Family:Edmund Bridges and Lucy Bartlett (1)

Edmund Bridges b. 10 Jul 1736 Hopkinton, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States d. Bef 1794	Parents: Nathaniel Bartlett and Sarah Thompson Lucy Bartlett b. 27 Apr 1740 Brookfield, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States d. Bef 1778 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States

Family tree▼

Facts and Events

Marriage^[1]^[2]

Aft Jul 1761

Children

		Birth
1.	Martin Bridges	8 Oct 1762 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
2.	Asenath Bridges	21 Nov 1763 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
3.	Lucy Bridges	17 Jun 1765 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
4.	Joel Bridges	11 Sep 1766 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
5.	Dorothy Bridges	2 Feb 1768 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
6.	Nathaniel Bridges	21 May 1769 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
7.	Nathan Bridges	21 Apr 1771 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
8.	Sarah Bridges	22 Oct 1772 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
9.	Hosea Bridges	29 May 1774 Spencer, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States

References

↑ Brookfield, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Brookfield, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Worcester, Massachusetts: Franklin P. Rice, 1909)
p. 266.

BARTLET, Lucy and Edward Bridges, int. July --, 1761.
↑ The will of Lucy's father gives specific bequests to her children Nathaniel and Hosea, and then 20 shillings "to the other six". Published Spencer vital records, and also Source:Hibner, Aldis Everard. Genealogy of the Descendants of Joseph Bartlett of Newton, Massachusetts for Seven Generations, p. 74, only list six children, specifically not Hosea, nor any birth between 1769 and Edmund's second marriage in 1778. The family is not mentioned in Source:Draper, James. History of Spencer, Massachusetts, from Its Earliest Settlement to the Year 1860, p. 179. Three additional children: Nathan, Sarah and Hosea are found in what appears to be the oldest copy online (but not the newer copy). It is not clear why they were left out of the published records, and it doesn't not appear they were mistranscribed under a different name - by all appearances, just missed?