|
|
Facts and Events
| Name |
Samuel Tarbox |
| Gender |
Male |
| Birth[1] |
1647 |
Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United States |
| Marriage |
14 Nov 1665 |
Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Rebekah Armitage |
| Marriage |
16 Oct 1678 |
Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto Experience Look |
| Death[1][2] |
12 Sep 1715 |
Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United States |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Tarbox, Rev. Increase N. "John Tarbox of Lynn, and his Descendants", in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. (Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society)
42:29.
Children of John and Rebekah Tarbox: 4) Samuel, b. 1647, m. (1) 14 Nov 1665 Rebekah Armitage, m. (2) 16 Oct 1678 Experience Look. [p. 42:31] Ensign Samuel Tarbox d. 16 Aug 1715.
Note: Source:Lewis, Alonzo. History of Lynn, the source of the age of 93 at death (birth 1622) in S3, is clearly at odds with S2 (birth 1647). Page 190 of History of Lynn clearly identifies the Samuel in question as a son of John, so it appears to be the same Samuel. No other source seems to mention this age at death, since it calls into question the commonly accepted birth date of 1647. If Samuel married in 1665 (note: 1669 is sometimes reported, but as two children were born before 1669, 1665 seems to be correct), then a 1647 birth date would make him 18 and not of legal age. Source:Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, p. 4:256, says Samuel was born abt. 1647 but the dates of birth are not found. Certainly 1622 would be unusual given a marriage in 1665 and children born through 1684. Samuel's status as Ensign is mentioned on 6 Jun 1691, and a man born in 1622 would be past the age of bearing arms in 1691. So, one must conclude the age at death is simply an error of some sort. However, 1647 is not without doubts, either.
- ↑ Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Lynn, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Salem, Mass.: Essex Institute, 1905)
2:602.
Tarbox, Samuel, Ens., [died] Sept. 12, 1715. [a. 93 y. P.R.4]
[Birth would calculates to about 1622. PR4=Lewis' History of Lynn.]
Note: Source:Lewis, Alonzo. History of Lynn, the source of the age of 93 at death (birth 1622) in S3, is clearly at odds with S2 (birth 1647). Page 190 of History of Lynn clearly identifies the Samuel in question as a son of John, so it appears to be the same Samuel. No other source seems to mention this age at death, since it calls into question the commonly accepted birth date of 1647. If Samuel married in 1665 (note: 1669 is sometimes reported, but as two children were born before 1669, 1665 seems to be correct), then a 1647 birth date would make him 18 and not of legal age. Source:Savage, James, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, p. 4:256, says Samuel was born abt. 1647 but the dates of birth are not found. Certainly 1622 would be unusual given a marriage in 1665 and children born through 1684. Samuel's status as Ensign is mentioned on 6 Jun 1691, and a man born in 1622 would be past the age of bearing arms in 1691. So, one must conclude the age at death is simply an error of some sort. However, 1647 is not without doubts, either.
|
|
