, Deaths, and Marriages . (Woburn, Massachusetts: Andrews, Cutler & Co., 1890-1919)
    1:58.

    CONVERS, Benjamin, s. of Robert and Mary, [born] May 22, 1727.

  3. Johnson, Edward F. Woburn Records of Births, Deaths, and Marriages . (Woburn, Massachusetts: Andrews, Cutler & Co., 1890-1919)
    Vol. 2, p. 40.

    CONVERSE, Benjamin, s. of Capt. Robert and Mary, [died] Aug. 19, 1729; in his 11th y.
    [This death date is simply irreconcilable with the birth of a second Benjamin in 1727. Probate shows that no son named Benjamin survived. After analysis of possible errors, the simplest seems to be that the town clerk added the age at death, possibly well after the fact, using the wrong birth record? If the age at death is thrown out, this death fits perfectly to the second Benjamin, with the first one dying sometime before 1727. Any manipulation of dates requires assuming severe, or multiple, errors to come up with a working situation, so seems less likely.]
    [Postscript: images posted online in a copy of records made in 1846. [1729 death shows age was added to original record based on a gravestone. 1727 birth. No real clarification provided by this. Also, birth and death from an older book, still no help. (Clearly older, but the neatness, organization (neatly by year), and style of writing suggests this may still be a copy.)]