In the foregoing query, I mentioned a THEORY that the mother of Christopher Whitford might have been named Marbury (i.e., Meribah, an old New England female name with Biblical origins; those Puritans and early Baptists really liked those Biblical names).It is established (by the 1791 Will of Christopher's uncle Ezekiel Whitford) that Christopher's father was a Nicholas Whitford.So is there any evidence of a married couple by the name of Nicholas and Marbury (maiden name unknown) Whitford?Yes, there is.
In 1979, Alden G. Beaman published an article entitled "A Line of Descent from Pasco Whitford of East Greenwich" in the Rhode Island Genealogical Register (a periodical, I believe).In it, he stated, "Nicholas [Whitford], b ca 1708; administration of estate 14 Sep 1762 at Exeter; mar Marbary __________ b ca 1712 who administered his estate."
How reliable is this information?I personally believe that there must be some record in Rhode Island of a 1762administration of the estate of Nicholas Whitford, as referred to, and that the administratrix was a woman named "Marbary" Whitford.Please note that Beaman did NOT cite a Last Will or mention what any such Will might have stated.Did a Will exist, or did this Nicholas Whitford die intestate?
Beaman acknowledged in his article that many of the birth dates included in his article were estimates only, and some of them "rough".Apparently Beaman did not find a record with any specific date of birth for this Nicholas, so how accurate is his estimate of 1708?Did Beaman simply guesstimate that Nicholas was over 50 at the time of his death?Did Beaman believe that this Nicholas was a son of Pasco and Lydia (possibly nee Bly), and therefore must have been born before Lydia was 42 or so?Beaman estimated that Lydia (possibly Bly) Whitford was born about 1676 and so, under his estimate, the last of her children would have been born no later than 1718, when she would have been about 42.Therefore, it is possible, even under Beaman's theory, that this Nicholas was born as late as 1718 rather than in 1708.But Beaman's guesstimates are certainly open to question.
Beaman inferred that the administratrix, "Marbary" Whitford, was the widow of Nicholas, and this seems to be a resaonable inference.If, as Beaman guesstimated, this Marbary was born about 1712, then she could have borne children as late as about 1754, when she would have been about 42.Christopher was born between about 1753 and 1756.Is it possible that this Nicholas and Marbary were the parents of Christopher, and that Christopher named his first daughter after his mother?The biological limits seem to make my THEORY just barely possible.
If Marbary and Nicholas were born somewhat later than Beaman estimated, say Nicholas as late as 1716 (within the biological limits for Lydia, his theoretical mother), and this Marbary perhaps about 1718-1720, then the possibility that they were parents of Christopher is more safely within the biological limits for Marbary.
Beaman has proposed that Pasco and Lydia (possibly Bly) Whitford had seven sons and one daughter.Beaman referred to the "inventory" in 1727 of Pasco's estate, but did NOT mention a Last Will that specified who Pasco's children were.Therefore, what is the evidence that these seven men and one woman were indeed Pasco's children?
As evidence that Pasco's wife's first name was indeed Lydia, Beaman cited the North Kingstown Land Evidence Records (similar to Deed Books in other jurisdicitons).In a deed dated 24 December 1709, Pasco and Lydia transferred "to son Paskee the farm where I now dwell, 110 acres, bounded on west by N. W. line, (Perraquamscutt Line.) north on road out of the Country, and goes to the great plane, east on Othoniel Tripp, S.E. on Cousins brook, full possession given after his natural life, provided my son Paskee gives to my son John -- pounds when he shall be one and twenty."Thus, there is evidence that Pasco and Lydia had a son Pasco who was over 21 in 1709 (so born in/before 1688) and a son John who was under 21 in 1709 (so born after 1688).Despite this evidence, however, Beaman guesstimated that Pasco's and Lydia's son Pasco was born in 1694, at least six years too late.This conclusion also has implications for the estimated birth of Pasco, husband of Lydia.If he had a son Pasco born in/before 1688, then surely Pasco himself was born in/before 1668 (and not as late as 1674, as Beaman guesstimates).Similarly, if Lydia (possibly Bly) Whitford was at least 18 at the birth of son Pasco (in/before 1688), then she would have been born in/before 1670, and would have ended her childbearing by about 1712 (or before).
Some researhers suggest that Pasco and Lydia (possibly Bly) Whitford had a son named Daniel Whitford, which would be logical IF Lydia was indeed the daughter of Daniel Bly.Beaman, however, did not include any son Daniel.
The point is that Beaman's estimates should NOT be taken as "Gospel" but should be examined and questioned as additional evidence has become available in the 30 years since he published his article.
I would propose, as a THEORY in the alternative to Beaman's, that the Nicholas who married Marbary and who died in 1762 was NOT born in 1708 and was NOT the son of Pasco and Lydia, but perhaps their grandson.I would propose that this Nicholas, his brother Ezekiel and his sister Mary (all established by the 1791 Last Will of Ezekiel), were children of some son of this Pasco and Lydia.
Many researchers subscribe to the theory that Christopher's father, Nicholas, was the son of Ezekiel and Mary (Stafford) Whitford, and this Ezekiel was quite possibly a son of Pasco and Lydia (according to Beaman).Beaman has estimated that this Ezekiel was born about 1702, but that his wife, Mary Stafford, daugter of Joseph and Sarah (Holden) Stafford, was likely born no later than 1697 (on pretty flimsy evidence; she could have been born even earlier, as her mother, Sarah (Holden) Stafford was born in 1758).A safer estimate would make Ezekiel at least as old as, if not as much as five years older than his wife.Therefore, this Ezekiel was likely born in or before 1697 (and he died in 1741, so if he lived to 50, he might have been born as early as 1691).Therefore, this Ezekiel and Mary (Stafford) Whitford might have had children starting in about 1718, and they could have had a son Nicholas, who married Marbary and then had Christopher.
If anyone sees flaws in the inferences and/or logic here, or if anyone has evidence to support or refute this THEORY, please contact me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org.