|
|
Estimate birth date [8 March 2015]
Not sure why the birth estimate needed changing. No source added to explain it, justify birth order, etc. It seems unlikely parents would marry in 1636 and not have children until 1640 and then have them 1640, 1641, 1642 and 1643. Far more likely that one of the children was born about 1638. Since Hannah married 1658, an age of 20 at time of marriage would be very in keeping with New England norms. --Jrich 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Joseph's estimated birth was changed from 1640 to 1637 giving as justification "Estimate based on date of first marriage and dates of births of siblings". However, the recent NEHGR article, p. 156:105, which is a review, specifically, of Joseph's life, and says "Because Joseph2 was married by 1663, and because he was baptized with two siblings, he may have been born some years before his baptism, perhaps about 1640." So, the date of first marriage also justifies the previous estimate 1640 and would not apparently require an estimated birth of 1637. The other source cited, that gives an estimate, also gives 1640. The second half of the reason, "dates of births of siblings" only justifies 1637 if you assume Joseph is the oldest child to start with. All that is documented is that four children were baptized in 1644 and Joseph is the oldest son according to his father's will, while Hannah is his eldest daughter. The question remains: who was older: Joseph or Hannah?
- Birth records have not been found. Most secondary sources show no births in the family before 1640 which makes their whole estimating scheme suspect. (As the NEHGR article points out, there has not been much critical review of the first published sources.) Neither Joseph nor Hannah appear to have an age at death. The only recorded information that seems to allow for any comparison is marriage date. Hannah married in 1658 and Joseph married in 1663. Joseph's wives are baptized 1644, 1648, Hannah's husband is not known, but presumably by 1637 to be of legal age, maybe older. All this suggests, very circumstantially to be sure, that Hannah is the older of the two.
- Estimates are inherently subjective, but the problem is that the estimates that previous watchers of this page had on this page were very serviceable. It is not clear in what way they were inadequate. Am I missing something, like say, a deposition? I've spent some time looking for one, but haven't found one yet. --Jrich 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please relax until I've finished. The pages for the first Joseph Baldwin and persons associated with him were a mess which, it appears, nobody else has taken on the task of cleaning up. I think we can agree that it is most likely that the first four children, Joseph, Benjamin, Hannah and Mary were born between 1637 and 1644 (the 23 June 1644 baptismal date seems to have been inferred based on the father's admission to the Milford church but is not documented), and probably at two year intervals; i.e., 1637, 1639, 1641, and 1643. I'll let you know when I'm done and at that point, feel free to edit the pages to your heart's content. Meanwhile, I'll continue the cleanup which needs to also include the families of Hitchcock, Warriner, Catlin and Northam.--jaques1724 16:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Appreciate the cleanup, of course. Trust you will add anything you find as your cleanup continues. May never know the answer, but I strongly suspect Hannah and Joseph are backwards. --Jrich 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
|
|
