|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
| Marriage[1] |
Bef 1670 |
Based on birth of eldest child |
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
Bef 1676 |
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ Laughlin, Kendall. Descendants of William Kendall of Ashford, Connecticut and Caledonia County, Vermont; a genealogy. (1955)
6. - Kendall Family of Woburn, Mass., in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society)
39:17.
Will of Francis Kendall, dated 9 May 1706, mentions daughter Mary Reed, and also son-in-law Israel Reed.
- Note: The Woburn Records, p. 1:204, contain the birth record: "[REED,] ---, d. of Israel, [born] Jan. 2, 1679." In the introduction, p. 1:7, the compiler says that years are given as their modern equivalents, so according to that, this would be 2 Jan 1678/79 (if it is 2 Jan 1679/80, the following problems become even more severe). There is some confusion about who this record applies to.
Reed (allowing for his many errors) apparently thinks it applies to daughter Rebecca as do various other sources (e.g., this, this).
Vinton believes this birth date applies to possible daughter Abigail who married Nathaniel Richardson in 1694.
Unfortunately, the probate file of the father is sparse, and there is no list or enumeration of his daughters to confirm any or all of this. Apparently both are thought to be daughters of Israel and Mary due to their ages and both having sons named Israel. (Reed does not even show a daughter Abigail in Israel's family, but this appears to be one of his "errors", as he matches Nathaniel Richardson to Abigail's aunt, another Abigail Reed, who is 15 years older than Nathaniel!)
If we assume they both belong to this family, as seems likely, the birth date does not fit either one well. The worse option is to assign to Abigail, as it would make Abigail about 15 1/2 at the time of marriage which is unlikely. At least Rebecca would be a reasonable 17 at marriage, even though still not of legal age. It is even possible that it does indeed belong to an unnamed daughter who died as an infant, since between this 1679 date and Sarah b. in 1673, there is plenty of room for unrecorded births of Abigail bef 1676 and Rebecca bef 1678, those dates being what would be suggested by the normal conventions on marriage age for that time.
|
|
