Thanks for the quick reply!!!I have interspersed a few questions into your reply.These are not meant to be questions of teh criticism type, but rather clarifications where I have alternative info (and believe me, I don't always believe my "alternative info!!!)
Make that triply related, since Luman Orcutt, the grandson of Stephen and Mary Washburn Orcutt (through John) marries Martha A. Washburn...
Question 1:The genealogy of Florence Julia Brown (a source I have found other errors in) has her as Martha Ann Washington.By any chance to you have a source for the Washburn last name (it would seem to fit better since it seems that Orcutts and Washburns are highly inter-marroed from Bridgewater/Hingham/Scituate on down).
You are correct in saying that William (1793) was NOT the s/o Stephen and Mary. I think the post I wrote was written a few moons ago and I've since "repented" and removed William from this family.
Comment 1: It was written about 6 months ago, so I dis expect "updates", so I was really looking for clarification or other sources. ;)
I have the William I cited (b. Jan 1793) as the s/o William and Anna ? Orcutt from the William Orcutt, Jr. line: (William, William Jr., David, David Jr., William (1793)). There's no hard proof of this match-up, but it's the best guess and I've worked this line pretty hard since realizing I had William misplaced. There are no other Orcutts in the area that would qualify as possible parents. William (1793) is with William and Anna in 1850. The challenge becomes attaching the father William (1771) to a parent. I looked at all the possibilities and having him as the s/o David Jr. and Mabel Johnson Orcutt is the best fit.
Okay, here I cite the genealogy of Florence Julia Brown which proves basically nothing, but may shed a little light...
Walter Brown has the last child of David, Jr. and Mabel born about 1776, 17 years before William, b, 1793 with noone in between.If we place William, Jr. with William, b. 1771, there is very little place for William (1771) between Walter Brown's placement of Jeursha (b. 1769), Hannah, David (no birth dates given) and Sarah (b. 1773).Assuming he got the order correctly of course...always a possibilit he screwed up the order and there is a place for William.
This, of course, leads to William and Hannah (Newton or Smith). It's a confusing call and I tend to believe you're correct in that Hannah Smith was William's second and last wife. The problem is the Bridgewater records show the third marriage to a Hannah Newton. I agree that, since Hannah Smith died in 1751 that it would be more likely that William would have stayed with her versus remarrying.
One other thought...I always thought that the commute time for William Orcutt to "woo" Hannah Newton was a little long for that timeframe.Assumiing horseback, we're talking close to a day on eway aren't we?Musta been heck to work the farm and qoo a girl that far away. ;)If I have my distances off, I am sure someone will correct me.
I do have contradictory information on Caleb, though. Since Caleb was born in 1690, it would be more prudent that Caleb was the s/o William and Jane Washburn Orcutt, William's first wife. She died bef. 1698 and William remarried to Hannah Smith, with whom he had Deliverance, Jane, Martha, David and Moses. With Jane he had Joanna, Caleb and Elizabeth.
I have Caleb born in 1718 (though it was probably a touch earlier), but I didn't source this birth, so I am not wedded to it.Also, weren't William and Jane Washburn married circa 1695, with Joanna and William born shortly thereafter, leaving Caleb possibly born after the wedding of William and Hannah?Just a thought...sigh...why couldn;t the Orcutts be more like the Washburns, Edsons and Keiths and baptize all their kids ;)
On a side note, Caleb (1690) presents an incredible challenge because he's the least documented of the Orcutts in that area and time frame. Personally, I believe that many Orcutt mysteries would be solved if we nailed down his line.
Thanks for the reply and keeping me on my toes!
ME---->Thanks for the reply..I tried to add HTML to set your comments off, but it doesn't work...oh well...