Cyndi wrote: > James Sweet's five known children were all b. Portsmouth - what is the > evidence that this same James Sweet had a sixth child, Margaret, born in > North Kingston? None that I know of. Here is some evidence against: James appears to have died, or at least been buried, at Portsmouth (a gravestone in cem #41 shows James Sweet dying in 1748, aged 51). Also, four of James' children were married at Swansea or Portsmouth between 1739 and 1749, and the records show that three of them resided on Prudence Island at the times of their weddings (part of Portsmouth). The first of these was daughter Hannah, in 1739, who was then only 16 and undoubtedly living at home with her father. > Arnold's Vital Records do contain the record that a Margaret Sweet, dau. of > James, had a son Ezra b. 13 April 1767 at North Kingston, and she gave oath > that the father was James Austin. However there were many James Sweets...is > there any evidence tying Margaret or Ezra to a particular James Sweet? As I see it, the main requirement is that the James must have a daughter Margaret. Only one such is known, unless the 1740 child's name can be confirmed as Margaret. It does seem plausible that the known Margaret's brother James might have continued the family tradition of naming a daughter Margaret and might have been designated "James Jr" in 1740, but both of these notions are just conjectures. > Either of the Margaret Sweets b. 1729 that have been suggested as the mother > of Ezra would have been about 38 years old. Certainly not past childbearing > age...but should we not be looking for a younger Margaret? One way to get a younger Margaret is to make a new and different guess at the year of birth for the one we have. As far as I know, the 1729 figure is pure guesswork, so adding five years would be no big deal. John Chandler