I thought I'd list the children I show for William C. AMAZEEN and wife Jane Jones AMAZEEN. I think the 16 to whom you are referring are: Sarah - b. 18 Nov 1804 William - b. 8 Mar 1806 Mary - b. 11 July 1807 John - b. 30 Mar 1809 William J. - b. 12 July 1810 Joseph Jones - b. 27 Dec 1811 Rufus - b. 10 July 1813 John - b. 1 Apr 1815 Mary - b. 18 Feb 1817 Clarissa - b. 4 Aug 1818 Thomas Oliver - b. 14 Mar 1820 Eliza Jane - b. Feb 1822 Nancy B. - b. 15 Nov 1824 Adaline - b. 17 Jan 1826 Henry Clay - b. 4 Dec 1829 Frances Lear C. - b. 3 Feb 1832 I also postulate that there may also have been another son who died as a youngster, born between 1821 and 1825, based solely on the family's entry in the US 1830 Census, as follows: [NOTE: the Census taker wrote the surname as EMERSON for all of the AMAZEEN families he met in this census] US 1830 Census, New Castle, Rockingham Co, NH [Images Online @ Ancestry.com], p211, line 25 William EMERSON [sic], male, head of household, age 40-49 [ie: b. 1781-1790] 1 female, age 40-49 [ie: b. 1781-1790] = wife Jane 1 male, age 20-29 [ie: b. 1801-1810] = son Wm J. (1810) 3 males, age 15-19 [ie: b. 1811-1815] = sons Joseph (1811), Rufus (1813) & John (1815) 1 male, age 10-14 [ie: b. 1816-1820] = son Thomas O. (1820) 2 females, age 10-14 [ie: b. 1816-1820] = dau Mary (1817) & Clarissa (1818) *1 male, age 5-9 [ie: b. 1821-1825] = son? 2 females, age 5-9 [ie: b. 1821-1825] = dau Eliza (1822) & Nancy (1824) 1 male, age under 5 [ie: b. 1826-1830] = son Henry (1829) 1 female, age under 5 [ie: b. 1826-1830] = dau Adaline (1826) Of course this other youngster could have been another (visiting) relative or an enumeration error, but the other entries are so "in line" with what we know of the family, I hate to dismiss it outright. ~ Carolyn Depp ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carol White" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:23 AM Subject: [NHROCKIN] JOnes Tangle > [Snip] > According to the New Castle Records and Meloon's papers William and Jane > Amazeen had 16 children. there wasn't an Olive Amazeen; it was Thomas > Oliver who was till alive in 1896 (he died 1909 in South Boston). William > C. Amazeen died in Farmington,. NH, May 1871 according again to the New > CAstle records. Jane died in Farmington 24 Jul 1852.

CArolyn Yes, those children you listed for William C. and Jane Jones Amazeen are the same ones i have. I don't have access to Ancestry and therefore can't see the census results that you posted below, but I have seen a transcription of the New Castle census for 1830 and the entry you have below was listed as Brown?, William. Are you positive that it looks like Emerson/Amazeen? The person doing the transcription was quite familiar with all the surnames in New CAstle at that time and still thought the name was Brown. The transcription did list a Joseph, Christopher and William Amazeen and an Elizabeth Emerson. If what you say is right, then there were two William Amazeen's in New CAstle in 1830. Carol CArol > > I also postulate that there may also have been another son who died as > a youngster, born between 1821 and 1825, based solely on the family's > entry in the US 1830 Census, as follows: [NOTE: the Census taker > wrote the surname as EMERSON for all of the AMAZEEN families he met in > this census] > > US 1830 Census, New Castle, Rockingham Co, NH [Images Online @ > Ancestry.com], p211, line 25 > William EMERSON [sic], male, head of household, age 40-49 [ie: > b. 1781-1790] > 1 female, age 40-49 [ie: b. 1781-1790] = wife Jane > 1 male, age 20-29 [ie: b. 1801-1810] = son Wm J. (1810) > 3 males, age 15-19 [ie: b. 1811-1815] = sons Joseph > (1811), Rufus (1813) & John (1815) > 1 male, age 10-14 [ie: b. 1816-1820] = son Thomas O. > (1820) > 2 females, age 10-14 [ie: b. 1816-1820] = dau Mary > (1817) & Clarissa (1818) > *1 male, age 5-9 [ie: b. 1821-1825] = son? > 2 females, age 5-9 [ie: b. 1821-1825] = dau Eliza > (1822) & Nancy (1824) > 1 male, age under 5 [ie: b. 1826-1830] = son Henry > (1829) > 1 female, age under 5 [ie: b. 1826-1830] = dau > Adaline (1826) > > Of course this other youngster could have been another (visiting) > relative or an enumeration error, but the other entries are so "in > line" with what we know of the family, I hate to dismiss it outright. >