Person:Sarah Marston (15)

Watchers
Sarah Marston
b.Est 1675
m. 15 Jan 1652
  1. John MarstonAbt 1653 - 1741
  2. Mary Marston1655 - 1693
  3. Jacob Marston1658 - 1727
  4. Sarah Marston1661 - 1661
  5. Joseph Marston1662 -
  6. Hannah Marston1667 - 1732/33
  7. Martha MarstonAbt 1669 - Bef 1679
  8. Bethia Marston1671 - 1739/40
  9. Ephraim Marston1673/74 - 1707
  10. Sarah MarstonEst 1675 - 1736
  11. Benjamin Marston1677 -
  12. Martha Marston1679 -
  • HJames Bridges1670/71 - 1739
  • WSarah MarstonEst 1675 - 1736
m. 24 May 1692
  1. Sarah Bridges1692/93 -
  2. James Bridges1694/95 -
  3. Bethia Bridges1696 -
Facts and Events
Name Sarah Marston
Gender Female
Birth[2] Est 1675
Marriage 24 May 1692 Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United Statesto James Bridges
Death[1] 18 Sep 1736 Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Andover, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Andover, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Topsfield, Massachusetts: Topsfield Historical Society, 1912)
    Vol. 2, p. 398.

    BRIDGES, Sarah, w. Mr. James, sr., [died] Sept. 18, 1736.

  2. Charlotte Helen Abbott in her Marston Family of Andover shows Sarah b. 1661 but this ignores the death of Sarah recorded twice in Hampton. CHA shows Martha born twice, but there is only one record of such a birth, and based on James Bridges birth 1670-1671 it seems unlikely Sarah was born ten years before him. CHA does not give any sources, a known limitation of this source, and although she probably perused all sorts of Andover documents and many family Bibles, if we don't know what the information is based on, and since she doesn't tell us, when we run into issues like overlooking the death date of 3-week old Sarah in 1661, it is impossible to intelligently correct her data because its basis is not known. In essence, not knowing what is based on fact and what is assumption, it is all painted with the brush of assumption, and we must start from what we can prove. After all, we cannot know if a birth of Martha in 1679 was mis-recorded/mis-read somewhere as 1669, or if a 10-year math error was made with her age later in life, etc., creating the appearance of two distinct Marthas. So fitting this to what we know, a second Sarah must have been born. There is a window between siblings in 1665, there could be a window about 1669 because there is no evidence for Martha, or there is window about 1675. The first makes her 6 years older than her husband, grudgingly we will grant CHA 1669 for her Martha with much reservation since this would seem most likely if not for the conflict, leaving 1675 as the best alternative for now, even though it makes her only 17 at marriage.