Person talk:John Heywood (7)

questionable [8 March 2014]

This page kept coming up in search results for some work I was doing on a different Heywood family, so I spent some time looking into it. The source cited is so confusing and sloppy in its details as to be offsetting.

Clearly Hannah and John have conflicting births. Hannah is recorded in Concord with no indication of a twin. John is not recorded in Concord, nor is any John recorded in this family at all. This source does not list John in this family.

on p. 124 the source says "With Peter Heywood, sen. ... aged 46 ... were John Heywood, brother of Peter Heywood, junr., aged 23 years ... Peter Heywood, junr. came down the next year."

Why would it say brother of Peter Jr. instead of son of Peter Sr.? Two reasons I can think of: it is a typo and meant brother of Peter Heywood, Sr.; or Peter Heywood Jr. was a younger Peter Heywood, but not the son of Peter Sr.

Peter Heywood Sr. was 46 in 1772. If John was 23, that would put his birth in 1749, not 1759 as indicated on p. 125. Then he is not the son of Peter and Sarah Weston as they married in 1750. Peter Sr.'s parents had a son John b. 1720, d. 1721, a second one b. 1722. I can find no trace of this John Heywood but he would be old enough to have a son born 1749, as a wild speculation.

On p. 126, in listing the children of Peter, John is not included. --Jrich 18:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't make sense, but what to do?--Quackeroo 14:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully in the next month or so, I might be able to see this source. Not sure it will help? Obviously, research is needed to figure out who he is. It doesn't look like it's going to be easy. --Jrich 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably the best source for this branch of Heywood/Weston clan is Joseph Weston's diary, now in possession of the Skowhegan History House. It was one of Hanson's sources. I wish I had access to it.