Person:Robert Forbes (14)

Watchers
Lieut. Robert Forbes
b.Abt 1719 Ireland
  • HLieut. Robert ForbesAbt 1719 - 1799
  • WMary GrahamAbt 1722 - Abt 1776
m. 31 Oct 1745
  • HLieut. Robert ForbesAbt 1719 - 1799
  • WMargaret GrayAbt 1740 - 1813
m. 13 Dec 1781
Facts and Events
Name Lieut. Robert Forbes
Gender Male
Birth[4] Abt 1719 Ireland
Marriage 31 Oct 1745 Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United Statesto Mary Graham
Marriage 13 Dec 1781 Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United Statesto Margaret Gray
Death[1][2][3] 17 Feb 1799 Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Rutland, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Rutland, Massachusetts, to the end of the year 1849. (Worcester, Massachusetts: Franklin P. Rice, 1905)
    p. 226.

    FORBUS, [Forbes, G.S.], Lt. Robert, [died] Feb. 17, 1799, about 85.

  2. "Monumental Inscriptions, Rutland, Mass.", in The Old Northwest
    Vol. 5, p. 95.

    Erected
    In Memory of Lieut.
    ROBERT FORBES
    who deceased
    Feb. 17th 1799.
    Aged 80 years.

  3. Reed, Jonas, and Daniel Bartlett. A history of Rutland, Worcester County, Massachusetts: from its earliest settlement, with a biography of its first settlers [supplement added]. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1971)
    p. 179.

    Robert Forbes died Feb. 17, 1799, aged 58.

  4. The three sources cited agree on the death date, but all have widely varying ages at death. Source:Moffatt, Eva L. Ancestry of William Forbes of Barre, Mass., and Montreal, Que., 1778-1833 chooses to believe the VRs, giving a birth "ca. 1714", but the age on the gravestone, 80 (i.e., born about 1719), is deemed slightly more likely to be the correct number. This is supported by consideration of the first marriage in 1745, at age 26, instead of age 31. His first wife was age 53 when she died in 1776, so born about 1723, and his second wife was born about 1740, so nothing is found in these considerations that favors 1714 over 1719.

    The marriage clearly rules out the age of 58, i.e., born about 1741, since that is completely incompatible with a marriage in 1745. But it is suspected this was taken from the town records age of 85, and the digits transposed during printing. Otherwise, it is a ludicrous value.