Person talk:Mary Skinner (1)

When was she 18 years old? [14 January 2013]

"A digest of early Connecticut probate records" (1:150) gives the ages of John Skinner's children (Mary 18, Ann 16, John 14, Joseph 12, & Richard 8), and implies (from the context) that these ages were as of Oct 1651, when the inventory was taken. However, the WeRelate record for Mary's brother Joseph cites "The Skinner Kinsmen; The Descendants of John Skinner of Hartford, Connecticut" (as cited on WorldConnect) for his birth year of 1643 with the note: "Birth is from Vol. 2 page 687 of the Court of Magistrates of Hartford dated 18 Jan 1655 which gives the ages of the children of the desceased John Skinner." A birth year of 1643 for Joseph is consistent with an age of 12 in Jan 1655/56. From this, it is possible to infer that the ages of the children given in "A digest of early Connecticut probate records" (1:150) were actually as of Jan 1655/56, not as of Oct 1651. "A digest of early Connecticut probate records" (1:151) mentions a court record of Jan 1655/56, showing the distribution of the estate, but does not link the list of ages to this court record. Nevertheless, if "The Skinner Kinsmen" book can be trusted, it appears the list was as of Jan 1655/56, in which case, Mary's birth year was about 1637.

I cannot (easily) find an online copy of either "The Skinner Kinsmen; The Descendants of John Skinner of Hartford, Connecticut" or the Court of Magistrates of Hartford, so I cannot easily check these sources. However, it would be "convenient" to trust this indirect citation, for the following reason:

Mary Skinner's mother, Mary Loomis, also had a child in 1660 (birth date supported by VR). If Mary Skinner was born in 1633, then the children of Mary Loomis were born across a span of 27 years, which is unusually long, and Mary Loomis was about 45 when her youngest child was born. While this is not impossible, if Mary Skinner was born about 1637, the span of birth years of the children of Mary Loomis would be about 23 years - still long, but closer to the norm.

I am tempted to set Mary Skinner's birth year to "about 1637", set her parents' marriage year to "est 1636", and re-estimate the birth years of Mary Loomis and her siblings based on these dates. Does anyone have an objection? Would you rather hunt down the citation(s) first? I am not inclined to hunt them down myself, being busy with other tasks.--DataAnalyst 21:44, 13 January 2013 (EST)

You're certainly free to make whatever changes you want. I have a copy of "The Skinner Kinsmen; The Descendants of John Skinner of Hartford, Connecticut", but it's unfortunately packed away in anticipation of my moving to smaller quarters. I'm not prepared to pursue this further until I get my hands on it again. It should be noted that the Skinner children are discussed, to some degree, by Gale Ion Harris in articles in both TAG and NEHGR. I don't plan to revisit those either until I can find "The Skinner Kinsman." Also, 45 doesn't seem to be outside the normal bounds of childbearing years, but I would agree that if you get much past that, there is some question.--jaques1724 22:23, 13 January 2013 (EST)

On page 3 of the aforementioned Skinner Kinsmen, Stiles' Ancient Windsor, p. 687, is quoted as follows"

"A Courte of Magistrates of Hartford, Jan. 18, 1655, orders Mr. Loomis [Joseph, his father-in-law] to distribute the estate among the following ch.: Mary, æ. 18; Ann, æ. 16; John, æ. 14; Joseph, æ. 12; Richard, æ. 8, and to his wife, m. to Owen Tudor."

--jaques1724 12:36, 30 August 2013 (EDT)

After reading both the Harris article and Manwaring's abstract, I'm convinced that the ages given for the children are as of the date of their father's inventory in 1651.--jaques1724 21:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

However, the based on the entry, cited by Stiles, from the Court of Magistrates of Hartford dated 18 January 1655/56 and referred to by Manwaring, the ages given could not have been as of the date of inventory (1651). Therefore, the combination of information cited by Stiles and Manwaring places the children's ages to be as of 18 January 1655/56. Please disregard my above entry of 7 December 2017.--jaques1724 19:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)