|
- H. Thomas FarrarEst 1657 - 1733
- W. Elizabeth HoodAbt 1653 - 1748/49
m. 6 Dec 1682
Facts and Events
References
- ↑ Flagg, Ernest. Genealogical Notes on the Founding of New England: My Ancestors Part in that Undertaking. (Hartford, Conn.: Case, Lockwood & Brainard, 1926)
253.
Thomas Farrar, s/o Thomas Farrar and Elizabeth ---, b. abt. 1657, d. 29 Dec 1733, m. (2) 6 Dec 1682 Elizabeth, d/o Richard Hood and Mary Newhall. Will dated 5 Jun 1730, proved 11 Jan 1733-4, mentions widow Elizabeth and various kinsmen.
- ↑ Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Lynn, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute, 1905)
II:577.
Farrer, -----, "Aunt," (died) 26 : 11 m : 1748 (Zaccheus Collins' diary, now in possession of the Essex Institute). [Although her baptismal name is not given, this death was documented in the same private diary as was that of her husband. It is therefore reasonably certain that the death described in ths record is that of Elizabeth (Hood) Farrar, widow of Thomas2.]
- ↑ Note: Source:Bosson, Jennie Hood. John Hood of Lynn, Massachusetts : And Some of His Descendants, p. 3, gives Mary as the oldest child of Richard Hood and Mary Newhall, born before son Richard who was b. 18 Nov 1655, and gives Elizabeth as born Nov 1658. Contradicting that, Source:Waters, Henry F. Newhall Family of Lynn, Massachusetts, p. 4-5, gives the will of Anthony Newhall, dated 14 Jul 1656, which mentions grandchild Elizabeth Hood. Since July 1656 was only 8 months after the recorded birth of Richard in Nov 1655, Elizabeth must have preceded him, and with typical spacing, we would expect her birth to be about 1653. Source:Essex Genealogist (Massachusetts) (Essex Society of Genealogists), p. 18:53, says "Elizabeth's birth is recorded as Nov. 1658", but it doesn't seem to be found in Lynn VRs, or in "Genealogical Items Relative to Lynn", NEHGR, p. 5:252, the two sources cited by this article. Since the timeframe of the will is confirmed by both its own date, and the date it was proven, either the first Elizabeth died young and a second was born in 1658, or else the Nov. 1658 is wrong. Possible misreadings could be Nov. 1653, or Nov. 1655, the latter one raising the intriguing possibility that Elizabeth was a twin with Richard? However, not being able to find the alleged birth record to investigate further, it is pointless to pursue this speculation.
|
|