Person talk:Benjamin Shaw (3)

Birth date not likely [23 June 2009]

I removed birth date "abt. 1690" since there were no sources, and it seems unlikely to be accurate. It is before the marriage date of his parents (Abt. 1692). The estimated marriage date is about as early as it can be, since the father Benjamin was born 16 Jun 1670 and would not be of legal age if he got married before 16 Jun 1691. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the parents could have gotten married early enough to allow Benjamin to be b. abt. 1690.

All we know for sure seems to be that the first three children were born in Weymouth; the third child, Susanna, was b. 8 Feb 1697/98; and Hannah and Benjamin were both of age when their father wrote his will 7 Mar 1719/20. Hannah's birth is given Abt. 1693 (without justification, but very reasonable if she was the first child of a marriage occurring abt. 1692). Benjamin can still be the oldest son if born abt. 1696 as given in the source cited, which also happens to fit nicely between Hannah in 1693 and Susannah in 1698 (and leaving a awkward gap otherwise), and this is before the 7 Mar 1698/99 limit needed to ensure that he would be of age when his father wrote his will. For all these reasons, this date seems better than the one originally shown. --Jrich 15:18, 23 June 2009 (EDT)