|
|
Facts and Events
References
- ↑ Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Andover, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Topsfield, Massachusetts: Topsfield Historical Society, 1912)
Vol. 1, p. 289.
OSSGOOD, ---, ch. [torn] and Mary, [born] Dec. 3, 1704.
- ↑ Davis, Walter A. The Early Records of the Town of Lunenburg, Massachusetts, Including That Part Which is Now Fitchburg, 1719-1764: a Complete Transcript of the Town Meetings and Selectmen's Records Contained in the First Two Books of the General Records of the Town; also a Copy of all the Vital Statistics of the Town Previous to the Year 1764. (Fitchburg, Massachusetts: Sentinel Printing Company; Published by authority of the City Council, 1896)
p. 344.
Sarah Divol the wife of John Divol, deceas't at Lunenburg April ye 14th 1746.
- ↑ Source:Osgood, Ira. Genealogy of the Descendants of John, Christopher and William Osgood, p. 18, says Rebecca b. 6 Dec 1707, but her age at death suggests she may be born about 1704. So this birth date might be her. However, since the basis for the 6 Dec 1707 date is unknown, it is hard to refute or even question. Additionally, this source is unaware that there was a daughter Sarah who married 1726 John Divol (her children named in the father's will). Assuming the above source is right about Rebecca, then probably this child is Sarah, in order to be of marrying age in 1726. There is no sign of a death record for the child b. 1704, and given the need to account for Sarah, it is assumed it was not simply a child that died as an infant. However, additional information is needed to determine conclusively if possible Sarah and Rebecca might be reversed?
- ↑ Source:Osgood, Ira. Genealogy of the Descendants of John, Christopher and William Osgood, p. 17, identifies this Sarah as a daughter of Joseph's brother Hooker Osgood. So does Source:White, Almira Larkin. Genealogy of the Descendants of John White of Wenham and Lancaster, Massachusetts, Vol. 1, p. 84. Obviously Joseph's will naming the five children as grandchildren shows this identification is wrong (it was considered questionable based on circumstantial evidence prior to that discovery, primarily the lack of mention of Sarah or her heirs in Hooker Osgood's will).
|
|
