no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Mary (Baker) Brundage (abt. 1698 - abt. 1757)

Mary Brundage formerly Baker
Born about in White Plains, Westchester, Colony of New Yorkmap
Daughter of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Wife of — married 1741 [location unknown]
Descendants descendants
Died about at about age 59 in Salem, Westchester County, Colony of New Yorkmap
Problems/Questions Profile manager: Lewis Ward private message [send private message]
Profile last modified | Created 25 Aug 2011
This page has been accessed 808 times.

Biography

Mary Baker is listed in various online family trees as born about 1698/1699 in White Plains, Westchester, New York. A source for this is not identified.

Her parents are not known. She had a brother Jonathan Baker.[1]

Mary Baker married John Brundage.[1]

She was living at the time that John wrote his will on 12 Sept 1751 in Northcastle, New York. He identified his wife Mary and his brother-in-law Jonathan Baker as his executors.[1]

Children of John and Mary were son Thomas and daughters Mary, Tamer and Marianne, according to John's 1751 Will.[1]

Research Notes

Original profile listed date of death as 9 Jan 1812 in Salem, Washington, New York. However that is highly unlikely for this Mary born about 1699, and is probably for a daughter or other descendant with same name.

Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 "Early Wills of Westchester County, New York from 1664 to 1784", by William S Pelletreau. (Francis Harper, New York, 1898). p.117, Will of John Brundage, Northcastle, dated 12 Sept 1751, proved 21 Oct 1751. Google Books
  • WikiTree profile Baker-3989 created through the import of Johnson Family Tree 2011-08-24.ged on Aug 24, 2011 by Rosemary Palermo.




Is Mary your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message the profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Mary by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA. However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line. It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Mary:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 9

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Baker-37726 and Baker-3989 appear to represent the same person because: Same name, born same place and time (within uncertainties), married same husband, died in same place (one profile lists after 1751, other 1757 although not sourced). These are duplicate profiles for the wife of John Brundage and should be merged. Remaining uncertainties can then be discussed in the merged profile.
posted by Paul Gierszewski
Profile Manager - since this is not your direct relative and there are so many reasons to think the data is inaccurate, you might want to remove as much as possible. Perhaps at some time in the future more direct evidence will be available to validate the details.
posted by Cathi (Ray) Stark
Baker-37726 and Baker-3989 do not represent the same person because: The proposed merger of Mary Baker Brundage and Mary Baker was rejected because much of the information in the profile of Baker-3989 referred to Mary Baker Brundages daughter Mary Brundage who died in January 1812.
posted by Lewis Ward
Baker-37726 and Baker-3989 appear to represent the same person because: Parents removed from Baker-3989. Profiles have same dates and husband, so merge should proceed. Daughter Mary is duplicated, but Mary, born 1767 is probably not correctly linked to this family because her birthdate probably makes mother too old.
Baker-37726 and Baker-3989 are not ready to be merged because: too many warnings to proceed
posted by Teresa Downey
Baker-37726 and Baker-3989 appear to represent the same person because: take the info from Backer-37726
posted by Teresa Downey
This is a completely incorrect person. First of all Joshua Brundage and Hannah Coe lived in 1700s. Their daughter Mary was born 1775. The Ancestry trees from which Mary Baker were taken are completely wrong. This was done many years ago when I first began doing genealogy. She should be deleted until further info is located.
posted by [Living Johnson]
added sourcing to 'Joshua' Brundage profile when merge done, Some of that sourcing added to Research notes in this profile. Parents removed, but IDs are in Research Notes.
Please check dates due to the age of the person. Thank you.

B  >  Baker  |  B  >  Brundage  >  Mary (Baker) Brundage