Person:Thomas Smith (68)

Watchers
Browse
  • F.  John Smith (add)
  • M.  Sarah Hunt (add)
m. 13 Oct 1647
  1. Thomas Smith1658 - 1718
m. Bef 1679
  1. Thomas Smith1679 - Bef 1747/48
  2. Henry Smith1682 -
  3. Abigail Smith1684 - Bef 1728
  4. Jonathan Smith1689/90 - 1777
  5. Amos Smith1699/00 -
Facts and Events
Name Thomas Smith
Gender Male
Birth[1] 29 Jul 1658 Sudbury, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage Bef 1679 to Abigail Rice
Death[2] 9 Apr 1718 Sudbury, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Sudbury, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Sudbury, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1903)
    135.

    SMITH, Thomas, s. John and Sary, [born] July 29, 1658. [s. Jo[h]n and Sarah, MR]

  2. Sudbury, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Sudbury, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1903)
    326.

    SMITH, Thomas [died] Apr. 9, 1718.

  3.   Note: the website of Source:Edmund Rice (1638) Association says "your authors have not yet found proof that this birth record refers to the same Thomas. He died on 9 April 1718 at Sudbury, MA; but the identification is uncertain here as well." Unfortunately, after assailing the credibility of this data, they don't proceed to detail any of the doubts or alternatives they may have. Certainly it seems like an excessively cautious statement for a website that contains several egregious errors based on no evidence of any kind (i.e. the handling of his daughter Elizabeth, and granddaughter Elizabeth). That said, Smith is a common name, and there are several Thomas Smith's listed in Savage in other towns. But all seem poor or unlikely matches at best, based on age or marriage, and none are placed in Sudbury. (Savage is of no help on this specific question as he mentions no Thomas of Sudbury at all even though he was having children there long before Savage's cutoff of 1692, and of John of Sudbury ventures nothing more than he had a wife Sarah even though he had several recorded children.) This birth cited is the only birth of a Thomas in Sudbury in the 1600's until his own son Thomas is born, and there is no sign of another Thomas it could apply to. The death data is even less likely to be wrong, as only a resident of Sudbury would be expected to be recorded, and the will of daughter Abigail indicates Thomas was dead by 1728. Unless there is more than non-specific worries, due to the common surname, and an error-filled monument erected by a descendant 200 years later, this seems probable.