|
|
birth estimate [26 May 2012]
The recently added birth estimate moved the birth before the estimated marriage of the parents: dueling estimates.
But there may issues with the birth estimate. It is based on the husband's birth estimate. Men frequently married much younger women, so this may not be the most appropriate method of estimating the wife's birth. Since the birth of son Joseph took place in 1650, a birth estimate for the mother of 1610 seems unlikely, since it makes her 40 at time of Joseph's birth.
The birth estimate for Joseph given in the Register of the Middlebrook Family, Descendants of Joseph Middlebrook, is "circa 1610". This source says he arrived in Concord about 1635, and 1610 would be sufficient to make him an adult member of the community. Given his death in 1686, 1610 makes his longevity more normal too.
Probably the most reliable fact for estimating the birth of a woman would be her first marriage. The estimate here is 1635 which seems way too early if the only child was born in 1650. It seems unlikely the marriage occurred before 1645. The wife could be born as late as 1627, but probably no earlier than 1615 for a marriage in 1645, but likely after 1620. Both William Bateman and Joseph Middlebrook moved from Concord to Fairfield in 1644, so unless there is evidence I don't see mentioned in various sources, it isn't even clear in which place the marriage occurred. Jacobus has no estimates in FOOF. Neither does Torrey (though he says she died by 24 Jan 1656 - when William Bateman only named the grandson in his will). --Jrich 10:27, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
- Agreed. I may have done this too quickly. I was a bit concerned about how all the individuals and marriages hang together, as Joseph's second wife is identified (TAG 14:224) as Mary Odell, baptized 1605. Therefore, even though this was a second marriage for him, I was reluctant to estimate his birth year any later than 1605 (there was no estimate in his record, and I was unaware that an estimate had been published). He could certainly have married a younger first wife and a slightly older second wife, so I'm okay with an estimated 1610 birth year for him and 1620 for his first wife. As for the marriage of Unknown Bateman's parents, it is simply entered as "bef 1615", based on the birth of Thomas - could have easily been before 1610 as well. However, I will change the dates as I have indicated. --DataAnalyst 18:42, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
- On a personal note, though, a marriage 15 years before the birth of the first known child is by no means too early. I speak from experience. My parents were married for 9 years by the time I was born (and they had adopted 3 children in the meantime), and I was married for almost 16 years by the time our only child was born. It may be outside the norm, but it does happen that way sometimes (not to mention the possibility of several miscarriages and/or infant deaths in the 1600s). --DataAnalyst 18:50, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
- Obviously with everything estimates, there is not much solid ground, and a chain of estimates is piling uncertainty on top of uncertainty. The Odell baptism date is a good data point but the linkage to the first wife is weak, while the birth of the son happened to her. But, after all, even the birth of the son is an estimate, too, so I don't know how firm that was: Is there a deposition, age at death, etc? In the end, the important thing is to explain all the factors used to generate the estimate, because any critical reader is going to ask all these same questions if it is not laid out. --Jrich 19:53, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
|
|
