Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Bettina:
in independent research on a Phineas Crossman of Coventry
Ct. a few years ago I bumped into Holmes/Crossman and this
became an area that has caused me some confusion.
The confusion is based on the fact that there were at least
two POTENTIAL Lydia Crossmans in the Glocester RI-
Pomfret Ct area who were potential candidates as the bride
of James Holmes of Pomfret.
Yes, One POTENTIAL candidate, of course, COULD have been
Lydia, wife of Eleazer. However, I think Another potential
candidate could have been was Lydia Shelley, wife of
Phineas Crossman of Coventry Ct. only 24 miles from Pomfret.
in re
"He [Eleazer Cros(s)man] died shortly after the birth of
the 2nd Amey,"
Is there a record that Eleazer died shortly after the birth
of the 2nd Amey (22 Mar 1764)?
Why do I ask?
There are two marriage records for Eleazer's daughters
from Arnold's Vital Records of Rhode Island. Together they
SUGGEST that Eleazer of Glocester was STILL ALIVE on Aug.
16, 1782 but then had died by Nov. 1, 1788
1)"PHILLIPS John, of David, and Lydia Crossman, of Eleazer; m. by John Smith, Justice, Aug. 16, 1782."
whereas
2)"CLEMENCE Weight, of Richard, late of Smithfield, and
Sarah Crossman, of Eleazer, LATE of Gloucester; m. by Rev.
Philemon Hines, Nov. 1, 1788.
If this interpretation is correct, then Lydia Barnes Crosman
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN the Lydia Crossman who married James
Holmes in 1778, since her husband Eleazer was INFERENTIALLY
still alive in 1778.
and then the other matter is ...
"The will of James HOLMES of Pomfret CT named his two sons, Benjamin and Joseph, as co-executors, with provisions to care for his wife, Lydia. In court of 5 April 1785, Joseph ceded all rights to the estate to his brother, Benjamin. The estate was not fully settled until 15March1797, Benjamin then giving a final accounting, as Lydia [BARNES] [CROSSMAN] HOLMES had finally died."
Is it correct to infer that [BARNES][CROSSMAN] are _your_
interpretations rather than original inclusions in the
final accounting? And that they are based on your -rather
reasonable- 'assumptions' that Mrs Holmes had been Lydia
Barnes?
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/crossman/messages/789.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|