|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
| Marriage[1] |
Bef 1737 |
Based on birth of eldest known child |
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
|
References
- ↑ Lydia Spaulding is listed as a heir in her father's estate, and Job Spaulding signed a petition to have the estate settled. See the father's page.
- Source:Spalding, Samuel Jones. Spalding Memorial (1872) for Job [#621], has two children following the second Jonas: Lucy, b. 31 May 1757 and m. 1780 William Parker; and Susan, b. 14 Jan 1761 and nothing further. The 1892 edition has the same information (Job is #624). The Chelmsford VRs show only "Luse" born 14 Jan 1761 with no record of a Susan or a child born or died in 1757. The marriage of Lucy to William Parker is found in Carlisle VRs, intentions in 1780, as are the births of several children. Records indexed at familysearch.org (film 868434: "Vital and some town records, 1645-1826 [Chelmsford, Massachusetts]", Author: Chelmsford (Massachusetts). Town Clerk) agree with the published records, suggesting the copy of records that was filmed says the same thing as the published version..
No explanation is readily apparent, as the marriage could work with either date (e.g., Source:Welch, Linda Margaret Farr. Families of Cavendish, p. 243, shows William Parker marrying a Lucy b. 1761), and nothing is found to confirm that a Susan existed. It is conceivable that the compilers or copiers of the VRs, in processing the Spaulding family group, combined a name on one line (i.e., that of the elder Lucy) with the birth date from the next line (i.e., that of the next younger Susan), effectively losing one child. Further, the arrangement suggested by Spalding actually seems more typical than the one given by the published records with its large gap between children. But it is also conceivable that "Luse" was read as Susan by Spaulding leading to confusion when trying to reconcile it with the marriage to William Parker. More research is necessary.
|
|
