Children of John and Hannah Chadwick in Watertown, Mass.

+8 votes

There are multiple records for the births of children born to John Chadwick and Hannah Chadwick in Watertown. A total of 15 births are listed in the town records,(see Mass. Town Records) with the first, Rebecca born in 1702, and the last, the twins Jonathan and David born in 1736. There are two repeats of names: John, b. 1710 and 1728; and Hannah, b. 1707 and 1722. Hannah Barstow Chadwick was born in 1679, by 1722 she was 43 years old. There is a long gap between the births of Mary in 1713 and the second Hannah in 1722. It is likely that Mary was the last of the children born this John and Hannah, and that Hannah (1722) was the first child (of nine) born to a second John and Hannah. This theory accords with Bond, who lists five children for John and Hannah Barstow Chadwick and nine children born to another John and Hannah Chadwick of Watertown, whose "lineage is not ascertained".

I would like to detach the nine children born after Mary from John and Hannah Barstow Chadwick and attach these children to a new John and Hannah Chadwick. The problem is that I can find no information about this new John and Hannah. 

WikiTree profile: John Chadwick
in Genealogy Help by Henry Chadwick G2G6 Mach 4 (49.5k points)


While that gap in birth years suggests the possibility of the death of a Hannah1, and a second marriage to a Hannah2, it's just one possibility, especially with the absence of any other documentation.

Other possibilities include:

  • There were a few stillborns in between 1713 and 1722 that did not get recorded.
  • What did the father do for a living? Was his occupation something that might have taken him away from home for awhile? (I.e., did he work on the sea?)
  • Was there any disruption in their lives during that gap? Problems with local tribes? 
Instead of detaching them, I'd leave them connected, but mark Hannah's parentage of the last nine as uncertain. At least until you get more evidence that the initial theory is accurate.
The last two children, Deavid[sic] and Jonathan (twins), were born in 1736, Hannah Barstow would have been 57 years old. I don't think that would have possible, unless, as you say, there were two Hannahs.

John was a "housewright", whatever that is, but it implies that he stayed home.
Housewrights were people who built houses. Not necessarily a stay-at-home job, but not something that would take a man away from home for years at a time.

Jillaine's advice is good. That is, be conservative. Rather than creating a new set of profiles for the hypothetical younger John and younger Hannah, use the existing profiles to document the problems with the information -- and discuss Bond's notion that this must have been a different couple. Internet genealogy has given us far too many profiles for hypothetical people; let's not add to that population.
The TAG article that I described in my "Answer" (below) provides a reasonably solid basis for creating two new profiles (after checking to make sure that the profiles aren't lurking around here already, probably from one of the huge gedcom imports in 2010 or early 2011). Verify the information from the article by looking in the Worcester vital records to see if they contain the death information I described.

The second John Chadwick was born about 1701 and died 17 July1768.
Okay. Assuming you have an exact birth year for "Hannah1," the age of mother is definitely additional evidence suggesting a different mother of at least the twins. I'd question any births to a woman over 50.

So it looks like the evidence is mounting.  I just didn't want that birth gap to be the only defining criteria.

2 Answers

+2 votes
Best answer

Have you seen the article about the Chadwicks of Watertown published in The American Genealogist (TAG) in 1954? The authors state that there were two John Chadwicks who both married women named Hannah, and that both families removed to Worcester.

They cite vital records from Worcester that have Hannah (Barstow) Chadwick dying at Worcester in May 1732 aet. 53, and her husband dying at Worcester in September 1768, aet. 86 (and they say that Bond mistakenly assigned this date to the wrong John). They did not discover the origins of the second John Chadwick and the second Hannah, but they noted that there were other Chadwick families in the colony, and they say that the younger man "is said to have been of Waltham" (no indication who said this). Significantly, they cite a death record from Worcester for a John Chadwick Jr. who died 17 July 1768, aet. 67 -- this is the younger man.

They list 7 children for the older couple, all born at Watertown; Daniel being the last. They have 11 children for the younger couple, starting with Hannah; 10 born at Watertown and one born at Worcester.

See TAG 31:72-74 for the discussion of the two Johns and their wives named Hannah.

by Ellen Smith G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)
selected by Henry Chadwick
Daniel, the youngest child of John and Hannah (Barstow) Chadwick mentioned in that article, came after Mary (the youngest child you found). The article says that he was born at Watertown on 17 Feb. 1715/16 but recorded at Attleborough, and that the record for his marriage at Roxbury on 25 May 1738 includes the names of his parents and indicates that he was born at Watertown.
Fascinating. I love this stuff.
I think that the TAG article by Boyd and McCracken is pretty definitive. I have used it before, but I didn't see the reference about the two John Chadwicks married to Hannah living in Watertown and moving to Worcester before. Thank you, Ellen, for pointing it out. Based on this, I think it is appropriate that the later children be detached and that a new John Chadwick and Hannah Unknown be created. Stranger things have happened, so I am told.
+3 votes

Division of the estate of John Chadwick Jr, died intestate, at Worcester, MA 1763:  Probate papers start abt. Oct. 1763:

Names Widow Sarah p. 19-23; Eldest son Daniel, second son Isaac, eldest daughter Lydia.Chadwick  2nd daughter Eunice, Chadwick, youngest daughter Sarah.  From the property docs, looks like a parcel went to Clerk Chandler?   P. 9-13:    Case 10633:pp. 1-31: Worcester County, MA: Probate File Papers, 1731-1881. Online database. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2015. (From records supplied by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Archives.)

Above appears to be: Worcester VR:  Marriages Chadwick John, Jr. and Sarah Johnson, Nov. 8, 1756.  Worcester Births: Isaac, s. John, Jr. and Sarah, Mar. 15, 1759.;  Sarah, d. John, Jr. and Sarah, Jan. 20, 1761.

John Chadwick, will Oct. 31, 1768: (will is not in folder)  David Chadwick, executor, Jonathan Chadwick  John Waite, signed bond. Case 10632:p. 1-3:  Worcester County, MA: Probate File Papers, 1731-1881. Online database. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2015. (From records supplied by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Archives.) 

I have no idea if any of this helps?

by Chris Hoyt G2G6 Pilot (770k points)

Related questions

+11 votes
1 answer
129 views asked Jan 25, 2015 in The Tree House by Henry Chadwick G2G6 Mach 4 (49.5k points)
+2 votes
2 answers
106 views asked Feb 7, 2019 in Genealogy Help by Henry Chadwick G2G6 Mach 4 (49.5k points)
+6 votes
2 answers
194 views asked May 28, 2016 in Genealogy Help by Henry Chadwick G2G6 Mach 4 (49.5k points)
+7 votes
1 answer
126 views asked Aug 14, 2019 in Genealogy Help by Henry Chadwick G2G6 Mach 4 (49.5k points)
+5 votes
2 answers
+3 votes
1 answer
+9 votes
2 answers
161 views asked Aug 8, 2017 in Appreciation by Pam Owens G2G6 (9.0k points)
+13 votes
2 answers
125 views asked Jun 29, 2017 in Appreciation by Jo Hollingsworth G2G6 Mach 1 (14.7k points)
+5 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright