Another person has cited this stone as "Rachel Foster," but the first name, in-person, looks like "Wm" (but it's really tough to discern). I got the approximate birth year by subtracting age-at-death "62" from a year of death that looks like "1868." There was a William Foster in the 1860 census, married to Rachel; he remarried in 1869 and appears in the 1870 census with his new wife. Rachel is not in the 1870 census. This is probably Rachel (because death year is definitely 186_" and the headstone (which looks broken off at the top) indicates "wife of Wm Foster?"
Another person has cited this stone as "Rachel Foster," but the first name, in-person, looks like "Wm" (but it's really tough to discern). I got the approximate birth year by subtracting age-at-death "62" from a year of death that looks like "1868." There was a William Foster in the 1860 census, married to Rachel; he remarried in 1869 and appears in the 1870 census with his new wife. Rachel is not in the 1870 census. This is probably Rachel (because death year is definitely 186_" and the headstone (which looks broken off at the top) indicates "wife of Wm Foster?"
Gravesite Details
Headstone very degraded; the first headstone you hit upon entering cemetery.
Advertisement
Explore more
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
