Person:Sarah Weld (4)

Watchers
Browse
m. 27 Nov 1679
  1. Margaret Weld1680/81 - Aft 1745/46
  2. Joseph Weld1683 -
  3. Sarah Weld1685 - 1685
  4. Sarah Weld1687 - 1742
  5. John Weld1689 - Bef 1764
  6. Thomas Weld1691/92 - 1692
  7. Deborah Weld1693/94 - 1732
  8. Mary Weld1695 - 1786
  9. Daniel Weld1697 - 1761
  10. Edward Weld1700 - 1700/01
  11. Ebenezer Weld1702 - 1767
Facts and Events
Name Sarah Weld
Gender Female
Birth[1] 25 Oct 1685 Roxbury, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Christening[3] 1 Nov 1685 Roxbury, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Death[2] 30 Dec 1685 Roxbury, Suffolk, 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. 362.

    WELD, Sarah, d. Joseph and Sarah, [born] Oct. 25, 1685.

  2. Roxbury, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Roxbury, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1925-1926)
    Vol. 2, p. 661.

    WELD, Sarah, d. Joseph and Sarah, [died] Dec. 30, 1685.

  3. Source:Roxbury, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849, p. 140, shows the baptism of John, son of Joseph Weld, on 1 Nov 1685. Source:Linzee, John William. History of Peter Parker and Sarah Ruggles of Roxbury, Mass. and Their Ancestors and Descendants, p. 224, which covers this family, dismisses this as inconsistent with Sarah's birth. John, meanwhile, is shown with a birth 19 Aug 1689 citing a source called "Weld Mss." held by NEHGS. There is no obvious solution. One would guess this is Sarah's baptism, possibly misrecorded as John because there was a John Weld in Roxbury. That seems the most likely possibility. Alternately, perhaps it is 1689 baptism of John with the year misrecorded or mistranscribed, but that seems unlikely because church records are usually recorded as they happen and they appear to be printed as recorded. Remotely, John and Sarah were twins, both dying and being superceded by later children with the same names. This seems unlikely as that implies John's birth is missing, Sarah's baptism is missing, and John's death is missing.