Family:Abel Edson and Margaret Conant (1)

I refer the reader to, but do not endorse, Source:Edson, Carroll Andrew. Edson Family History and Genealogy : Descendants of Samuel Edson of Salem and Bridgewater, Mass, which on p. 67, says "there were fourteen children, the names of only eleven of which are known." Unfortunately many of the unknown children are not explained and there is no obvious reason to think they existed based on actual records. The specific differences:

• The death date in 1742 is applied to a child speculated to be born in 1740, so Bathsheba's birth could be placed in 1742, since her age at death generates a birth that conflicts with Rachel. This is not unreasonable, since age at death is often wrong, but this makes Bathsheba even older than the 92+ years that the actual record says. There are several sets of twins, and since this tends to be a trait of a mother, perhaps Bathsheba and Rachel were also twins. But there is no evidence for that. Chances are, if the age at death is wrong, Bathsheba's birth would actually be after Rachel, as most ages at death show age inflation, not understatement as this source proposes. Of course this conflicts with some of the unjustified, vague children discussed below.
• The son Levi whose baptism is recorded in Quincy is not listed. So should we adjust the count to 15 children, only 12 of which are known?
• Probably because of the previous item, the death in 1744 is applied to Rachel, which is not unreasonable, but we know the Levi of the baptism must die before the second son named Levi is born in 1754, so giving it to Rachel would imply a missing death date for that Levi. Further both 1744 dates (the birth of Rachel, and death of an unknown child) are necessarily ambiguous as double-dating is needed. The death could conceivably be 1743/44 and the birth of Rachel 1744/45, or vice versa. Whether to Rachel or Levi, assigning this 1744 death to either is pure speculation.
• A son named Cyrus is proposed, "born probably about 1746". Why?
• An child with unknown name is proposed, "perhaps named Marquis", "born probably about 1748". Why?
• A daughter named Orpha, "born about 1759" is proposed. Why?
• A child of unknown name, "born about 1763" is proposed. Why?

Too many genealogies show the superset of all children proposed by any correspondent answering their request for information for us to accept all this uncritically. On the other hand, there are gaps in the birth sequence to accommodate more children than found in the records. --Jrich 23:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)