Family talk:Joseph Loomis and Mary White (1)


Estimated birth years for the children [15 January 2013]

The only one of the eight for whom I can find indicator of the year of birth is John, who, according to the Loomis genealogy, died in 1688 at age 66 giving him, if his age was accurately reported, a calculated 1622 birth year. That is the one relatively substantial data point around which the birth order and birth dates of his seven siblings can be estimated (taking into account, obviously, recorded or estimated dates of their marriages). If there is another one or more of the siblings whose year of birth can be pinned down based on a contemporary record, it would likely help us sort out the rest of the siblings. Lacking those data points, there are any number of ways one can reasonably arrange the birth order and years of birth. It should be noted that Manwaring's abstract and the one presented on p. 122 of the Loomis genealogy are not particularly helpful in determining birth order since the eight heirs are listed twice, but the order of the two lists is significantly different.--jaques1724 20:05, 15 January 2013 (EST)

Just a minor correction - I read the Loomis genealogy as indicating that John died 'ae' 66, which I believe according to the custom of the time would have meant "in his 66th year" - that is, 65 years old, making his birth year about 1623.
Other than that, the estimated birth years of his sisters (Sarah 1617, Mary 1619, Elizabeth 1621), while not based on any contemporary records, at least "average out", as best as possible, their age at birth of last known child (Sarah 41, Mary 41, Elizabeth 44). I would estimate Elizabeth's birth year as 1623 if John was not in that "slot", realizing, of course, that they might have been twins, but just as willing to accept that she might have been 44 at the birth of her last child as that they were twins who both survived. I am reluctant to estimate her birth year as 1625, given that we know she was married in 1641.
As for the brothers, there is even less information to support ordering their births - the last 3 were all married within 2 months of each other, so not much help there.--DataAnalyst 21:04, 15 January 2013 (EST)
I was under the impression that æ. was a synonym for age. Poking around a little this morning, I found this in the Oxford Dictionary online - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/aetatis . I do think that genealogical writers have been somewhat sloppy in the usage over the years. Worst case is that it makes the difference of only a year in what is already an estimate.--jaques1724 10:35, 16 January 2013 (EST)