Person talk:Sarah March (6)

which Sarah March is this? [5 October 2010]

This page showed Sarah b 1685 m. Daniel Chase with no sources. Per the Vital Records of Newbury, the Sarah Chase born 1685 was the daughter of George Chase.

Source:Hoyt, David W. Old Families of Salisbury and Amesbury, Massachusetts, p. 237-8, shows both the family of George March and his brother Hugh March of Newbury. According to this source, George, whose will was dated 16 Mar 1696/97 (too early to be helpful) had a daughter Sarah (b. 1685 per VR Newbury) who m. "Henry Dunning?". Hugh, whose will was dated 16 Oct 1726-7, had a daughter Sarah (b. 1684 per VR Newbury) who m. Daniel Chase. Unfortunately the only detail given about the will is that it mentioned the wife Sarah.

The "March Genealogy" in Source:The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, p. 53:121-2, says Sarah, the daughter of George b. 1685, m. Humphrey Deering and Sarah, the daughter of Hugh b. 1684, m. "possibly" James Pike.

The vital records of Sutton show Sarah Chase d. 17 Dec 1771 (not "7 DEC 1770" as shown on this page) in her 88th year, i.e., age 87, so her birth would be about 1684. Consequently, I believe the Sarah who married Daniel Chase was born in 1684 and hence was the daughter of Hugh March. That would mean that the Sarah who is daughter of George born 1685 did marry Humphrey Deering as both the above sources seem to indicate. It would seem that finding the will of Hugh might provide useful confirmation. --Jrich 01:02, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

The website [1] is nice enough to include a more complete abstract of the will of Hugh March of Newbury than Hoyt's book above did, and it does mention his daughter Sarah Chase. So we have two Sarah Marchs represented by this single page. To fix this, this page will be made to represent the daughter of Hugh who married Daniel Chase (but was born in 1684, not 1685), and Person:Sarah March (7) will be the Sarah March b. 1685 (but who married Humphrey Deering not Daniel Chase). As usual, actually providing sources, especially if you are forced to give abstracts of what the sources say, is a great way to avoid making these kind of errors. --Jrich 10:32, 5 October 2010 (EDT)