Person talk:Hannah Doane (6)

Something's wrong??? [4 April 2009]

The two birth dates presented here for Hannah are so similar, 12 May 1669 and 17 May 1669, one would suspect that one is a transcription error. But, then on closer inspection, one realizes that this date is saying the wife is 5 years older than her husband, not very common. Finally, Hannah is supposed to have had her last child in 1719 (the cited source Source:Genealogy - D. Pane-Joyce has wrongly transcribed daughter Anna's birth in 1719 as 1710, but the source it cites, Source:The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, p. 151:8, "Joseph Collins of Eastham" by Stanley Newcomb Collins, Jr. shows Anna b. 1719), when Hannah would have been 50. All this makes one suspect something is wrong.

First, the birth date of Hannah. It appears that the children of John Collins and Hannah Bangs, at least through 1673 are recorded in Source:Mayflower Descendant, p. 8:89, "Eastham and Orleans, Mass., Vital Records". This shows "Ann Doane the daughter of John Doane was borne the 25 of July in the yeare 1666." Since this is the eldest daughter (i.e., we expect her to be named after her mother the way their eldest son was named after his father), and since Ann and Hannah were often interchangable in colonial times, one suspects this is the Hannah Doane that was born into this family. However, the will of John Doane, dated 4 Jun 1706 (see Source:The Doane family : (1) Deacon John Doane of Plymouth, (2) Doctor John Done of Maryland, and their descendants : with notes upon English families of the name, p. 23), mentions in order daughters Ann Young, Rebeckah Paine, and Hannah Collins. So Ann and Hannah are distinct. This also seems to indicate that Hannah is born after Rebecca. In the records, however, there is no Hannah listed, and barely even room in 1669 for such a birth, since Rebecca is born 12 May 1668 and Isaac is born 2 Jun 1670. In fact, the similarity of one of the proposed dates with Rebecca's recorded birth raises the suspicion of a mis-attribution.

In the NEHGR article, it states:
John Collins died at Chatham 24 May 1765
Hannah died at Chatham 6 Jun 1765
Hannah died twelve days after her husband, at age 85
Apparently the author never bothered to check his math because this implies Hannah was born in 1680, 11 years after the date the author has given. For confirmation of the death dates, we can refer to Source:Mayflower Descendant, p. 8:237, "Records in the Oldest Burying Ground in Chatham", which gives
Collins, Hannah, wife of John, died 6 June, 1765, in her 86th year.
Collins, John, died 24 May 1765, in his 92nd year.
This clearly indicates that husband John was 6 years older than his wife Hannah.

So we are left to conclude that either Hannah was a much younger child of this family, b. abt. 1680, or that John and Hannah Doane had 3 kids in three years, one a year almost to the day, and that everybody has made the same 10 year error calculating her age!

--Jrich 20:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Often records of these types are compiled some time after the fact, and are based on earlier records which may have been incorrect, or on hearsay and family recollections. Even when you have the good fortune to have birth and death certificates, they can be very unreliable...but are at least less likely to have 10 year discrepancies. It may well be that Hannah was not born on the date cited and thus have been younger (to be 86 at death). I am okay however, with the idea that Hannah was born as cited, was 5 years older than John, and that the cemetery record stating she was aged 86 at death could just as easily be in error as any other record. My grandfather's death certificate states he is buried one place...he is not. His obit states another...no way to tell (non-specific). Family recollection of people who were actually there, offer about three more locations...so far unproven. Anyway, your logic on these, following certain of the indications sounds good, but are not necessarily more definitive. Never hurts to revisit the existing data though (short of new data). A 10 year mistake could have been made either direction.

However, the idea that 3 years is an unlikely period in which they might have three children is not correct. Such birth frequencies were very common, although being separated by two or more years was more common. Example: My grandparents, born 1884 & 1883, died 1931 & 1928, both dying in their 40s. I have no record of their marriage. Their children were born in 1906, 1908, 1910, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1920, 1921, betw 1921-25, 1925 & 1928 for a total of 14 children. At Grama's death in 1928, she was pregnant with number 15. While this is perhaps "less common" it is by no means uncommon. Between March 13 1912 and June 20 1914, three of their children were born. Between April 16 1916 and July 20 1920, four of their children were born with another 15 months later. --Dougcouch 03:11, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

The only problem is that all the 1669 birth date is being accepted based on an article written in 1990s, well after the fact, possibly subject to transcription errors and mistakes, and not supported by a cited authority therein. In fact, it is belied by the age at death presented by the same article, and a good article would have at least noted a discrepancy exists, while a thorough article might explain why they give more value to one piece of conflicting evidence over another.

None of it is impossible. Women are capable of having three children in three years. Some women did have children at age 50, some women did marry younger men. Given good evidence, I would accept them all. I did not change the data because I don't have a solid replacement value, but I personally believe 1679 is far more likely than 1669 as Hannah's birth date unless more evidence can be brought to light.

So often in genealogy there are all sorts of interdependencies, that when one little assumption is shown to be untrue, multiple generations of work go out the window. If somebody were to start adjusting birth dates of other siblings, say that of David, who, like Hannah, had an unrecorded birth, and if they assume Hannah's birth is in 1669, their data may (or may not) be wrong as a result. So it is important to know which facts are questionable. Hence, I think it only proper to discuss this here on the Talk page. The discussion was also put here in case somebody is aware of a piece of evidence that can resolve this controversy. --Jrich 09:55, 4 April 2009 (EDT)