Would you be able to check on that microfilm for any births or deaths of any Rowlands? I am searching for james Rowland, b in 1755 and Jonas Cole Rowland, b. 1840. the family lived in Woodbridge. Pat ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:02 AM Subject: [NJMID] Nathaniel Ayers (b. 4 Mar 1700/01) of Woodbridge Township > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Classification: Query > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/zQB.2ACE/1813 > > Message Board Post: > > Yesterday, I read (on microfilm) what seems to be the original Woodbridge Township record of births, marriages and deaths. It is the second item on microfilm number 16596 in the Family History Library's collection. According to the FHL catalog, it is a microfilm of the original record, filmed by Bibliofilm in 1938 from the original at Woodbridge, NJ. > > I say all that, because I am still not sure this is a film of the original record prepared by the town clerk. > > If it is, then the compilation done by Dally back in the 19th century has at least one glaring omission--the birth of Nathaniel Ayers, son of John & Mary Ayers. (He also apparently omitted the birth of Patience Ayers, daughter of John & Mary Ayers, which was recorded on the same page as the birth of Nathaniel Ayers.) > > Plainly legible on the sixth page of the record are consecutive entries for "Frances Ayers Son of John Ayers & Mary his wife born March ye 15th 1698," and "Benjamin Ayers Son of John Ayers & Mary his wife born June ye 19th 1703." > > Also plainly legible on the fifteenth page of the record are entries which are not consecutive (being separated from each other by one other entry of a birth record) for "Patience Ayers daughter of John Ayers & Mary his wife born April ye 22 1697," and "Nathaniel Ayers son of John Ayers & Mary his wife born March ye 4th 1700." (For Nathaniel, the "4" is a little hard to read, but seems pretty clearly to be a "4.") > > I'm puzzled by two things: First, the births of children of what appears to be one set of parents are entered several pages apart; and second, the entries are so plainly visible I don't see how Dally or anyone else could miss any of them. > > If this is truly a microfilm of the original clerk's record of births, then it seems strange that the children of a set of parents wouldn't be entered on the same page--since it is clear that the entries were not made in strictly chronological order contemporaneously with the births being recorded. > > I suppose Dally's printed compilation could have contained an error of omission (and I've been told that the published compilation done by William A. Whitehead contains an omission--of Benjamin), but I'm just wondering if anyone knows of a way to verify that the microfilm truly is a photographic image of the original and not of someone's notes which were made sometime in the past during an effort to compile a transcript of the original record. > > The birth records I found today fit pretty well into a cycle of roughly two-year intervals between births. If they are rearranged from what appears on those two pages in the record book, and if the conventional way of stating the two calendar years for dates in the 1 Jan-24 March period is used, the result is: > > Patience Ayers, b. 22 April 1697 > Frances Ayers, b. 15 March 1698/99 (We would spell it "Francis.") > Nathaniel Ayers, b. 4 March 1700/01 > Benjamin Ayers, b. 19 June 1703 > > As recorded in the book on the microfilm, the first and third children in this group of four are recorded on page 15 while the second and fourth children are on page 6. > > I don't know of any reason why the clerk would split them up like that, or why one set of parents would provide the information to the clerk in that fashion for recording--at separate times, and out of chronological order. > > On the other hand, there is an obvious possible explanation, if one doesn't assume that these four children were the issue of one set of parents. > > If there were two different couples named John and Mary Ayers in Woodbridge, then they might well have provided the information to the clerk for recording at different times (thus the appearance on different pages). And, if there were two sets of parents, the apparent first & third and second & fourth child arrangement of the record wouldn't be that at all--it would be children one and two of one set of parents and children one and two of the other set of parents. > > Does anyone have any idea where the original Woodbridge, NJ, town clerk's record is now held? > > > > > > ==== NJMIDDLE Mailing List ==== > MIDDLESEX COUNTY NJGENWEB > http://www.rootsweb.com/~njmiddle > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >