Sarah Kirtland

1644 - 1676  (32 years)

• Name	Sarah Kirtland
  Birth	Abt. 1644	Lynn, Essex, Massachusetts Bay Colony, British Colonial America
  Gender	Female
  Burial	May 1676
  Death	21 May 1676	Lyme, New London, Connecticut Colony, British Colonial America
  Person ID	I312684223711	Oswald Genealogy
  Last Modified	15 Jun 2025

  
  

  Family	Thomas Lee,   b. 29 Sep 1644, Rusper, Sussex, England d. Lyme, New London, Connecticut Colony, British Colonial America
  Marriage	1669	Lyme Township, New London, Conneticut British Colonial America
  Family ID	F1877	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	15 Jun 2025

  
  

• Notes

  (21) dead (21) dead Sorry, it's Sarah. Many family history searchers have rightfully been confused as to whether Thomas Lee (1644-1705) married a woman named Ann or Sarah or Marah or two of them or all three. Several articles published in The American Genealogist should resolve the confusion. They are: The Family of Nathaniel Kirtland, by Frederick Wead vol 36 pages 88-91 The Legare Notes by Winifred Holman Vol 25 pages 1-2 William Lord’s wife and the Family of Thomas Lee, by Eliza Avery Vol 32 page 81-2 The Family of Phillip Kirtland Vol 65 page 66-7 by Thomas W Cooper. As a good researcher knows, one must locate the source to verify and see if any more information is on offer in the original. The references provided refer to Lyme, Connecticut, Land records 1664-1929 volumes 1 and 2, which correspond to The Family History Library Films 4678. On page ten of volume, one is this entry: The birth of Thomas Lee Children John Lee was born September 21, 1670, Thomas Lee was born December 10, 1672 Then there are 4 entries, incredibly difficult to read in the photograph Lee, the wife of Thomas died 21 May 1676 Lee, Thomas married Marah DeWolfe 13 July 1676 Phoebe Lee born 14 April 1677 Susannah Lee born 25 April 1679 This is the entry I believe has resulted in the creation of a woman named Ann. It is the original source of the reference in The Barbour index as L-1,10. The word “the” has been mistaken for “Ann.” Because of this mistake “Ann” was presumed to be the wife of Thomas Lee and the mother of the first three children. I have also received a photograph from the Lyme Township recorder, which can be more easily read. The line in question does read "The wife of Thomas Lee, deceased..." Additionally, a literal transcription of the records was made in 1976 by the American Revolutions BiCentennial Commission. It also reads "The wife of Thomas Lee deceased ..." I am not alone in drawing attention to this. Frederick W. Wead in an article on the Family of Nathaniel Kirkland (The American Genealogist vol. 36, page 89-90) writes “Another error is in the 1919 mimeograph copy of the Lyme Vital Records, (The Barbour Collection) which has an “Ann wife of Thomas Lee d. 21 May 1676.” In a photostatic copy at the State Library at Hartford the “Ann” is blocked out, so I looked at the original book of records and found that it is definitely “the wife” but could easily be misread as “Ann.”” My entire article is posted in the memories section, as well as the articles referred to. SLQQ