Family talk:Nathaniel Rust and Mary Wardwell (1)

Marriage date [24 May 2010]

The marriage date given on this page is "Abt. 1664" and is linked to both source S1 and S2. Both sources give evidence that the marriage occurred, but neither gives any suggestion as to the date of said marriage.

The first child listed in S1 is Mary, b. June 1664, so one could draw one's own conclusion that the marriage occurred by 1663. But since this author rejects Hannah as Nathaniel's daughter, this would possibly mean no all the pertinent information is being considered. We don't know when Hannah was born but as she had her own child in 1684, it could have been bef. 1664. She married a man born in 1658. It is unlikely Nathaniel and Mary married bef. 1661 when Nathaniel turned 21. --Jrich 12:08, 16 May 2010 (EDT)

I don't have a date for marriage -- but did some checking on internet, found a site that cites a couple of sources you may want to check out. It is: http://www.gulbangi.com/5families-o/p292.htm#i7276

One of the sources she cites (for William) is The Great Migration, which is on Ancestry.com. If you don't have access to Ancestry, let me know, I'll try to copy and paste page for you.

The 1644 date, by the way, is apparently the date of Mary's baptism. And apparently Mary's mother was named Alice, so the Rust book is not wrong, after all.--GayelKnott 23:20, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

I think you are talking about the parents of Mary Wardwell, I am talking about the parents of Mary Rust. The website you mentioned says "abt 1663" for Nathaniel and Mary's marriage, which is what I was saying above, but it only cites another website that it says is "unverified", and I was only estimating based on Mary Rust's birth. The Rust book is wrong in not accepting a daughter named Hannah (certainly that would be my judgment based on the evidence) and without knowing when Hannah was born, it is difficult to estimate when they were married. If Hannah happened to be older than Mary, that would push their marriage back even earlier. --Jrich 00:59, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

Given the naming pattern of the time and place, the expected first children of Nathaniel and Mary would be Nathaniel and Mary, which seems to be the case. A daughter Hannah would have been named for Nathaniel's sister Hannah, not a likely choice for a first child.

Thanks for clarifying the text.--GayelKnott 13:51, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Or Nathaniel's mother? Which is not an unreasonable choice for a first child. Between Mary in June 1664 and Nathaniel Jr. in Mar 1666/67, there are 33 months, so it is possible that Hannah was born say late 1665 and that would be a quite typical spacning. And that is probably the most likely scenario. Because the next opportunity seems to be about 1670 after Margaret, which I think we can rule out because Hannah was married and had a child by 1684. That said, Mary Wardwell was born 1644, so if she married at 18 in 1662, there is just enough room to have had a child in early or mid 1663 without pushing the envelope too much. If she married as young as her daughter Mary that would allow the marriage to be as early as 1660. The bottom line is that we really don't know... --Jrich 20:27, 24 May 2010 (EDT)