Person:Hannah Buckingham (5)

Watchers
m. 12 Dec 1663
  1. Sarah Buckingham1664/65 - Bef 1692
  2. Mary Buckingham1666 - Bef 1676/77
  3. Samuel Buckingham1667 - 1667/68
  4. Samuel Buckingham1668 - 1708
  5. Hannah Buckingham1670/71 - 1671
  6. Thomas Buckingham1672 - Bet 1703 & 1704
  7. Ann Buckingham1674 - 1735/36
  8. Mary Buckingham1676/77 - Bef 1692
  9. Hester Buckingham1679 - 1760
  10. Ruth Buckingham1681/82 - Est 1753
Facts and Events
Name Hannah Buckingham
Gender Female
Birth[1][2] 24 Mar 1670/71 Milford, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
Christening[1][4] 26 Mar 1670/71 Milford, New Haven, Connecticut, United StatesFirst Congregational Society
Burial[1][4] 2 May 1671 Milford, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
References
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 71 Hannah Buckingham, in Mathews, Barbara Jean; Donna Holt Siemiatkoski; Kathryn Smith Black; and Nancy Pexa. The Descendants of Gov. Thomas Welles of Connecticut and His Wife Alice Tomes. (Wethersfield, Conn.: Welles Family Association, 2015)
    245.

    "71 … Hannah (Buckingham), b. (Milford) 24 Mar 1670/1 (Barbour citing VR 1:10); bapt. 26 Mar 1671 in Milford, bur. 2 May 'following' [1671] (Milford First Congregational Church Records, slip index citing 1:11)."

  2. Jacobus, Donald Lines. Milford (Conn.) Vital Records. American Genealogist (D.L. Jacobus). (Oct 1932; Jan 1933)
    9:109.

    "Buckinghame, Hannah da. Samuel, b. 24 Mar. 1670/1" (citing Vol. 1, p. 23)

  3.   Milford Vital Records [NEHGS], in Connecticut, United States. The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records
    35.

    "BUCKINGHAM …
    Hannah, d. Samuel, b. Mar. 1, 1670/1 [1:10]
    Hannah, d. Daniell, b. Mar. 24, 1670/1 [OL:23] …
    Thomas, s. Daniel, b. Mar. 1, 1670/1 [ES:17]
    Thomas, s. Daniell, b. Mar. l, 1670/1 (Perhaps Mar.5) [OL:23]

  4. 4.0 4.1 Volume 071 Milford, in Connecticut, United States. Church Record Abstracts, 1630-1920. (Ancestry.com (database on-line), 2013)
    77.

    "Buckingham, … Hannah, d. Samuell, bp. Mar. 26, 1671; bd. May 2, following [1:11]"

  5.   The Barbour records, in this instance, must be defective since Daniel's wife would not have given birth to a son on the first of March and then a daughter on the 24th. Ms. Mathews, in the Welles genealogy, p. 239, provides a lengthy discussion of the Barbour records for Milford in contrast with the originals. The gist of that discussion as that the original books from Milford were not used in assembling the Barbour records, but that later derivative records were used. The Jacobus records in TAG appear to have been copied by him from the originals and are almost certainly more reliable.