Person:John Reed (96)

m. 26 Oct 1635
  1. Margaret Reed1635/36 - 1659
  2. Hannah ReedBet 1637 & 1640 -
  3. Mary ReedBet 1640 & 1655 - 1655
  4. Ruth ReedAbt 1644 - Bef 1662
  5. Thomas Reed1645 - 1719
  6. John ReedAbt 1649 - 1720/21
  7. William ReedBef 1650 - Bef 1706
  8. James ReedAbt 1657 - 1726
Facts and Events
Name John Reed
Gender Male
Birth? Abt 1649 Weymouth, Norfolk, Massachusetts, United States
Death? 13 Jan 1720/21 Dighton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
  1.   Chamberlain, George Walter. History of Weymouth, Massachusetts. (Weymouth, Massachusetts: Weymouth Historical Society, under direction of the town, 1923)

    John Reed, s/o William and Avis Reed, b. abt. 1649; removed to Taunton (now Dighton). Enlisted as a soldier in King Philip's War, 1676.

  2.   Reed, Alanson H, and Massachusetts) Reade Society for Genealogical Research (Boston. The Reade record. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1978)
    No. 10, p. 11.

    Children of William Reed and Avis Chipman: John, b. abt. 1649, d. 13 Jan 1720/1, ae 72, buried Dighton, MA, m. Bethiah (?Frye).

  3.   Taunton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Taunton, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1929, c1978)

    Reed, John, h. Bethiah (d. George Frye of Weymouth), [died] Jan. 13, 1721, a. 72, in Dighton. ["probably" s. William Reade ("of Weymouth in 1636"), Jan. 13, 1720-1, in Dighton, G.R.3]

    The transcription available to me at the time of writing (see here), only gives an abbreviated transcription of the book's introduction, so I cannot look up to see what G.R.3 is, nor who added which comments. I assume the parentheses are comments added by the town clerk, and the square brackets are added by the compiler.

    If the date was written 13 Jan 1721 as it is when all the comments are stripped away, we might actually expect it to mean 13 Jan 1721/22. G.R.3 would tend to indicate a gravestone, which would suggest this might be so. However, if the year is actually 1720/21 as the comments say, and not 1721/22, then the birth calculates to bef. 13 Jan 1648/49, which would better be expressed as "abt. 1648" than "abt. 1649". So it is hard to decide which is correct. Was he born abt. 1648 and d. 13 Jan 1720/21, or was he born abt. 1649 and d. 13 Jan 1721/22? Or was he not 72 when he died? --Jrich 17:03, 14 June 2009 (EDT)