Facts and Events
||3 Nov 1650
||Charlestown, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, USA
||3 Nov 1655
||Charlestown, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
||24 Jan 1673/4
||Lancaster, Worcester, Massachusetts, United Statesto Mary Sawyer
||31 Jul 1704
||Lancaster, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
- ↑ Nourse, Henry Stedman. Birth, Marriage, and Death Register, Church Records and Epitaphs of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1643-1850. (Clinton, Massachusetts: W.J. Coulter, 1890), 17.
Killed in Assault by French and Indians, July 31, 1704.
Lieutenant Nathaniel Wilder, aged fifty-four years.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Barlow, Claude W. The Children of Thomas Sawyer of Lancaster. The American Genealogist. (1954), 30:76.
'Mary (recorded as Marie), b. Jan. 4, 1652/3; living Nov. 5, 1740, when her father's estate was settled, d. before Jan. 22, 1740/1, when her son Ephraim Wilder was appointed administrator of her estate; m. Lancaster, Jan. 24, 1673/4, Lt. Nathaniel Wilder, b. Charlestown, Nov. 30 (3?), 1650, killed by Indians at Lancaster, July 31, 1704, son of Thomas and Anna Wilder.'
- ↑ Joslyn, Roger D. Vital records of Charlestown, Massachusetts to the year 1850. (Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1984-1995), 1:17.
'Nathaniel Wilder, son of Thomas & Ann Wilder, b. Nov. 3, 1655.'
This birth is recorded on a page with other births for 1655 to 1657, which would suggest that the year is not meant to be 1650. However, if he was born in 1655, he would have been younger than his wife, and only 18 when he married.
- Nourse, Henry Stedman. Early Records of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1643-1725. (Lancaster [Massachusetts]: [s.n.], 1884), page 298.
Regarding Thomas Wilder (his father): 'There are named in his will, his wife Ann, and children Mary, Thomas, John, Elizabeth, Nathaniel, and Ebenezer. None of these were born in Lancaster.'
- ↑ One might imagine that the birth, recorded nearer the time of the event, where the difference of five years is more likely to be significant, is going to be more accurate than an age calculation done after he died, in a different town where they might not have had access to the birth record? So the birth in 1655 is probably correct, the calculated birth in 1650 is probably not.