>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 13:13:24 >To: jcrin001@home.com <<<----JOHN: this address failed! >From: Robin Carpenter <ANALYTIX@valley.net> >Subject: JC's 1732 Will >Cc: CARPENTER-L@rootsweb.com > >Hi John: > Thanks for the info responding to my posting re John's 1738 Will. Not surprisingly, your additional info prompts me to several further comments and questions. These are all matters of detail, and describing it all may seem tedious...but I'm hoping that with specificity it'll be "easier" to follow the earlier mentions etc. Here goes: > 1. Interesting that your birth dates table shown under "Family #518" pretty nearly follows my interpretation (from the will) of birth sequence of John #24's children. The only major exception is my interpretation would put Solomon up at #2 position. I note that you have Solomon's birth range "1690/1712." I have seen assertions of this Solomon as one of the earliest settlers of Goshen; in such case he would be an adult by 1714, or 1720 at the latest. Wouldn't this make Solomon's latest plausible birth year would be 1693, or maybe 1699. Of course, this revised boundary could still have him halfway down the sequence of John's kids--just as your table has it. > 2. Who is the "John" shown in your table as a son of our subject John? > ("3. John CARPENTER 3rd-12755 Abt 1685/1687") This all new to me, and clearly not mentioned in the Will. One thing that is not at all ambiguous in the Will is that there are exactly 9 offspring. > 3. Re that same table overall, where do the birth dates come from? (Is all this table from the "New England Marriages Prior to 1700" that is cited in the short paragraph just above the table, or "Colonial Families," or some other source?) > 4. Regarding that same paragraph(*), can you interpret the info for me? (*)--"PER NEW ENGLAND MARRIAGES PRIOR TO 1700; JOHN (1658ABT-1732) & MARY RHODES?, DAU JOHN; 9 FEB 1680; JAMAICA, LI/WEYMOUTH/ATTLEBORO. SEE: Colonial Families of Long Island by Seversmith." I get the part of John's b and d dates, and I get that someone (who?) believes but is unsure wife Mary was a Rhodes. But I don't understand what is "DAU JOHN." Also, does the reference to "Colonial Families..." mean that the author of "New England Marriages..." refers to "Colonial Families..." or is Colonial Familes a side note added in your synopsis? > 5. The summary paragraph describing the 1732 Will should include mention of Joseph. He is cited in the Will three times. > 6. Of course you are right in that it is "still in question" as to which of John's wives was mother to which of the offspring. Still in question today, and probably to will remain in question forever. So my interpretation of maternity from the Will is necessarily subjective and (most assuredly) unauthoritative. > But just to be a gadfly about my interpretation, I note that the birthdates given in your table of "Family #518" have daughter Mary (b. "Abt 1692") the first of the girls and before Nehemiah. Given that John's 2nd wife was named Mary, this small item would seem at least a tiny hint that dau Mary was a child of mother Mary. And if so, then all the other girls, too. And tying back to my earlier interpretation of the Will, note that there are three separate citations of "Joseph Increase & Nehemiah." All three citations are (a) exactly in that order, (b) inheriting shares equal to each other, (c) twice cited in same breath with the sisters, and (d) never mentioned together with or sharing items regarding John and Solomon. To me, that's a scenario of high (albeit unproven) liklihood that these 6 children were born to Mary, with John and Solomon born to Abigail. (Are you persuaded of the liklihood, or no?) > 7. Finally, I am surprised to learn of a known and published marriage between John Carpenter and Mary Rhodes, Feb 9, 1680. "Surprised" only because I would have expected a known and published marriage to have appeared in works of ABC, RGC, and whoever authored "Ancestors & Descendants of Col Solomon Carpenter." (Who did author that?). Well, I've been surprised by facts before, and I'll be surprised again. But what's the source of this John/Mary marriage info? > Sorry to go on at such length. Look forward to hearing back. > Robin C. >