Family:William Orcutt and Martha Unknown (1)

Watchers
Browse
 
 
 
Martha (add)
m. Bef 1693
Facts and Events
Marriage[1][2][3] Bef 1693 was his widow
Children
BirthDeath
References
  1. Greenlaw, Lucy Hall. The genealogical advertiser : a quarterly magazine of family history. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: Lucy Hall Greenlaw)
    4:89.

    Agreement between widow Martha of William Orcutt "Who deceased in ye year 1693 Inhabitant in ye Town of Bridgwater", dated 30 Oct 1694, names son Thomas (under age), other sons William, John, Andrew, Joseph, Benjamin; daughters Martha, Mary, Hannah and Susanna Orcutt.
    [Note: the agreement abstracted by this source is recorded in Plymouth Probate, Vol. 1, p. 215, viewable here. The original copy is found in the probate file cited in the next source.]

  2. Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States. Plymouth County Probate Estate Files 1686-1915
    Case 14909: Willliam Orcutt Bridgewater 1693.

    16 Dec 1693: Bond of William Orcutt and John Orcutt both of Bridgewater that "above Bounded William Orcutt and Martha his mother Administrators of all and singular the Goods Chattels rights and Estate of William Orcutt late of Bridgwater afores'd deceased" to administer the estate.
    11 Oct 1693: Inventory of William Orket of Bridgewater "deceased ye fouteenth of september one thousand six hundred ninetey and three", taken by John ffield, John Lenard. 16 Dec 1693: "William Orcutt Eldest son of the above named William Orcut deceased" Made oath to the inventory.
    [Note: The above are the papers from the probate file. The recorded versions are in Plymouth Probate Vol. 1, p. 186, viewable here.]

  3. CAUTION: It is traditionally held that William Orcutt had two wives, one wife being the Mary Lane mentioned in a baptism of Andrew Lane's children, as William Orcutt appears to have been a son-in-law of Andrew Lane; and the other wife named Martha who appears as his widow in a probate documents and an agreement of heirs. There is also speculation there was only one wife, though such a theory requires repudiating a contemporary record. (For more details, see this discussion). William Orcutt has been entered into WeRelate with two wives on this page so his page is recognizable to people reading the literature. However, the assumed 2nd marriage could have happened anytime between 1668 and 1693 and so it is impossible to make any case for allocating children that isn't pure guesswork. For that reason, all his children will be consolidated on his family page with Mary Lane in order to most clearly represent their relative birth order and spacing. It is known that many people will regard this as incorrect, but until additional primary evidence can be brought forward to provide proven answers, and given the current WeRelate practice of discouraging duplicate parents, it seems the best way to keep information on this/these families centralized and unduplicated.