Person:Thomas Livermore (1)

m. 4 Jun 1668
  1. Anna Livermore1669 - Bef 1690
  2. Grace Livermore1671 - 1703
  3. Samuel Livermore1673 - 1719
  4. Daniel Livermore1674/75 - 1720
  5. Deacon Thomas Livermore1675/76 - 1761
  6. Jonathan Livermore1678 - 1705
  7. Matthew Livermore1679/80 -
  8. John Livermore1681/82 - 1717
  9. Abigail Livermore1683 - 1743
  10. Nathaniel Livermore1685 - 1711/12
  11. Lydia Livermore1687 - 1760
  12. Anna Livermore1690 -
  • HDeacon Thomas Livermore1675/76 - 1761
  • WMary Bright
m. 14 Dec 1704
Facts and Events
Name[3] Deacon Thomas Livermore
Gender Male
Birth[1] 5 Jan 1675/76 Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 14 Dec 1704 Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusettsto Mary Bright
Death[2] 8 May 1761 Waltham, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Historical Society of Watertown (Massachusetts). Watertown Records. (Watertown, Mass.: Press of Fred Barker, 1894-1939)
    Vol. 1, p. 40.

    [79] 1675.
    Thomss Liuermore son of Samell and Anna Liuermore borne the 5'th 11'mo.
    [Note: In old-styles dates, the eleventh month is January. For comparison to the modern calendar, it corresponds to the following year. More info may be found here.]

  2. Waltham, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Waltham, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1904)
    p. 277.

    LIVERMORE, Thomas, "40 yrs. a Deacon", [died] May 8, 1761, a. 86. GR
    [Birth about 1675.]

  3. Bond, Henry, M.D. Family Memorials. Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, Including Waltham and Weston (1855): To Which Is Appended the Early History of the Town. With Illustrations, Maps and Notes. (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, and Company, 1855)
    p. 340.

    Children of Samuel Livermore and Anna Bridge: 5) Deacon Thomas Livermore, b. 5 Jan 1675-6, d. 8 May 1761, m. 14 Dec 1704 Mary Bright.
    [Note: Bond writes "1675-6 (or 7)" as the year of birth, but the records give no sign it is 1677, as it is recorded in 1675, and the age at death works out to 1675, meaning that even if age 86 means in his 86th year, it would still work out to 1676, not 1677.]