BRADFORD-L Archives

From: adam bradford <>
Subject: Re: [BRADFORD-L] Samuel Bradford's wife "Sarah" Fitzgerald
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:53:25 -0400
References: <1dd.3dd91f4d.2fc479af@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <1dd.3dd91f4d.2fc479af@aol.com>

Hi Jean,

That's certainly possible. But I'm not even convinced we can be sure
Sarah was Samuel's first born daughter. It seems that the only proof
of birth order is Samuel Hancock's letter of 1886, but he never stated
they were born in that order. It's just the order in which he listed
them - and he was writing a century later. Even if the birth order is
correct, Samuel and his first wife may have had previous daughters who
didn't survive.

This occurred to me when I searched for Fitzgeralds in Worcester and
Somerset counties in the first half of the 18th cenury. I essentially
found just one family. On the tax lists of Somerset County there is
just a single Fitzgerald listed named Peter. He died in the 1730s,
leaving three daughters (I don't have my notes readily available, so I
can't give their names just now - but none of them are named Sarah).
Assuming we're back at square one on the given name of Samuel's first
wife, one of these three Fitzgerald daughters seems like the best
candidate for being Samuel's first wife. It could be significant that
Samuel's second son was named Peter - perhaps after his maternal
grandfather.

- Adam


On 5/24/05, <> wrote:
> Adam, do you think the supposition was made that Samuel Bradford's first
> wife's name was Sarah because the first-named daughter was named Sarah?
>
> Sarah Bradford Price Long Hancock and Daniel Hancock were my great, great,
> great grandparents.
>
> Jean Alexander
>
>
> ==== BRADFORD Mailing List ====
> Come visit the Genealogy Depository at http://www.gendepository.com
>
>

This thread:

• Samuel Bradford's wife "Sarah" Fitzgerald by

  • Re: [BRADFORD-L] Samuel Bradford's wife "Sarah" Fitzgerald by adam bradford <>