Person:Mary Haynes (17)

Mary Haynes
d.Aft 11 Jul 1738
m. 30 Dec 1674
  1. Mary Haynes1675 - Bef 1677
  2. Mary Haynes1677 - Aft 1738
  3. Hannah HainesAbt 1679 - Aft 1731
  4. Thomas Haynes1680 - 1771
  5. Sarah HaynesAbt 1682 -
  6. Jonathan Haynes1684 - 1745
  7. Margaret Haynes1686/87 - 1753
  8. Joseph Haynes1689 -
  9. Ruth Haynes1691/92 - 1787
  10. Abigail Haynes1694/95 - 1722
  11. Elizabeth Haynes1696/97 -
m. 10 Jan 1706
  1. John Preston
Facts and Events
Name Mary Haynes
Unknown Mary Haines
Gender Female
Birth[1] 2 Nov 1677 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 10 Jan 1706 Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto John Preston
Death[2] Aft 11 Jul 1738
  1. Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Newbury, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Salem, Mass.: The Essex Institute, 1911)

    Haynes, Mary, d. Jonathan, Oct. 2, 1677.

  2. Totten, John R. "Preston Genealogy", in The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record. (New York, New York: New York Genealogical and Biographical Society)
    Vol. 52, p. 331, Oct 1921.

    John Preston b 1 May 1685 Andover, Essex, Massachusetts d 26 Jul 1733 Windham, Connecticut bur, Hampton Ct., m. Andover 10 Jan 1706-7 Mary Haines, d/o Jonathan Haines, b. 3 Mar 1687, date of death unknown. Mary Haines (prior to her marriage) was captured by the Indians in Haverhill on March 15, 1696 and was ransomed the next year for one hundred pounds of tobacco. Her signature appears on a deed recorded in Haverhill, MA, dated Oct. 12, 1730, showing that she was married to John Preston of Andover, and indicates that she was living in Windham, CT by this time. The distribution of John's estate 11 Jul 1738 mentions his widow, and children.

  3.   It would be interesting to speculate, since there is no death date for the first Mary, and no birth date for Hannah, and since Hannah's marriage in 1697 (actually the first marriage of any of Jonathan's children) suggests that she was born about this time, whether this record could possibly be an error, and should apply to Hannah. But that is purely speculation, and without evidence, so we have to assume there were two daughters named Mary, and squeeze Hannah in somewhere.