|
|
Facts and Events
References
- ↑ Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Middlesex County, MA: Probate File Papers, 1648-1871. (American Ancestors, 2014)
Case 8257: Samuel Foster 1762.
Will of "Samuel Foster of Reading ... Yeoman being of an advanced Age", dated 6 Feb 1762, proved 22 Feb 1762, names sons Samuel Foster Jonathan Foster Benja Foster; children of son Abraham Foster decased; GrandSon Abraham Foster Eldest son of my son Abraham Foster decased; my Grand Children: Children of my son Ebenezer Foster Decased; my Grand Children: Children of Daughter Sarah Parker Decased; my daughter Elizabeth Boutell; my Grand Son Abraham Foster to pay to Each of his Brothers and Sisters Namely David Edmund Susannah and Elizabeth Children of my son Abraham Foster Decased; my son Samuel Foster no more ... because I have given him his full part. Son Jonathan Foster to be sole executor.
19 Feb 1762: Subscribers being heirs to mr Samuel Foster late of Reading Decased desire will be proved. Signed by Benjamin Foster, Elizabith Boutell, Jon'a Boutell, Abraham Foster.
20 May 1762: Inventory of mr Samuel Foster late of Reading aforesaid Yeoman by John Temple, Samuel Bancroft Ju'r and Nathan Parker.
- ↑ Eaton, Lilley. Genealogical History of the Town of Reading, Mass: Including the Present Towns of Wakefield, Reading, and North Reading, with Chronological and Historical sketches, from 1639 to 1874. (Boston, Massachusetts: Alfred Mudge & Son, 1874)
p. 79.
Foster, Samuel, was probably the son of Andrew or Abraham Foster, of Andover, and a descendant of Abraham, of Ipswich, and of Reginald Foster, who came from Exeter, in England, in 1638. He m. 1701, Sarah, dau. of Abraham and Sarah Roberts, and d. 1762, "at an advanced age", says his will, made during the month in which he died. He lived in the westerly part of Reading, near Wilmington line, and owned much land. Chil.: Abraham, b. 1703; Samuel; Ebenezer, who m. 1731, Deborah Roberts, of Wilmington; Jonathan, b. 1712; Benja. b. 1715; Sarah, who m. in 1726, Benja. Parker; Elizabeth,who m. 1733, Jona. Boutwell.
- ↑ Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Foster Genealogy: Being a Record of the Posterity of Reginald Foster, an Early Inhabitant of Ipswich in New England, Whose Genealogy is Traced Back to Anacher, Great Forrester of Flanders, Who Died in 837 A.D., with Wills, Inventories, Biographical Sketches, Etc.; Also the Record of all Other American Fosters. (Chicago: The Author, 1899)
Part 2, p. 701.
"5999. SAMUEL FOSTER (Samuel, John), b. Salem, Mass., ,July 26, 1680; m. in Lynn, in 1701, Sarah Roberts, dau. of Abraham and Sarah. He was from Andover. He died at an "advanced age" according to his will made in the month in which he died. He resided in the westerly part of Reading near the Wilmington line and was owner of much land."
[Note: the TAG article cited below notes Pierce's obvious plagiarism of Eaton's History of Reading, and also his presentation of a different origin without evidence to support it. Without having an answer to the mystery, it recommends rejecting Pierce's presentation unless evidence can be found to support it.]
- Farrington, Robert I. "The Correct Ancestry of Timothy Foster of Walpole and Dudley, Mass.", in The American Genealogist (TAG). (Donald Lines Jacobus, et.al.)
Vol. 21, p. 6-7.
"It is suggested that descendants of Samuel and Sarah (Roberts) Foster of Reading do not accept the origin of Samuel Foster as stated in that genealogy [i.e., Pierce ] until and after thorough investigation proves it correct." Several problems with Pierce and the presentation in the History of Salem are documented.
[See discussion below.]
- Robert Farrington is understandably frustrated with the handling of the Foster family by both Pierce and the History of Salem, as he has gone to a lot of work demonstrating errors made on this branch of the family. However, his focus is not on Samuel of Reading, and he admits to having nothing specific to add, besides this warning. It is probably wise advice for a conservative researcher as neither Lilley Eaton, nor Pierce, offer a single piece of evidence to justify their claims.
It is not clear why Eaton think Samuel came from Andover. Perhaps Samuel naming a first son Abraham predisposed him to this suspect he was a son of Abraham Foster of that town. But, as will be shown, Samuel had connections with Lynn, and nothing is known connecting him to Andover, which would seem to be in the wrong direction, for a man from Lynn.
Pierce's work shows signs of hasty editing, which generally subtracts from what credibility he may have (little, by reputation). Unfortunately, it was the typical custom of the time not to explain genealogical findings, so we don't know if Pierce was just guessing, or had evidence. He names a birth in Salem, but also includes Eaton's "from Andover", and to confuse matters further, places the marriage in Lynn when it is recorded in Reading. His presentation is confusing, disjointed, conflicting, and hard to respect. Circumstantially, however, his suggestions may be more plausible than Eaton's. The Samuel b. Salem to Samuel and Sarah Foster in 1680 is about the correct age (marriage 3 months after reaching legal age, would be "at an advanced age" when he wrote a will in 1762); barring the disproven presentation in the History of Salem (Samuel3 m. Mary ---, and dead by 1729, here - most likely confusion with his father's second wife Marg[ery]), it is not known what happened to him. We do know that he was alive in 1728 when he was listed as a son in his father's will.
For the man that ended up in Reading, the births of his three eldest children are recorded in Lynn, and in 1709 a deed (Middlesex Co. Vol. 15, p. 347) shows Samuel Foster of Lynn buying land in Reading from John Brown. Lynn is much closer to the Northfield area (near present day Peabody) where lived the Samuel and Sarah Foster investigated by Farrington and named as parents by Pierce, than is Andover, the origin asserted by Eaton.
Coverages of Samuel Foster give him one wife, Sarah Roberts. Interestingly two deeds in Middlesex where he sells land (Vol. 46, p. 531 dated 5 Feb 1735/36, and Vol. 47, p. 484 dated 16 May 1740), both contain the phrase "Sarah my now married wife", seriously raising the possibility that he had two different wives, both named Sarah!
|
|
