MAESSEX-L Archives

Archiver > MAESSEX > 2005-01 > 1104586568


From: "Bruce Lord" <>
Subject: Re: [MAESSEX] Question
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:36:08 -0500
References: <000301c4ef6c$7d8ff7b0$e7132d44@Cass> <41D5B8BC.6060303@ix.netcom.com> <6.2.0.14.0.20041231160158.04711dc8@pop.erols.com> <41D5F876.8030402@ix.netcom.com>


Numbers of individuals were not always added by Town Clerks in most
instances. I n the case of the Vital Records (tan books) the numbers were
often added by the persons compiling the information. Also the clerk or
recorder would use the numbers to distinguish names in the same generation
even if not of the same parentage. Within families numbers were often
indefinite because of the death of a child. That could either cause a
number to beused without a living person or a number being used twice
because of a dead one. Family Bibles were more accurate because they were a
more complete line.
This is simply another case where a rule does not always work because of the
human element.
Bruce W. Lord

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Nelson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MAESSEX] Question


> Steve,
>
> This increase in the number stikes me as unusual. Usually an older person
> dies and all the others decrease a number. What would cause the number of
> a specific individual to increase? Someone new moving into town? Did the
> city clerk keep track of the ages of these men?
>
> Diana
>
> Steve Gauss wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> One correction to what Steve said. The numbers with names do not refer
>>> to relationships, necessarily, just the 3rd or 4th of that name in town.
>>> Also applies to Jr - not necessarily the son of Sr. (There is a case in
>>> Maine where the parents gave 2 sons the same name and one is Sr. and the
>>> other Jr.) With 3 Williams born so close together, it can be tricky to
>>> figure out who is who. Death of one can "promote" the others to lower
>>> numbers. Or in this case a higher number (3rd at marriage, 4th at death
>>> of the ch.)
>>
>>
>> Yes, you are correct and I should have mentioned that. But it is not the
>> only possibility. Since there are no other clues, it is worth
>> investigating that the father was also William. I should have pointed out
>> that there is a William 4th mentioned, but it could be the same person as
>> the 3rd, depending on who died when.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


This thread: