MAFRANKL-L Archives

Archiver > MAFRANKL > 2009-01 > 1231635946


From: "Diane Carson" <>
Subject: Re: [MAFRANKL] Dr. Robert Burnet 1697-1790
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:05:46 -0500
References: <1231619671.517139@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <1231619671.517139@rootsweb.com>


I am looking for information on the family and descendants of Austin Edward
Marshall (13 July 1899-23 July 1967). He had siblings named Lily, Rose,
Lottie (Charlotte),Hattie and George. In 1910 they lived on 15 East Main
Street, in Orange, Franklin Co. Mass. Austin was my maternal grandfather and
I am desperate to find information on him and his family. I have very
little. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much.
Diane Carson


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 3:35 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [MAFRANKL] Dr. Robert Burnet 1697-1790

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.

Author: jamarshall147
Surnames:
Classification: queries

Message Board URL:

http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.massachusetts.count
ies.franklin/2232.3/mb.ashx

Message Board Post:

Cliff,

I found a few differences between your information and mine. Most are
minor. Is your family information from a Bible? Or is it a compiled
genealogy done by a family member? Whenever possible, I have consulted
vital records and other documentation from the time.

A marriage record in Middleton vital records says that Robert Burnett
(spelled Burnate) and Anna Wilkins were married 19 February 1734/35 in
Middleton, Mass. (Not Warwick). So that explains and answers your question
about why they had children listed in Middleton if they lived in Warwick.

However, as you noted, Sarah Burnett, daughter of Robert and Anna, is listed
as being born 12 November 1734 in Middleton. I have often wondered whether
the dates are correct on both of these. If so, Sarah would have been born
before their marriage. The birth listing in the VR does say she is daughter
of Robert and Anna. As do the listings for both sons named Henry.

I have done research in land records as well as vital records. Due to this,
I have the following places of residence and dates for Robert Burnett and
his family. These are based on his purchases of property and whether those
deeds said he was "of" a certain place, and also on some birth, marriage,
and death information of his children:

Middleton c1734-c1741
Sutton c1741-c1760
Oxford c1760-1763
Warwick c1763-

-- By the way, I don't know why your records show Anna dying in Middleton.
Is there documentation for this? The only possibility I can see for that is
if she were visiting relatives in Middleton when she died. I would think
that she died in one of the other towns listed above. I've never found a
death record for her. She was alive as least as late as 1753, because she
is the mother of Archibald, according to the entry for his birth in the
Sutton vital records.

About Anna's age when she gave birth to Archibald, I have puzzled about that
a bit... but when I've looked at the vital records I've seen a possibility.
I don't know whether it is true or not. Henry Wilkins and his wife Sarah
did have a daughter born 27 May 1704 in Boxford, but her name is not listed
in the birth entry. However, they did have a daughter Anna who was baptised
in 1706, so one can assume that this was the daughter born in 1704.

But, there is also another possibility for Anna. There is an entry in the
published vital records for Boxford that says "[Ha]nnah, d. Hannery and
Sarey, 4 Jan 170__[1708-9 B. C.]." The items in brackets were inserted by
the person who transcribed the records into book form, I believe. The
record was probably torn in that place. So, let's just say that the first
name could have been Annah just as well as Hannah. Also, there is a baptism
for Anna, daughter of Henry Wilkins, jr. [this was the correct Henry], on 3
July 1709 in Salem, which was not far from Boxford. So since Henry had two
different daughters named Anna baptised, I believe that the one baptised in
1706 may have died young and then this one baptised in 1709 was the same
daughter born 4 January 1708/09. If this is the case, that means that when
Archibald Burnett was born, his mother would have been 44 years old, which
is within the range of probability. Archibald was the youngest child. As
you mentioned, th!
ough, the earlier birth date is also possible.

There are still many questions, and the information above does not give
completely definitive answers. But nothing is definitive in genealogical
research. You may wish to look at the vital records yourself.

Jerilyn

Important Note:
The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would
like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and
respond on the board.




-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: