Re: Thomas Lord m Dorothy Bird

Donna, most believe Stanton's book (written in the late 1800s, not from the 1600s) is in error here.

As noted in the opening post in this thread, by 1651-52 Dorothy the wife of Thomas Lord Sr (b 1580s) was executing contracts and deeds in her own name, which was not allowed legally if her husband was alive. So instead the Thomas Lord who was the 1st doctor in 1652 would had to have been his son.

A further angle on the evidence supports the idea it was the son mentioned there. In 1652 when appointed, if it was Thomas Sr he was becoming a doc at about age 67. Does that seem likely? But if it was the son, he would have been in his mid-30s when he became a doctor for the colony. That makes much more sense.

A final piece of evidence is that we see snippets of info referring to the profession of Thomas Sr. When he departed England in the 1630s, his profession was listed as "smith." In Hartford he was a merchant and co-owned a mill with land located on the river. We see the Lord family representing the colony with the Indians. But Thomas Sr is never cited as a doctor.

The last mention we see of Thomas Sr in the records prior to his wife executing business was in 1644. From the outset he was prominent in the colony and then suddenly he no longer appears; so we logically conclude he died in the mid-to-late 1640's. In 1644 he would have been nearing 60, and at that age or so maybe he succumbed to some sort of age-related fatality, or perhaps in the major flu epidemic of 1646-47.

As for why he isn't in the records, and why we don't have his grave actually marked, there are lots of guesses. He had at least two sons who were sea captains and traders (and those trips were most likely to England, Barbados, West Indies, Virginia Colony, etc in their trade routes), and there's always the possibility he could have gone on a trip and died somewhere along the way.

Stanton apparently mistakes the father and son when he calls Thomas Sr a doctor.