Person:Hannah Peabody (2)

Everything known or thought to be known about this person is clouded in confusion, contradicting evidence, and there is a good chance she is a fictitious being created out of erroneous records.

The phrase "no further record", used by Anderson^[1], probably refers to the fact that no daughter named Hannah is named in her father's will. This would suggests that if she existed at all, she probably died before his will was written 20 Jan 1695/96. But there is enough doubt about the birth record, that she may never have existed at all.

In the Topsfield VRs, p. 72, it does list "PABODY, Hannah, d. Francis, May 8, 1668. CT.R.". A handwritten copy made in 1832, "from the earliest book of Births, Deaths & Marriages, in the office of the Clerk of the Courts in the county of Essex", contains the record under heading "Topsfield Births & Deaths 1668": "Hanah daugh: of ffrances Pabodye borne the 8 of may 1668".

But in the Boxford VRs, p. 68, it lists "PEABODY, ---, d. John and Hannah, May 8, 16--. BC". BC signifies this was taken from the copy of town records made by John Bacon (image is here). The original records, if still existent (the note at the front of the Bacon copy says they were in ruinous condition), do not appear to have been filmed. Based on the sequence of sibling births, the natural assumption would be to apply year 1668, and given that the mother's name is Hannah, it would not be at all unexpected if this daughter was named Hannah.

So the county court records give this daughter to Francis, who names no daughter Hannah in his will, but the Bacon copy suggests she belongs to John and Hannah, who do have a daughter Hannah (daughter Hannah Buckman named in John's will), but who is not found in the records (unless misfield under the wrong father?)

One would have expected Source:Peabody, Selim Hobart. Peabody (Paybody, Pabody, Pabodie) Genealogy to have had to confront this issue. What does it say?

For Francis (p. 17) Hannah, b. May 8, 1688; m. Daniel Andrews.

For John (p. 18) Hannah, b. May 13, 1668; m. Feb. 24, 1691, Joseph Buckman, of Malden.

Note, additionally, for John (p. 18): Elizabeth, b. Aug. 13, 1680; m. Feb. 12, 1702, Daniel Andrews. Also note that John's will names daughter Elizabeth Andrews.

No record of the birth of any Peabody child can be found for 13 May 1668, the date given in the Peabody Genealogy. The origin of this date is completely unexplained even after perusing images of town records, except for this observation: the 8 found in the Bacon copy bears some resemblance to a '3', but there is absolutely no stray mark, or even spacing in the document, that would give any hint that it is 13.

Unfortunately, investigating the marriage to Daniel Andrews opens another can of worms.

In Topsfield, no marriages for Daniel Andrews (but the marriage of Hannah Pebody of Boxford to Jose Buckman is recorded 24 Feb 1690[/91]).

In Boxford, there is a marriage to Daniel Andrews and Elizabeth Peabody, at Salem, on 12 Feb 1702. (Also the marriage of Hannah Peabody to Jose Buckman).

In Salem, we find a marriage of "Dan'll Andrew" to Elizabeth Pebody of Boxford 12 Feb 1701-2, and the marriage of "Dan'll Andrew to Hanna Pebody "[bef. 1702]".

Is Salem, we find the following births:

ANDREW:

Hanna, d. Dan'll and Hanna (Pebody), 19 Nov 1702

Hannah, d. Daniel and Elizabeth, bp. 4 Jul 1703 CR2

Dan'll, s. Dan'll and Hanna (Pebody), 28 Sep 1704

Mary, d. San'll and Hanna (Peabody), 14 Oct 1706

John, s. Dan'll and Hanna (Peabody), 26 Jul 1712

Samuel, s. Dan'll and Hanna (Peabody), 12 Jul 1715

---, d. Dan, bp. 28 -- [1694?] CR2

ANDREWS

Daniel, s. ---, bp. 2 Sep 1677 CR1

Daniel, s. Dan, bp. -- Sep 1686 CR1

Israel, s. Dan, bp. -- Oct 1689 CR1

---, s. Daniel, --- [1689-90?] CR2

In Salem, the following deaths:

Daniel, sr, 3 Dec 1702, a. 59 CR2 [see Andrews Genealogy, p. 203: his wife Sarah, his son Daniel bp. 1686 not old enough to marry by 1701]

Dan'll, h. Hanna (Pebody), 6 Feb 1717/18

I find no death or remarriage that would appear to belong to the widow of Daniel Andrews, whether named Hannah or Elizabeth.

It is believed that the above is the information that led to the erroneous assertion of a marriage of Daniel Andrews to Hannah Peabody. It seems almost certain that the wife of Daniel Andrews was not a woman born in 1668 (hence 34 when the first child was born, and almost 50 for the last). Further, by all appearances, it was actually Elizabeth Peabody that married Daniel but the town clerk apparently wrote down Hannah in the heading of the family group. This would cause all children's births to be shown as Hannah when the vital records were compiled, and would cause the compilers to enter a virtual marriage between Daniel Andrews and Hannah "bef. 1702" when the birth of their first child was recorded. But the church clerk knew that child's mother was named Elizabeth, the marriage record says Elizabeth, and Elizabeth, 12 years younger than Hannah, is the one with married name Andrews in her father's will. Further according to Source:Andrews, H Franklin. History of the Andrews Family, p. 203, administration on Daniel's estate was granted to his widow Elizabeth. So four independent records giving the wife's name as Elizabeth versus one family group attributed to Hannah.

Thus it is believed that no Hannah Peabody married Daniel Andrews. It remains open whether both Francis and son John had a daughter Hannah in the same year within days of each other. It is possible, but since there is no further evidence of the existence of Francis' daughter, it seems more likely that the town clerk made an error when he created the copy of town records to send to the County Court, while Bacon's copy of the disintegrating originals captured the correct family.

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2} Francis Peabody, in Anderson, Robert Charles; George F. Sanborn; and Melinde Lutz Sanborn. The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635. (Boston, Massachusetts: NEHGS, 1999-2011)
   V:408.

   Children of Francis Peabody and 2nd wife: Mary (Foster) Wood: 13th overall, 9th by this wife) Hannah Peabody, b. Topsfield 8 May 1668; "no further record".