Person talk:Benjamin Butterfield (2)

Parents discussion, Nathaniel-Deborah vs Joseph-Lydia [18 January 2013]

I've been working on this family for over 37 years...my line goes through Nathaniel (not Benjamin). This Benjamin question was bought to my attention, both Benj s/o Nath'l & Benj s/o Joseph are appearing all over with the same birth & death dates, one married Sarah Bates and one married Elizabeth Fletcher. I've had Benj. s/o Nath'l and Deborah Underwood with the 1679 b. date in my files forever & that he was md. to Sarah BUT...I'm changing my files after looking at the vital record information & other facts on this family.

1. Benjamin b. 24 Feb. 1679 s/o Joseph is listed in Chelmsford VR
2. Benjamin s/o Nath'l no VR listed with date & father's name
3. Benjamin md. 24 Feb 1697 Chelmsford to Sarah Bates source Chelmsford VR
4. Benjamin Benjamin md. 8 Oct 1701 Chelmsford to Elizabeth Fletcher source Chelmsford VR
5. I have a tombstone picture that from Forefather's Burial ground in Chelmsford that has "Sergt Benjamin Butterfield d. 31 Mar 1715 age 33 yr 1 mo 2wks"...calculated out this Benjamin was born 17 Feb 1682. If this is, Benjamin s/o Nath'l then he would have been only 15 in 1697 when Sarah Bates was married, however he would be 19 in 1701 when Elizabeth Fletcher was married.
6. The children's names: (Named after)

Benjamin and Sarah Butterfield had: John, Sarah, Mary, Lydia, and Abiah. The use of Lydia would appear to suggest this Benjamin was the son of Joseph and Lydia.

Benjamin and Elizabeth Butterfield had Benjamin, Elizabeth, William, Esther, Mary, and Deborah. If Benjamin was the son of Nathaniel and Deborah, then William is a brother's name and Deborah would be Benjamin's mother & sister's name.

1. Benjamin and Sarah (Bates) Butterfield's marriage is listed just below Joseph and Eunice (Heald) Butterfield's marriage, s/o Joseph and Lydia Ballard. It would seem to make more sense to me that these two would be brothers, rather than cousins.

• I believe, Benjamin s/o Joseph and Lydia was b. 24 Feb 1679 and d. 24 Jul 1716.
• I believe, Benjamin s/o Nathaniel and Deborah was b. 17 Feb 1682 and died 31 Mar 1715.

The death dates for both Benjamin's are a few lines apart in the VR. I think these two couples have been twisted for many years now, mostly because of early written books (including my own) that have copied over & over.

Any thoughts on this are welcome...Sue Butterfield Picard (User:Suepcard, reformatted by Jrich; copied from Person page version of 14:06, 10 December 2012 -Robert.shaw)

Your analysis appears very reasonable, but there are uncertainties. The children's names is fairly convincing, but unfortunately circumstantial.

First: the death date in the image appears to be 1716, but it would be nice if it wasn't clipped so tightly. Since *two* different published vital records (Woburn and Chelmsford) report it as 1715, it would be nice to see more of the area surrounding the 1716 and more of the context on the page. I would suggest changing the caption to show where this record came from, I assume the film of Chelmsford records? Was this a copy made at a later time, or the original copy? Many of the older records filmed by FHL are actually copies made by town clerks years later because the original is so fragile.

Next: The death record says senior ("sener"), which indicates he is older. However, since the other Benjamin died before him, even if he was younger before, he would become the older, so not sure this helps. There is no age at death to tie it to the 1679 birthdate. So, there is an assumption that no other Benjamin Butterfield from out of town is involved, and giving this death date to this Benjamin is by process of elimination only.

Third: both Benjamin Butterfields married before they were of age. This is unusual. Again, worried about the possibility of a Benjamin from elsewhere being involved.

