|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
Bef 1695 |
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ Historical Society of Watertown (Massachusetts). Watertown Records. (Watertown, Mass.: Press of Fred Barker, 1894-1939)
54.
[1684.] Frances Bowman and Lydia Ston Joned in marriage the twenty-six of June.
- ↑ There is little information on this family, as only two children have recorded births or baptisms. Source:Hudson, Charles. History of the Town of Lexington, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, from Its First Settlement to 1868, p. 45, seems to be relied on by most sources (see, for example, Source:Paige, Lucius Robinson. History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, p. 494, "according to Hudson (Hist. Lex.)".) Hudson makes comments about the will of the father, dated 1744, which suggests he had access to it, but no abstract or transcript is given, and it is not found in Source:Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Probate File Papers, 1648-1871. So, with no birth records or other good sources, a reader can only assume Hudson based his attribution of children on what he saw in the will.
However, Hudson gives the daughter Martha b. 1685 to the father even though the Watertown birth record names the mother as Lydia, meaning she belongs to the son. This gives us the first reason to doubt Hudson's work. When the father died, the estate was settled by 2 deeds, that presumably supplemented the unseen will. These deeds confirm most of what Hudson seems to say, but leaves one completely confused about the daughters Mary and Martha.
Vol. 45, p. 324 is a mortgage where [Undated, acknowledged 13 Feb 1745/6]: Isaac Bowman of Lexington yeoman for £700 to Cap't Samuel Stone and Deacon John Stone Jun'r of Lexington trustees for the Children and Descendants of Francis Bowman of Lexington quitclaims one third of a Messuage in Lexington lately in the possession of my hon'd Father Francis Bowman deceased, unless the said Isaac Bowman pays the said trustees the sums hereafter mentioned upon the decease of Ruth Bowman Relict of Francis Bowman Esq'r late of Lexington, namely to Martha Mores of Cambridge Daughter of the said deceas'd and her children, to Lydia Simonds and her Children, to Sarah Russell and her children, to four children of John Bowman late of Lexington deceased namely Jonas, Francis and Ebenezer and Ruth Bowman. 23 Jun 1755: full payment received and mortgage discharged.
Vol. 45, p. 325, continued on Vol. 45, p. 326 (note: separate links because out of sequence on the film). This is a mortgage where [Undated, acknowledged 13 Feb 1745/6]: Francis Bowman Jun'r of Lexington Houswright for £880 to Cap't Samuel Stone and Deacon John Stone as trustees for the Children of Francis Bowman Esq'r 40 acres of land unless Francis Bowman shall pay the following sums before the 23 Dec next ensuing: to John Bowman a grandson to the deceased; to Francis Bowman, Jonas Bowman and Ebenezer Bowman & Ruth Bowman; to Martha Mores Daughter of the said Deceased, to Lydia Simonds and her Children which Lydia is daughter to the said deceased. 29 Sep 1763: full payment received and mortgage discharged.
Notice that there is no mention of Mary Mores, but both deeds clearly mention Martha Mores. As explained on Mary's page, a Mary Moores is found in Lexington, the wife of Thomas, giving a birth about 1699-1698 and death about 1782. However, no appropriate records for any Martha Mores seem obvious. We have a birth record for Martha and a mention in the deeds, so we know she existed, but none for Mary and no mention in the deeds, so aren't sure of her existence. The data for the two is so different (birth in 1685 versus calculated birth 1698), that it seems unlikely the answer is as simple as a misreading of the name, or other answer that tries to merge both into one person. We don't know how many marriages Martha had, only that she was so married about 1744-6. It seems there was no daughter Mary but not being able to identify Martha Mores' marriage, and knowing there was a will that hasn't been considered, one can't really be definite.
|
|
