Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   
THE FAY FAMILY PAGE

GENEALOGIES
   
Hannah Fay (born 10/15/1785)
And her Descendants
  
   
John Fay
   
David (OPF #6) (4/23/1679-4/10/1738) son of John and Susanna Shattuck
   
Robert (OPF #8) (7/20/1715 - 12/19/1820) son of David and Sarah Larkin
   
David (OPF #63) (3/5/1755 - 5/7/1806) son of Robert and Elizabeth Joslin
   
Hannah (OPF p. 233) (10/15/1785 - ) daughter of David and Jane Ward
Orlin writes, "Hannah, b. Oct. 15, 1785, m. William Chamberlain." Both Hannah's birth, and her marriage at Hopkinton on August 17, 1803, are recorded in the Records of Southborough.

Repeated searches have not found the birth records of any children. The only mention found so far is in the death records of Southborough: "Nathanel, s. William and Hannah, Nov. 28, 1845, a. 26. Consumption." Nathaniel's line can be followed a little further (see below).
detail from 1831 map by Anthony Finley
image copyright 2003 by Cartography Associates
used with permission
   
return to index for David and Jane Ward
Descendants of Nathaniel Chamberlain
(Sixth Generation)
   
Nathaniel was born about 1819 in Southborough, and died there November 28, 1845. On September 30, 1840 (thus after the 1840 census), he married Anise (Annis, Annise, Anice) Newton, who was born September 15, 1821, daughter of Hezekiah and Lucy Newton. They had two children: Emely Laurentini, born August 3, 1842, and Eugene A., born April 3, 1845. By 1846, Annis is a widow, and in 1850 she and the two children are staying with her mother Lucy Newton.

Annis is still in Southborough in 1870, working as a housekeeper just a few doors away from her son Eugene A., who is now married to Emma E. Woods. Emma is 22 in 1870.

Eugene also died young, for by 1880, Emma is widowed and back with her parents Curtis and Dolly Newton Woods. She has one small daughter, Mary C. Chamberlain, born about 1871.

It is not known what happened to this line after this.
   
   
Descendants of Hannah Fay and William Chamberlain
(Fifth Generation)
   
Looking just at the census records below, we can reach some conclusions. Hannah and William's first son was born between 1803 (their marriage) and 1810. Another son was born between 1810 and 1820; and the first son died during that period since he is not shown in 1820. If we assume that the child born between 1810 and 1820 was Nathanel, and that he was born in 1819, then he would be one in 1820, 11 in 1830. In 1830, there are two sons, one Nathanel (10-15) and a second son born between 1820 and 1825 (5-10). There seem to have been four girls born, two between 1803 and 1810; one right around the time of the census in 1810, and one between 1810 and 1820. By 1830, two had left home.

The age categories agree for William and Hannah in each of the three census years.

It is my theory that William died before 1840, and that the older woman (50-60) shown in 1840 is Hannah, living with her son William. The trouble with this is that the ages are not right. The son born between 1820 and 1825 would be 15-20 in 1840. Thus this son COULD be the 20-30 male. Then who are the older man and woman, and the young boy? Nathaniel was still alive in 1840; he would be just barely 21. So HE could be the 20-30 age male, since he does not show up by himself. Is William the male 30-40? That would make him born between 1800 and 1810; but that cannot be if the other records are correct. Perhaps THIS group is not ours at all. I cannot solve the puzzle.
   
   
March 2003