ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] 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:
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)
On page 3 of the aforementioned Skinner Kinsmen, Stiles' Ancient Windsor, p. 687, is quoted as follows"
--jaques1724 12:36, 30 August 2013 (EDT)
|