Person:Susannah Newcomb (2)

Watchers
m. 26 Jun 1672
  1. Susannah Newcomb1674 - 1725
  2. Rachel Newcomb1675 - 1678/79
  3. Peter Newcomb1678 - Bef 1689
  4. Rachel Newcomb1680 -
  5. Sarah Newcomb1684/85 -
  6. Jonathan Newcomb1685/86 -
  7. Peter Newcomb1689 -
m. 5 Apr 1699
  1. Peter Hobart1709 -
Facts and Events
Name[2] Susannah Newcomb
Gender Female
Christening[1][4] 21 Jun 1674 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 5 Apr 1699 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United Statesto Benjamin Hobart
Death[3] 23 Dec 1725 Braintree, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Sprague, Waldo C., transcriber. Quincy, Mass.Church Records 1672-1870.

    1674
    21-4, Susanna daughter of Susanna Newcomb [baptized]
    [Note: In old-styles dates, the fourth month is June. More info may be found here.]

  2. Hobart, Edgar, and Margaret Griffith (Compiler). Hobart Genealogy: the Descendants of Edmund Hobart of Hingham, Mass. (San Francisco, Calif.: Typescript: California Genealogical Society, 1952)
    p. 19.

    Children of Caleb Hobart and 3rd wife Elizabeth (--) Faxon: Benjamin, b. Braintree 13 Feb 1677, d. 19 Sep 1718, m. 5 Apr 1699 Susannah Newcomb, d/o Peter Newcomb and Susannah Cutting, b. 22 Jun 1673, d. 23 Apr 1725.

  3. Bates, Samuel. Records of the Town of Braintree, 1640 to 1793. (Randolph, Massachusetts : D.H. Huxford, 1886)
    p. 740.

    Susannah Hobart died the 23'd December 1725.

  4. The baptism is only 10 days after mother Susanna was admitted to the church on 11 Jun 1674, so the daughter's birth could be months earlier? However, Source:Newcomb, John Bearse. Genealogical Memoir of the Newcomb Family, p. 449, says she was born "22 (4) 1673-4", which makes no sense. Neither old style nor new style month 4 would need double dating, and using old style month numbering, 4=June, this birth date is one day after the baptism. Given the marriage in 1672, it is possible, the author meant 22 Jun 1673, but no such record can be found, and the confusing form raises doubts about what was intended.