Person:Ruth Pierce (1)

Watchers
Browse
m. 1 Jul 1663
  1. Deborah Pierce1666 - 1703
  2. John Pierce1670/71 - Aft 1735
  3. Thomas Pierce1672 - Bef 1716
  4. James Pierce1674 - 1685
  5. Daniel Pierce1676 - 1754
  6. Ebenezer PierceAbt 1679 - 1766
  7. Ruth PierceAbt 1682 -
  8. James Pierce1686 - Aft 1713
  9. Joseph Pierce1688 - Aft 1711
  10. Josiah Pierce1691 - 1759
Facts and Events
Name[1] Ruth Pierce
Gender Female
Birth[1][2][3] Abt 1682 Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. 1.0 1.1 Johnson, Edward Francis. Notes on the Family of Deacon Edward Convers. Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Woburn Records of Births, Deaths, and Marriages
    3:327.

    Deborah, d/o Lt. James Convers, and John Pierce had: Ruth, b. --- [placed between Daniel 1676 and James 1686, see note about birth estimate].

  2. Pierce, Frederic Beech. Pierce genealogy : being the record of the posterity of Thomas Pierce, an early inhabitant of Charlestown and afterwords Charlestown Village (Woburn), in New England, with wills, biographical sketches, etc. (Worcester Mass.: unknown, 1882)
    p. 26.

    Children of John Pierce and Deborah Convers: 9) Ruth, b. 1690 [no further information given.] Will of Ensign John Peirce dated 26 Apr 1716 names wife, sons, daughter Ruth and children of daughter Deborah Wilson, dec'd.
    [Note: see note about birth estimate.]

  3. Note: it is not clear why Pierce entered a birthdate of 1690, as no record exists, no explanation or elaboration is given, and the order of the father's will is based on gender, so offers no clue. It is not marked as an estimate, but presumably it is given the apparent lack of evidence. Analyzed critically, it appears unlikely, based on the spacing of surrounding siblings, leaving a 10 year gap during prime child-bearing years and putting 3 children in 4 years at the tail end when most families have bigger gaps between children. See the comment on brother Ebenezer's page where Pierce's estimate was shown by age at death to be 8 years off. Assuming his estimate here is equally unskilled and ignorable, Ruth's birth is estimated to fit in the gap between Ebenezer (1679 by age at death) and James (1686 by record).