I have a situation in my family at the end of the 1700's beginning of the 1800's of a supposed first child of the second wife being born about 7 years before wife number one died and the second child born about 7 months after the first wife died but after the second marriage. I'd have to say there is not much new under the sun as far as people's behavior. I'm reminded of the minister discussing (preaching) the difference between faith and knowledge. He pointed to the Brown family in the front row and said that Mrs. Brown knew that those three children were her children and Mr Brown had Faith that hey were his children!!!! :) Bergetta On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Alger and Walcott Family wrote: > I guess I can't comment on this Huldah, unless I knew more about her. > Thomas was born 1761, according to his gravestone. When a > birthdate of a > wife is unknown, I tend to use a rule of thumb that she might have > been 3 > years younger. There are many, many exception to this, of course. > > I agree that the inclusion of all of this information in his will > seemed to > be a precaution against claims on his estate being made at some > later date. > I agree that we have no way of knowing that this child was actually > his, but > he certainly seems to have acknowledged paternity through word and > deed. I > don't know enough about the practices of the time to make any accurate > conclusion -- it was unusual to see a divorce this early, but not > unheard > of. Guess it would be good to research that subject! > > Cindy > > -----Original Message----- > From: roblee-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roblee- > bounces@rootsweb.com]On > Behalf Of Theresa Caparco > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:02 PM > To: Cindy Waldron > Subject: [ROBLEE] Huldah, of Thomas > > > > Dear Cindy, > > Huldah is a first name, it is also an alias for Hannah (Book: > Origins of > Names) > I did spot a Huldah born circa 1762 in Warren Co, NY.-from one of the > websites. > > I'm thinking this may be the one, as the Northup notes did contain > her- > although placed wrongly. > This makes me feel- as though those in Granville-Slyboro may have > known her- > as I doubt if we Northup's would have known anything of another > marriage > that Thomas had previously, from out of the area. I doubt Thomas > would have > ever mentioned it after the marriage ended to "Huldah", so this is > why I am > thinking this way. > He seems, in the Will, mentioned it- only as a precaution against > any claims > on his estate. Do you follow me? > What do you think ? > Sincerely, > Theresa. > PS. Not to cast aspersions...just reality, just because Thomas > married her- > did not mean the child was necessarily his...I also don't think > people are > any different then to now...its something to think about....also, > gives > reason to think...she was (seemed) to give in to this 'deal' of > being handed > money, to raise the child with no contact to Thomas-I believe only > a woman > with something to hide- would make such a deal. What are your > thoughts? > > > --------------------------------- > TV dinner still cooling? > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. > For questions about this list, contact the list administrator at > ROBLEE-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ROBLEE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > For questions about this list, contact the list administrator at > ROBLEE-admin@rootsweb.com. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROBLEE- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message