|
|
- H. Eleazer Ball1747 - 1840
- W. Ruth Blood1755 - 1840
m. 2 Mar 1824
Facts and Events
| Name[3] |
Eleazer Ball |
| Gender |
Male |
| Birth[1] |
31 May 1747 |
Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States |
| Marriage |
7 Apr 1769 |
Upton, Worcester, Massachusetts, United Statesto Mary Bradish |
| Marriage |
21 Apr 1823 |
Hollis, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United Statesto Hephzibah Blood |
| Marriage |
2 Mar 1824 |
Pepperell, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Ruth Blood |
| Death[2] |
2 Oct 1840 |
Pepperell, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States |
References
- ↑ Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Births, Marriages, and Deaths, 1635-1850. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1891)
p. 170.
Eliazer Ball ye son of Nathaniel Ball and Sarah his Wife was born may 31 : 1747.
- ↑ Rice, George A. Vital records of Pepperell, Massachusetts to the year 1850. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1985)
p. 253.
BALL, Eleazer, at alms house, [died] Oct. 2, 1840, a. 95-104 y. CR2
- ↑ Warren, Frank D (Densmore), and George H. Ball. The descendants of John Ball, Watertown, Massachusetts, 1630-1635. (Salem, Massachusetts: Higginson, 199-?)
p. 3, 7.
Eleazer Ball [#112], s/o Nathaniel Ball and 2nd wife Sarah (Davis) Merriam, b. 31 May 1747, m. Mary Bradish. Resided Hollis and Walpole, NH.
- Based on the reported age at death, this would appear to be the Eleazer Ball, b. 1747, the only one close to 95 years old, assuming his birth was recorded. But the evidence is really two half lives combined into one, and could possibly be two people, as nothing ties the two halves together except the similarity in age. One person, s/o Nathaniel, m. Mary, and moved to NH. The other person married 1823 Hepzibah, then in 1824 Ruth, and died in 1840. Warren says the two are different, the first half being #112, the second half being #226. #226 is the son of John Ball and Beulah Whitney, b. 1767. The questions raised by the #226 scenario are, why would the age of a 73 man be reported as 95-104, and why would a man not marry until age 50, and then marry twice in two years to women over 10 years older than himself? Even though there is significant evidence missing that is needed to tie the two halves together, the idea that this is all #112 makes much more sense...
|
|
