Married by 1642 Martha Fosdick, daughter of STEPHEN FOSDICK {1635, Charlestown}. She died at Watertown on 6 December 1681.
They had ten children: Stephen, Justinian, Martha Boyden, Mary Williams, John, Samuel, Stephen again, Elizabeth Reed, & Thomas.
There are interesting problems in attempting to establish the birth order for the children of Richard Holden. The first three children are quite firmly placed, with births for Stephen and Martha and a deposition for Justinian. Mary married in 1666, and so would seem to be well-placed as the next child, born say 1648. However, we observe the interesting evidence of the deeds of 19 July and 25 July 1679, in which the children are named in the same sequence, which at the beginning at least conforms with what we know of the elder children. The Stephen who was born in 1642 was long dead by 1679, but both these deeds give Justinian and Martha as the first two children.
At this point, though, we find next in the sequence of grantors in these deeds son Samuel and not daughter Mary. Samuel is said to have died in 1739 aged 89, and so born about 1650, which creates a number of anomalies. First, it conflicts with the birth record of John at Woburn, 17 March 1650, which is most likely 17 March 1650/1. Second, if the sequence of grantors in the deeds has any meaning, and if Samuel were born in 1650, then Mary could not have been born any earlier than 1652, which would make her only fourteen at marriage, not a very likely sequence of events.
Samuel married by 1682, based on the date of birth of his first child, and on this basis we would place his birth at about 1657 (although this would conflict with the estimated birth for Sarah, who married in 1677). But Eben Putnam tells us that John Holden, son of Richard, was aged 22 in 1679 (and so born about 1657), but uncharacteristically does not identify the document for us, citing instead another secondary source.
At this point we conclude that the published record of birth for John may be defective, either for the name or for the date, and that the sequence of grantors in the 1679 deeds cannot be reconciled with the other evidence in hand. As a consequence, we have arranged the children using our usual criteria, where necessary generating estimated dates of birth based on dates of marriage or estimated dates of marriage, and also assuming, pending further exploration of the evidence, that the published date of birth for John is correct (since we cannot tell just how it might be wrong). Many other arrangements of the children are possible; some of the conflicts might be relieved by proposing a set of twins here or there, but this is not usually a desirable way of proceeding. Further research on the ages of the later children should help resolve some of these difficulties.
A death date for her as Dec 6,1681 at Watertown,MA may be found in Bond, p.301.
They had ten children: Stephen, Justinian, Martha Boyden, Mary Williams, John, Samuel, Stephen again, Elizabeth Reed, & Thomas.
There are interesting problems in attempting to establish the birth order for the children of Richard Holden. The first three children are quite firmly placed, with births for Stephen and Martha and a deposition for Justinian. Mary married in 1666, and so would seem to be well-placed as the next child, born say 1648. However, we observe the interesting evidence of the deeds of 19 July and 25 July 1679, in which the children are named in the same sequence, which at the beginning at least conforms with what we know of the elder children. The Stephen who was born in 1642 was long dead by 1679, but both these deeds give Justinian and Martha as the first two children.
At this point, though, we find next in the sequence of grantors in these deeds son Samuel and not daughter Mary. Samuel is said to have died in 1739 aged 89, and so born about 1650, which creates a number of anomalies. First, it conflicts with the birth record of John at Woburn, 17 March 1650, which is most likely 17 March 1650/1. Second, if the sequence of grantors in the deeds has any meaning, and if Samuel were born in 1650, then Mary could not have been born any earlier than 1652, which would make her only fourteen at marriage, not a very likely sequence of events.
Samuel married by 1682, based on the date of birth of his first child, and on this basis we would place his birth at about 1657 (although this would conflict with the estimated birth for Sarah, who married in 1677). But Eben Putnam tells us that John Holden, son of Richard, was aged 22 in 1679 (and so born about 1657), but uncharacteristically does not identify the document for us, citing instead another secondary source.
At this point we conclude that the published record of birth for John may be defective, either for the name or for the date, and that the sequence of grantors in the 1679 deeds cannot be reconciled with the other evidence in hand. As a consequence, we have arranged the children using our usual criteria, where necessary generating estimated dates of birth based on dates of marriage or estimated dates of marriage, and also assuming, pending further exploration of the evidence, that the published date of birth for John is correct (since we cannot tell just how it might be wrong). Many other arrangements of the children are possible; some of the conflicts might be relieved by proposing a set of twins here or there, but this is not usually a desirable way of proceeding. Further research on the ages of the later children should help resolve some of these difficulties.
A death date for her as Dec 6,1681 at Watertown,MA may be found in Bond, p.301.
