|
|
Facts and Events
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Wheeler, Albert Gallatin. The Genealogical and Encyclopedic History of the Wheeler family in America. (American College of Genealogy , 1914)
Pg. 498.
[#8201] Children of Richard Wheeler and first wife: Sarah, b. 4 Feb 1645 [sic, see note ], d. 26 Oct [sic, should be December] 1656.
- ↑ Dedham (Massachusetts). Town Clerk; Julius Herbert Tuttle; Benjamin Fisher; and Don Gleason Hill. The early records of the town of Dedham, Massachusetts. (Dedham, Massachusetts: Dedham Transcript Press, 1886-1936)
1:3.
1645
Sarah, the Daughter of Richard & Elizabeth Wheeler, was borne the 4 of 12 m'o.
[Note: In old-styles dates, the twelfth month is February. For comparison to the modern calendar, it corresponds to the following year. More info may be found here.]
- ↑ Dedham (Massachusetts). Town Clerk; Julius Herbert Tuttle; Benjamin Fisher; and Don Gleason Hill. The early records of the town of Dedham, Massachusetts. (Dedham, Massachusetts: Dedham Transcript Press, 1886-1936)
128.
1656.
Elizabeth & Samuel & Sary Wheeler, deceased the 25 of the 10 m'o.
[Note: In old-styles dates, the tenth month is December. More info may be found here.]
- ↑ The normal interpretation of 4 Feb 1645, as given by Wheeler, would be 4 Feb 1645/46. However, this would put Sarah's birth only 8 months before Mary. The date in Early Records, 4 of the 12th month in 1645, cannot be interpreted any way but 4 Feb 1645/46. However, "Early Records of Boston", NEHGR, p. 8:347, doesn't have the record of Sarah's birth in the Dedham section. Instead the record for 4 Feb 1645/46 belongs to Ephraim Clark. Therefore, it is suspected that the Early Records gave Sarah's birth wrong. Since the Dedham records were published 1886, long before Wheeler in 1914, we can only surmise that Wheeler's date is based on that mistake. The NEHGR article, which appears to correctly give this date to Ephraim Clark, does not have any record for Sarah at all. We are left, therefore, to conclude that we know nothing about Sarah's birth. Given the parent's marriage in 4 May 1644, it would seem that it was probably 1645. The intuitive assumption that it was 4 Feb 1644/45, assuming an error of exactly one year from the reported date, would have the birth exactly nine months to the day after the wedding: a little too neat, but certainly possible.
|
|
