Re: Benjamin Colclough (1600 Descendants)
-
In reply to:
Re: Benjamin Colclough (1600 Descendants)
Berkley Hampton 11/28/01
Hi Burke,
Thanks for responding :)
I agree - a 9 year-old bride is rare. I think Benjamin's birthyear of 1669 and Rachel's birthyear of 1678 will turn out to be very close to correct. I have always had trouble with the arrangement of dates for the early generations. If you look at the Ancestral File for them (Benjamin COLCLOUGH (AFN: CVLR-9Q); Rachel MNU (AFN: CVLR-BW)), you will see that it shows them married 1715, but having children Margaret and Jane prior to marriage. This is unlikely, as are the ages of 46 (for Benjamin) and 37 (for Rachel) at marriage. I suspect their marriage more likely was around 1700. I don't think the births of most of their children were recorded, so the dates are (wild) approximations. The birthyear of the daughter Rachel could be just as easily 1711. I don't have dates for births of any of the kids of the daughter Rachel (Colclough) Bowling which would make it impossible for her to have been born 1711-ish. I only have the birth of her daughter, Priscilla, born 07 Mar 1731/32.
So this bring up a rather curious point. I have Priscilla born 1731/32, but you have her married to a man born 1744. I think this is also rare.
As far as the earlier generations of Colclough, I can not say a lot other than wild speculation, but I think I can say that Benjamin Colclough (b. 1669) could not be the grandson of Matthew Colclough. Matthew was married and already had a child by 1563, making his birthyear probably earlier than 1542. So for that line to work, you would have to have, at best, two successive generations where the father was in his 60s. And I think Matthew was more likely born around 1520. So I don't think this line is likely.
Cheers, -gb-
[email protected]