|
|
Family tree▼ ▼Facts and Events
▼Children
▼References
- ↑ New Hampshire, United States. New Hampshire Marriage Records, 1637-1947. (New Hampshire Division of Vital Records Administration)
[1]34.
Groom: Samuel Lucas
Bride: Sibble Willoughby
By whom Married: Rev. Nathan Ward
Date of Marriage: Dec. 22, 1796
Clerk of: Plymouth
- Source:Wheeler, Albert Gallatin. Genealogical and Encyclopedic History of the Wheeler Family in America, p. 34, identifies "Sybel"'s husband as "Samuel Lucas", no more. Source:Stearns, Ezra Scollay. History of Plymouth, New Hampshire, Vol. 2, p. 751, possibly the source of Wheeler's information, being 8 years older, identifies her husband as "Samuel Lucas, of Rumney". Birth records in Rumney for Samuel Lucas' children consistently name the mother as Ellis, starting with the birth of John on 1 Nov 1797. There is no marriage on record between Samuel and any Ellis yet she appears to be the mother of all his children as soon as 11 months after Samuel's recorded marriage to Sybil??? There is not sufficient time for Sybil and Samuel to marry in Dec 1796, for Sybil to die, and for Samuel to marry Ellis and have a child by Nov 1797, 11 months later. Ellis does not appear to be Sybil going by a different name (e.g., one daughter named Sybil, another named Ellis). So it may be that all children were simply recorded as children of Ellis, when some actually were children of Sybil. Possibly the births were recorded after the fact, after Sybil had died, and so the town clerk assumed Ellis was the mother of all of them. John would be a name expected to be used by Sybil, as is Josiah in 1800. These two births are followed by a child is named Sybil in 1805, and a child is named Ellis in 1808, and then more. If there was a second wife named Ellis, that marriage would certainly appear to have happened by 1808, but it probably was earlier. The gap between 1800 and 1805 is fairly significant, and in the speculated situation, it might be when the first wife died, and Samuel married again. It would be typical that the first daughter following the death of a wife might be named in her honor if that had not happened previously, and then, of course, a daughter named after his new wife. This is further supported by the observation, based on Rumney records that Ellis would have been only 14 when John was born in 1797, so most likely, was not his mother, but 22 in 1805, so by then, of a very appropriate age.
|
|