Married by 1642 Martha Fosdick, daughter of STEPHEN FOSDICK {1635, Charlestown}. She died at Watertown on 6 December 1681.
They had ten children: Stephen, Justinian, Martha Boyden, Mary Williams, John, Samuel, Stephen again, Elizabeth Reed, & Thomas.
There are interesting problems in attempting to establish the birth order for the children of Richard Holden. The first three children are quite firmly placed, with births for Stephen and Martha and a deposition for Justinian. Mary married in 1666, and so would seem to be well-placed as the next child, born say 1648. However, we observe the interesting evidence of the deeds of 19 July and 25 July 1679, in which the children are named in the same sequence, which at the beginning at least conforms with what we know of the elder children. The Stephen who was born in 1642 was long dead by 1679, but both these deeds give Justinian and Martha as the first two children.
At this point, though, we find next in the sequence of grantors in these deeds son Samuel and not daughter Mary. Samuel is said to have died in 1739 aged 89, and so born about 1650, which creates a number of anomalies. First, it conflicts with the birth record of John at Woburn, 17 March 1650, which is most likely 17 March 1650/1. Second, if the sequence of grantors in the deeds has any meaning, and if Samuel were born in 1650, then Mary could not have been born any earlier than 1652, which would make her only fourteen at marriage, not a very likely sequence of events.
Samuel married by 1682, based on the date of birth of his first child, and on this basis we would place his birth at about 1657 (although this would conflict with the estimated birth for Sarah, who married in 1677). But Eben Putnam tells us that John Holden, son of Richard, was aged 22 in 1679 (and so born about 1657), but uncharacteristically does not identify the document for us, citing instead another secondary source.
At this point we conclude that the published record of birth for John may be defective, either for the name or for the date, and that the sequence of grantors in the 1679 deeds cannot be reconciled with the other evidence in hand. As a consequence, we have arranged the children using our usual criteria, where necessary generating estimated dates of birth based on dates of marriage or estimated dates of marriage, and also assuming, pending further exploration of the evidence, that the published date of birth for John is correct (since we cannot tell just how it might be wrong). Many other arrangements of the children are possible; some of the conflicts might be relieved by proposing a set of twins here or there, but this is not usually a desirable way of proceeding. Further research on the ages of the later children should help resolve some of these difficulties.
A death date for her as Dec 6,1681 at Watertown,MA may be found in Bond, p.301.
They had ten children: Stephen, Justinian, Martha Boyden, Mary Williams, John, Samuel, Stephen again, Elizabeth Reed, & Thomas.
There are interesting problems in attempting to establish the birth order for the children of Richard Holden. The first three children are quite firmly placed, with births for Stephen and Martha and a deposition for Justinian. Mary married in 1666, and so would seem to be well-placed as the next child, born say 1648. However, we observe the interesting evidence of the deeds of 19 July and 25 July 1679, in which the children are named in the same sequence, which at the beginning at least conforms with what we know of the elder children. The Stephen who was born in 1642 was long dead by 1679, but both these deeds give Justinian and Martha as the first two children.
At this point, though, we find next in the sequence of grantors in these deeds son Samuel and not daughter Mary. Samuel is said to have died in 1739 aged 89, and so born about 1650, which creates a number of anomalies. First, it conflicts with the birth record of John at Woburn, 17 March 1650, which is most likely 17 March 1650/1. Second, if the sequence of grantors in the deeds has any meaning, and if Samuel were born in 1650, then Mary could not have been born any earlier than 1652, which would make her only fourteen at marriage, not a very likely sequence of events.
Samuel married by 1682, based on the date of birth of his first child, and on this basis we would place his birth at about 1657 (although this would conflict with the estimated birth for Sarah, who married in 1677). But Eben Putnam tells us that John Holden, son of Richard, was aged 22 in 1679 (and so born about 1657), but uncharacteristically does not identify the document for us, citing instead another secondary source.
At this point we conclude that the published record of birth for John may be defective, either for the name or for the date, and that the sequence of grantors in the 1679 deeds cannot be reconciled with the other evidence in hand. As a consequence, we have arranged the children using our usual criteria, where necessary generating estimated dates of birth based on dates of marriage or estimated dates of marriage, and also assuming, pending further exploration of the evidence, that the published date of birth for John is correct (since we cannot tell just how it might be wrong). Many other arrangements of the children are possible; some of the conflicts might be relieved by proposing a set of twins here or there, but this is not usually a desirable way of proceeding. Further research on the ages of the later children should help resolve some of these difficulties.
A death date for her as Dec 6,1681 at Watertown,MA may be found in Bond, p.301.
Family Members
Advertisement
Explore more
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
