Person:Rosamund Drew (1)

Watchers
Browse
m. 18 Feb 1677/78
  1. Rosamund Drew1678/79 - 1700
  2. Jonathan DrewAbt 1680 - 1700
  3. Abigail DrewAbt 1689 - 1717
  4. Ebenezer DrewAbt 1689 - 1715
Facts and Events
Name Rosamund Drew
Gender Male
Christening[1][3] 12 Jan 1678/79 Roxbury, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Death[2] 9 Oct 1700 Newton, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Roxbury, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Roxbury, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1925-1926)
    Vol. 1, p. 115.

    DRU, Rosamund, s. Rosamund, bp. 12 : 11m : 1678-9. CR1
    [Note: In old-styles dates, the eleventh month is January. For comparison to the modern calendar, it corresponds to the following year. More info may be found here.]

  2. Newton, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Newton, Massachusetts, to the Year 1850. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1905)
    p. 442.

    DREW, Erasaman, [died] Oct. 9, 1700, a. 22. GR1

  3. Record Commissioners of Boston. Roxbury Land and Church Records. (Boston, Massachusetts: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, 1881)
    p. 134.

    1676.
    Mo. 11 day 12. Rosamund, son of Rosamund Drue [baptized].
    [Note: Comments by Anderson, Vol. VII, p. 468, note this record and believes it the correct date of baptism because baptisms appear to have stopped due to King Philip's War. However, it appears the compiler of the vital records believed the pre-war records stopped earlier, following April 1676, presumably because those are followed by a 5 month gap. It appears all entries following that gap, from September on, under heading 1676, were interpreted as 1678 by the compiler of the VRs. In Rosamund's case, the age at death and the date of marriage of parents agree with the compiler's choice. Another of the conflicted baptisms, Joshua Seaver, is analogous as his parents married Feb 1677/78, so his baptism, shown in the 1676 list, couldn't have been then. This spot-check suggests that Anderson erred here.]