Family talk:Daniel Stone and Ruth Roper (1)

did it happen again? [1 February 2012]

Bartlett says widow Ruth Stone gave receipt 18 Apr 1719, so alive and not yet remarried. So she would seem a likely candidate to be the Ruth Stone who married Joseph Newton 1 Aug 1719 [3 Aug 1719 according to Marlborough VRs].

But Source:Leonard, Ermina Newton. Newton Genealogy, p. 43 (available on books.google.com), says that Deacon Joseph Newton (born Sudbury between 1647 and 1652) m. (2) Marlborough 1 Aug 1719 Ruth Stone. "I suppose her to be daughter of John³ (Samuel², Gregory¹)) and Rachel (Shepard of Concord) Stone of Cambridge, born there August 27, 1700 [found in Lexington VRs, not Cambridge]. She was living September 1, 1727, and signed with the other heirs for the probating of her husband's will."

Since Deacon Newton's wife is a Stone, I checked Bartlett's Gregory Stone genealogy, who on p. 98 only says of this Ruth Stone: "Ruth, b. 27 Aug. 1700". In the text, she is mentioned as underage in her father's will dated 19 Jan 1711/12, and it shows the widow of John Stone, mother of this Ruth, dying in Lexington in 1724 [which is confirmed by the Lexington VRs]. I don't find any mention of Joseph Newton, or any marriage for this Ruth Stone, in Bartlett at all. The page for Joseph Newton's second wife as it currently exists in WeRelate doesn't provide any identification at all.

I haven't studied this Ruth (Roper) (Haynes) Stone enough, and really know little about her. So I cannot prove she married Joseph Newton. But based on age, I think it is pretty clear it was her. As wife of John Haynes, she had a daughter Ruth Haynes born 1685/86. I would guess the name of her daughter Ruth indicates this daughter was a first daughter, especially coming about 2 1/2 years after her marriage to a John Haynes. John Haynes himself was born 1649. Using these two facts, I would guess his wife's birth might be 1655 to 1665 (Ruth Roper's birth reported to be April 1655). Her second husband, Deacon Stone was born 1644, and this Deacon Joseph Newton is born about 1650. And yet, instead of the appropriately-aged Ruth (Roper) (Haynes) Stone, the Newton Genealogy choses to pair Deacon Newton with a girl 50 years younger than him, marrying a 19 year old when he was 69, who was probably living with her mother in a different town at the time, meaning a first marriage that would not have taken place in the wife's hometown in the presence of her surviving mother?

Shades of Ruth Haynes marrying Deacon Daniel Stone (see that discussion on the regular page), where the age-appropriate Ruth (Roper) Haynes is overlooked in favor of her younger daughter. What does Ruth Roper have to do to get noticed? --Jrich 13:50, 1 June 2011 (EDT)