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.

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