The NEHGR article mentions one of the appraisals mentioning the father Nathaniel. If this appraisal could be matched to one specific Benjamin that would be very conclusive evidence. americanancestors.org's index of Middlesex probate gives Benjamin Butterfield of Chelmsford in 1715 as case 3709 and Benjamin Butterfield of Chelmsford in 1716 as case 3708. One would expect the files to name the widow, possibly the children, and perhaps the property or other detail, would indicate clearly which Benjamin went with which probate. (The NEHGR cites three deeds [15:159, 160, and 36:593] where Nathaniel gave land to his three sons. The deed for Benjamin would likely describe property is included in the appraisal of his estate.) Additionally, the estate of Joseph Butterfield (Joseph Butterfield of Chelmsford in 1728, I think is him since that is when his administrator was appointed, case 3729) might be useful, since his son was deceased, a distribution is likely to name Joseph's son's children. --Jrich 16:36, 10 December 2012 (EST)

Absolutely, there are some uncertainties. Yet, I find the information proposed much more plausable than the inaccurant information of both Benjamin's being born and dying on the same days and years which seems to be what everyone is picking up and adding it to their own Benjamin line. I deliberately didn't go to published books because it isn't a primary source and I think this is confusing the point as well because many researchers use it as "gospel".

Fact: The tombstone for Benjamin does give us the 31 Mar 1715 date & the fact that this Benjamin is not born in 1679 but in 1682. (I would rule him out as Sarah Bates' spouse because he would only have been 15 when he married. As you mentioned, even the 18/19 ages were a bit young for the time) Yes, another Benjamin might be involved from some other area but if you search NEHGR/FHL or Ancestry for Benjamin one isn't popping up that would fit into the time frame...at least that I can find to this point. My published sources don't have anyone that would fit either.

Fact: The vital record for the birth of Benjamin born 24 Feb 1679, does say his father is Joseph.

I've added a larger clip of the death records to both Benjamin's (the filming is just tight in date) and I've put my source on the image. I still think the first Benjamin died in 1715 and the second in 1716. You mentioned the Middlesex probate index which I also added as a source each Benjamin. Note the NEHGR index has Case #3709 saying 1715 and case #3708 saying 1716, so not everything indicates only 1715. I do think that these would help to indicate wives, children etc. However, since these aren't my direct lines I'm not going to spend the money at this point to order these records. You would think there would be descendants researching these lines that would have gotten copies of these. I will suggest it to the person who bought this Benjamin question to my attention and share your thoughts with him as well.

Also, since I think the Benjamin b. 1679 was the one who died in 1716 is listed as a "sener" could that also be true because his "cousin" Benjamin b. 1682 d. 1715 was the younger of the two?--Suepcard 20:44, 10 December 2012 (EST)

I understand. Not to be argumentative, merely cautious: the people that compiled VRs usually (can't speak for each project) gathered all copies, including the original. Therefore, they usually had the best perspective and the best expertise at reading the writing. All it takes is for your image to have been copied over once by a town clerk in the 1800s (it looks like it is good shape for something that is 300 years old) and the published ones become more authoritative. In my personal experience, the films of Topsfield records were a copy, the oldest Buxton, Maine records were copies. Also, age at death is flaky, the probate is dated when it is opened, hence Joseph who d. 1720, is dated 1728. That said, I've think you've made a good case. The "junior" on the one death record argues you are right and the children's names are good. Since the probate records seem to exist, there seems to be a good chance to finish it off pretty conclusively. --Jrich 21:43, 10 December 2012 (EST)

I just looked at the picture of the tombstone, and I believe it says 35 years, not 33 (besides that being what the published VRs say, compare the digits in the age to the digits in the day of month and the year). That is a big enough difference to completely change the conclusion here. That means the calculated birth date is 17 Feb 1680, which means that it could be the son of Joseph if 24 Feb 1679 means 24 Feb 1679/80. Since this is Benjamin Jr. according to the death record, there is an older Benjamin, and since there is no record of a birth in 1682, we are back to estimating the birth for the son of Nathaniel. Based on his marriage in 1697, we estimate Nathaniel's son was born about 1675 and we are back to square one. --Jrich 22:47, 10 December 2012 (EST)

LOL...good eye on that one...I agree. I've deleted & rearranged the parentage on the line...back to square one as you said. I'm glad I put it up & we had the discussion. Thanks.--Suepcard 23:16, 10 December 2012 (EST)