Family talk:Lemuel Barrett and Sarah Holden (1)

Really? [9 January 2014]

[Re-reading this now, it makes no sense without re-constructing what it looked like then. When the following was written, it gave as the husband this person. The data on this page was unbelieveable, namely:]

It is incredible that people would add a page showing a birth in 1725, death in 1727/28 and marriage in 1749. So imagine my surprise on finding actual vital records for such events (the birth and death of Samuel Barret in those years). No conclusion is possible except that the birth and death are for a different person, namely that the wrong husband has been put on this page. [This has been fixed.]

One could argue it was another Samuel in the same family, born after 1728, but there isn't one. Looking at the marriage record there is confusion with the name Lemuel. In colonial script, capital-L and capital-S are very hard to distinguish, so this is a common error. There is a Lemuel Barrett born in Littleton in 1726, to different parents than given here, of course, his age making him a prime person to be marrying in 1747 (or 1749, though 1747 looks like the correct answer). Unlike the Samuel Barrett shown here, he does not have a death record saying he died 2 decades before the wedding.

Of course, part of the reason why there was a rush to match this to Samuel Barrett is because of the son Samuel included on this page, born to "Samuel" and Sarah Barrett of Concord. But in 1773! So after 24 years of no children, they all of a sudden have a child? Really? Such a wild situation would require citing an article in a respected journal, preferably by an author with initials like CG or FASG after his name, not a page with no sources.

So, as a result of all those obvious errors and the confusion with the records, I am changing the husband to Lemuel Barrett of Littleton and removing the son, hopefully finding him his correct parents [this has been done]. --Jrich 04:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC) --Jrich 21:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)