Person:Deborah Harris (1)

Browse
Deborah Harris
 
m. 1666
  1. Sarah Harris1667/68 -
  2. Mary HarrisAbt 1669 - 1670
  3. Deborah Harris1670 -
  4. James Harris1673 - 1757
  5. Margaret Harris1674/75 - Bef 1683
  6. Mary Harris1676/77 - Bef 1686
  7. Elizabeth Harris1678 -
  8. Asa Harris1680 - 1715
  9. Hannah Harris1682 -
  10. Ephraim Harris1684 - Bef 1688
  11. Mary Harris1686 -
  12. Ephraim Harris1688 -
Facts and Events
Name Deborah Harris
Gender Female
Birth[2] Jul 1670 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Christening[1] 12 Aug 1683 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Questionable Information Found
see note.
References
  1. "Old South Church", in Dunkle, Robert J., and Ann S. Lainhart. Records of the Churches of Boston and the First Church, Second Parish, and Third Parish of Roxbury: including baptisms, marriages, deaths, admissions, and dismissals: (1600s-1800s). (Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001)
    p. 96-97.

    1683/84
    Aug. 12 ...
    Sara
    James
    Mary
    Deborah
    Elizabeth
    Asa
    Hannah
    Children of James & Sara Harris [baptized].

  2. The birth date of Jul 1670 is found in several secondary sources of middling quality, such as Source:Hurd, D. Hamilton. History of New London County, Connecticut, p. 78; Source:Jordan, John W. Genealogical and Personal History of Northern Pennsylvania, p. 8; all of which appears copied from Source:Morgan, Nathaniel H. Harris Genealogy : A History of James Harris of New London, Conn., and His Descendants from 1640 to 1878, p. 19. However no such birth record is found, no source is identified, and of Deborah "Nothing known further", so this is not based on an age at death. The baptism in 1684, apparently unknown to this source, lists Deborah between Mary and Elizabeth. The baptism order would place her birth in late 1677 or early 1678, a tight squeeze between siblings, whereas the birth in 1670 fits in a nice gap in sibling births, but has no known evidence to support it. NEHGR, Vol. 105, p. 246, presumably trying to present only supported facts, chose not to repeat the 1670 date.