|
Facts and Events
Name[1] |
Thomas Wooster |
Gender |
Male |
Alt Birth[1][2] |
18 Feb 1691/92 |
Derby, New Haven, Connecticut, United States |
Birth[3][4][5][6] |
18 Feb 1692/93 |
Derby, New Haven, Connecticut, United States |
Marriage |
25 Dec 1718 |
Derby, New Haven, Connecticut, United Statesto Sarah Hawkins |
Death[1][2][4][5] |
2 Feb 1777 |
Derby, New Haven, Connecticut, United States |
Burial[5] |
|
Elm Street Cemetery, Ansonia, New Haven, Connecticut, United States |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 20. Thomas(3) Wooster, in Wooster, Eugene R. (Eugene Russell). The Edward Wooster Family Booklet. (Wake Forest, North Carolina: E.R. Wooster, 2005)
10.
"20. Thomas(3) Wooster (Thomas 2, Edward 1), of Derby, born 18 Feb. 1691/2, died 2 Feb. 1777, aged 85 (gravestone)."
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Jacobus, Donald Lines. Edward Wooster of Derby, Conn., and Some of His Descendants. New England Historical and Genealogical Register. (New England Historic Genealogical Society, Jul 1921)
75:183.
Children of Thomas Wooster and Phebe Tomlinson: 6) Thomas, b. 18 Feb 1691/2, d. 2 Feb 1777, m. 25 Dec 1718 Sarah Hawkins.
- ↑ Phillips, Nancy O. (Nancy Owen), and Connecticut) Daughters of the American Revolution. Sarah Riggs Humphreys Chapter (Derby. Town records of Derby, Connecticut, 1655-1710. (Derby, Connecticut)
293.
thomas wooster son of thomas and Phebe wooster was born Phebuary : 18 : 1692.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Derby Vital Records [NEHGS], in Connecticut, United States. The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records
117.
"Wooster, … Thomas, s. Thomas & Phebe, b. Feb. 18, 1692 [2:26]" "Wooster, … Thomas, d. Feb. 2, 1777, Æ about 85 y. [TM1:43]"
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Thomas Wooster, in Find A Grave.
In Memory of Mr. THOMAS WOOSTER. who died 2d. Febr. 1777. in the 85th Year of is age. Beneath this tomb an aged man here lies, Who of reliev'd the poor and needy cries.
- ↑ The birth is recorded as 18 Feb 1692, which by normal usage of the time is 1692/93. The age at death, in 85th y, or age 84, works out to before 2 Feb 1693, which literally taken would make it 18 Feb 1691/92, but only if one of the rare death ages not showing any age inflation, and only if they reflected the calendar shift accurately. No sibling birth requires either date to be preferred. So the correct birth date is somewhat ambiguous. Both secondary sources appear to base their selection of 1691/92 on a slightly imprecise representation of the age at death as age 85, instead of the literal in the 85th y, or age 84. Therefore, this suggests that they made the birth too early.
|
|