Family:Benjamin Bigelow and Elizabeth Coleman (1)

Watchers
Facts and Events
Marriage[1][2] 31 Oct 1754 Lunenburg, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
Children
BirthDeath
1.
 
2.
Abt 1758
 
3.
Abt 1760
4.
 
5.
 
References
  1. Davis, Walter A. The Early Records of the Town of Lunenburg, Massachusetts, Including That Part Which is Now Fitchburg, 1719-1764: a Complete Transcript of the Town Meetings and Selectmen's Records Contained in the First Two Books of the General Records of the Town; also a Copy of all the Vital Statistics of the Town Previous to the Year 1764. (Fitchburg, Massachusetts: Sentinel Printing Company; Published by authority of the City Council, 1896)
    p. 246.

    Benjamin Bigelow and Elizabeth Colman both of Lunenburg were married Octo'r 31st 1754 by Rev. Mr. Stearns.
    [Also, p. 224: Purpose of marriage between Benjamin Bigelow and Elisabeth Colman both of Lunenburg was entered this 30th day of September A.D. 1754.]

  2. Norton, John Foote, and Joel Whittemore. History of Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, from 1752 to 1887. (New York, New York: Burr Printing House, c1888).
  3.   Source:Norton, John Foote. History of Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, from 1752 to 1887, p. 118, asserts facts about this family that haven't been confirmed and in some instances appear incorrect. It mentions two children born after Beulah, Ruth and Sampson, who are said to have both died in 1770. Neither birth records, death records, nor gravestones have been located so far. It is claimed by tradition that Beulah is the "only child of her parents who lived to maturity", which is demonstrably false (Solomon was mentioned in his father's probate, and over 30 at the time; Elizabeth tentatively identified, clearly survived if the identification is correct; Joel married and had a family). Further there is no mention of Rachel who is named in the father's probate, who can't be the same as the child called Ruth (these names sometimes used interchangeably), since Ruth is said to have died in 1770 and Rachel is mentioned in 1774. So the credibility of this source regarding this family is questioned, and Ruth and Sampson have not been entered, since no confirming evidence has been located.