no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Elizabeth (Pierce) Mixer (1665 - 1737)

Elizabeth Mixer formerly Pierce aka Peirce
Born in Groton, Middlesex, Massachusetts Bay Colonymap
Ancestors ancestors
Wife of — married 17 Oct 1684 (to 1725) in Watertown, Middlesex, Massachusetts Bay Colonymap
[children unknown]
Died at age 71 in Groton, Middlesex, Massachusetts Bay Colonymap
Profile last modified | Created 20 Jan 2015
This page has been accessed 1,019 times.

Biography

Elizabeth Pierce Mixer Smith was born 16 May 1665 in Groton, Middlesex, Massachusetts, the daughter of Daniel Pierce and Elizabeth Shedd

She died in 1737 in Groton.

Marriage

Isaac Mixer married Elizabeth Pierce on 17 October 1684 in Watertown, Massachusetts.[1][2]

Will dated 12 Feb 1736-7 mentions

  • her father Daniel Peirce
  • brother Joseph Peirce
  • Elizabeth, wife of Ebenezer Gale of Oxford
  • "my cousin" (nephew) Issac Peirce

NOTE: Many online sources suggest Elizabeth (Pierce) Smith (abt.1665-aft.1719) and Elizabeth (Pierce) Mixer (1665-1737) are the same person. This is illogical as the Elizabeth born and died in Groton, MA who married Isaac Mixer became a widow in 1823/5, so she could not have married in New Jersey in 1692.

Sources

  1. New England Marriages to 1700. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2008.) Originally published as: New England Marriages Prior to 1700. Boston, Mass.: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2015. https://www.americanancestors.org/DB1568/i/21175/1048/426896692
  2. New England Marriages to 1700. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2008.) Originally published as: New England Marriages Prior to 1700. Boston, Mass.: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2015. https://www.americanancestors.org/DB1568/i/21175/1048/42689669




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

DNA
No known carriers of Elizabeth's ancestors' DNA have taken a DNA test.

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



Comments: 12

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
I added mixer in as first husband. The sources need to be organized. This may not prove to be true, but seems entirely plausible. I think organizing them as one will make it easier to see what does and doesntwork.
posted by Susan Fitzmaurice
Pierce-12605 and Pierce-4973 appear to represent the same person because: These two people sure look like the same person
posted by Thomas (Beaber) Colber
Agree with Whitney; Daniel Pierce's Elizabeth was born May 16, 1665 in Groton and and is listed in Daniel's will as Elizabeth Mixer.
posted by Jill (Neibaur) Olson
I think this profile is a mix of Elizabeth Pierces. It's unlikely she is the child of Daniel and Elizabeth (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pierce-12605), who married Isaac Mixer. Daniel's will lists Elizabeth Mixer. See the bio on https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/182390546/elizabeth-smith If she was really born in NJ, then this is definitely the child of other Pierce/Peirce.

I think this one is still mixed up too, but more sourcing - https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LDVP-JQP

posted by Whitney Rapp
Pierce-6056 and Pierce-4973 appear to represent the same person because: There was only one Elizabeth Pierce, they are the same person.
posted by Ellen Gustafson
Daughter born 11 years after mother? Seems unlikely....Also, spouse Samuel Smith on this profile is the same as on the other Elizabeth Pierce profile...Pierce-6056. If the two Elizabeth's are not the same person, this Samuel should probably be removed from this profile.
Both resources cited were once available online. The Myers books was accessible fully until a few years ago.
posted by Susan Fitzmaurice
One source is not available, so the only source is the family records.
posted by Ellen Gustafson
Pierce-4973 and Pierce-6056 will continue to be considered for merging, unless sources can be found to prove otherwise. They came up again because of the husband’s merge.
posted by [Living Poole]
Pierce-4973 and Pierce-6056 will continue to be considered for merging, unless sources can be found to prove otherwise. They came up again because of the husband’s merge.
posted by [Living Poole]
Pierce-4973 and Pierce-6056 do not represent the same person because: Multiple difference. Different birthdates and places. Children differ and are cited credibly.
posted by Susan Fitzmaurice
Pierce-4973 and Pierce-6056 appear to represent the same person because: Similar birth, death; same spouse
posted by Cari (Ebert) Starosta

P  >  Pierce  |  M  >  Mixer  >  Elizabeth (Pierce) Mixer