|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
1704 |
References
- ↑ Savage, James. A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England: Showing Three Generations of Those Who Came Before May, 1692, on the Basis of Farmer's Register. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1860-1862)
4:109. - ↑ Boston (Massachusetts). Record Commissioners. A Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston: Containing Dorchester Births, Marriages, and Deaths to the End of 1825. (Boston, Massachusetts: Rockwell and Churchill, city printers, 1890)
20.
William Smead was Married unto Elizabeth, the daughter of the Widow Lawrence, by Major Atherton 31. 10. 58.
[Note: In old-styles dates, the tenth month is December. More info may be found here.]
- Note: Source:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, p. 4:109, says "John, 27 Aug 1671, d. soon; John, again, 1673". There is no birth record in VRs for the second John. The next child, Ebenezer is only known by a baptism. It may be the second John is known by a baptism. If so, it is not clear from Savage alone whether this is the baptism of the same John, or a second John. It is strange there is not a precise date available. Source:Sheldon, George. History of Deerfield, Massachusetts, p. 2:302 presents a slightly less believable version of what Savage says, namely, "John, Aug. 27, 1670; d. in infancy. John, Aug. 27, 1673." We know the year in the first date is wrong compared to VRs, and the use of the same date exactly 3 years apart sends up all sorts of red flags. It appears, until more information is found to straighten this out, as if there are two versions of this birth, one recorded with the wrong year.
Addendum: GenealogyGuy78 reported that that in inspecting the church records (restricted to viewing at FHC), there does not appear to be such a baptism for a son John. This prompted an inspection of the original birth records, now online. John's birth is recorded twice, on p. 18 and also on p. 15. These two pages are not identical copies but the births appear to be largely the same. Perhaps p. 15 seems more organized by date. The problem appears to be caused by the header on p. 15, which looks a little like "Births in 1672" though context (it follows 1670 and 1672 is found on the facing page) and comparison to p. 18, shows clearly that it intends to say "Births in 1671". Perusal of the births in 1673 show no birth of a son John. This seems to strongly suggest there was no second son John, that it was probably an error in misinterpreting this second record.
|
|
