|
|
Facts and Events
Questionable Information Found
See note.
References
- ↑ Lexington, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Record of births, marriages, and deaths to January 1, 1898. (Boston, Massachusetts: Wright and Potter Printing, 1898)
p. 27.
Fiske.
[85] Ruth, d. of Robert & Elizabeth Blodget, b. Oct. 30, 1765.
- Source:Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Fiske and Fisk Family Being the Record of Symond Fiske, Lord of the Manor of Stadhaugh, Suffolk County, England, p. 121 and p. 122; and Source:Hudson, Charles. History of the Town of Lexington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, from Its First Settlement to 1868, p. 212, both mistakenly give the birth of David Fisk on 23 Nov 1760, recorded in Lexington VRs to parents "David [Fisk] & Elizabeth Blodget", to Robert Fisk and Betty Wilson. This has been shown to be impossible on Robert's son David's page. Pierce, self-contradictorily uses the same birthdate for both son of Robert and son of David; while Hudson incorrectly gives it to son of Robert, while estimating son of David to be 1759 based on his age at death.
Now, we find a birth of Ruth on 30 Oct 1765 to "Robert [Fisk] & Elizabeth Blodget". There is clearly an error here, as this is a husband from one marriage and a wife from the other. Which parent is wrong? Both Pierce and Hudson give Ruth to Robert. He does after all have a daughter Ruth under 14 in 1770 in her mother's will. So it is possible, and hence, the presumptive conclusion.
However, it seems there is a fair chance this is wrong. This puts Ruth's birth about 7 or 8 years after the previous siblings (caveat: with no records, the births of the siblings are mostly estimated). One would expect Robert's daughter to be born more around 1760 based on when her siblings were born. It also means Ruth's birth was recorded, when Robert recorded none of his other children in Lexington.
Robert's children are at least known from his wife's will. Part of the difficulty is that we have no list of David and Elizabeth Blodgette's children. We must rely on Pierce and Hudson, who have already been shown to have made errors on these families, and present many details that no obvious evidence supports.
Pierce shows David and Elizabeth Blodgette having three children only: David, Benjamin and Betsey.
*Hudson offers no information about Benjamin or why he included him. Perhaps he just copied from Pierce, who did no better?
*Betsey m. 1788 Joseph Webber. Hudson offers that in 1764 David Fisk was warned out of Woburn, two children being listed in the warning, David and Betty. Yet Joseph Webber's wife Betsey died in 1793, age 27, so born about 1766?
*This warning out in 1764 is before the 1765 birthdate for Ruth which we are investigating so does not rule out Elizabeth Blodgette being Ruth's mother.
*There is a death record in the VRs for a child of David who died in 1772 which neither Pierce nor Hudson seem to deal with. Is this Ruth b. 1765? Is it Benjamin?
*Both Hudson and Pierce give a death date in 1815 for the father David which is *not* found in Lexington VRs and no probate file is found for the father David. The last deed in which he appears (Middlesex Deed Vol. 77, p. 313) is executed in 1771 and acknowledged in 1777, signed by both him, described as a Weaver, and wife Elizabeth, selling land to David Jr. husbandman, reserving to himself use of the house he now lives in. (He must be selling, not to his son, but to nephew David Fisk, s/o Robert, b. 1745/46 - not 1760 as Pierce and Hudson say - and the only other David of legal age in 1771.)
*Neither source identifies Elizabeth Blodgette, nor has any candidate been found. Hudson calls her "of Lexington" but doesn't list any her in any of the Blodgett families he covers (Mary Russell who m. Samuel Blodgette had a mother named Elizabeth, but no daughter Elizabeth is listed in the family, and no probate appears to exist for Samuel).
Hudson apparently cites a 1822 division of the estate of David Fiske (here) to show David Fiske and Elizabeth Blodgette had a daughter Betsey with a husband Samuel Clark [footnote, p. 212]. This is presumably intended to suggest a second marriage, since Hudson shows her married to Joseph Webber in 1788 just as Pierce does. However this division is from the 1820 probate (Middlesex 7570) of David Fiske, which is too late to be the David Fiske who died in 1815. This probate shows a wife Ruth who complains that David's property is held in common with a widow Ruth Hadley. According to information taken from Hudson, this would be David Fisk 3d, s/o David Fisk and Elizabeth Blodgette, who m. (1) Sarah Hadley, daughter of said Ruth Hadley, and m. (2) Ruth (Wood) Trask.
*This apparently non-relevant footnote about Samuel Clark attached to the wrong David Fiske wasted a lot of time in this investigation because the presence of a daughter Ruth was thought significant, without realizing it was the probate of a different David Fiske, son of the one that was being studied.
Another example of the total lack of clarity available, though irrelevant to our investigation of Ruth: 10 children of David and (1st wife) Sarah (Hadley) Fisk inherit from their grandmother Ruth Hadley: Jonathan Fiske, David Fiske, Samuel Fiske, Benjamin Fiske, Charles Fiske, Ichabod Fiske, Sally (Fiske) Spear, Polly or Patty (Fiske) Gray, Anna (Fiske) Winship, and Betsey (Fiske) Clark (probate document here). This list is missing the daughter Ruth that married Philip Thomas, and it includes Ichabod, who according to Hudson is not Sarah's child. It would be unusual for such an error to be found in a probate file. The legacy amount for each grandchild clearly indicates ten heirs, being exactly one-tenth of what Sarah's siblings received. Are the correct ten listed? And, of course, none of David 3d's children by either wife appears to have their birth recorded, leaving everybody befuddled.
Both Hudson and Pierce have exhibited confusion and less than complete knowledge of these families. It is unclear on what assumptions their presentations are based, and the evidence found is still incomplete. Whether you feel there was one Ruth or two, whether the broken birth record belongs to Robert and Betsy, or David and Elizabeth, neither Ruth appears to have any marriage or further information attributed to her. The only pertinent Lexington marriage of a Ruth Fisk, in 1795 to Jonathan Smith, is given to yet another Ruth, the daughter of Joseph Fisk (e.g., p. 640 in Hudson).
|
|
