Family:Jonas Morse and Mary Ward (1)

Facts and Events
Marriage[1][2] 29 Nov 1759 Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
Alt Marriage[3][5] 3 Nov 1761 Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States
Children
BirthDeath
References
  1. Hudson, Charles. History of the town of Marlborough, Middlesex County, Massachusetts: from its first settlement in 1657 to 1861 : with a brief sketch of the town of Northborough, a genealogy of the families in Marlborough to 1800, and an account of the celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of the incorporation of the town. (Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin & Son, 1862)
    418.

    Jonas Morse m. 29 Nov 1759 Mary Ward.

  2. Ward, Andrew Henshaw. Ward Family: Descendants of William Ward Who Settled in Sudbury, Massachusetts in 1639. (Boston: S.G. Drake, 1851)
    91.

    Jonas Morse Jr. m. Marlborough 29 Nov 1759 Mary Ward.

  3. Marlborough, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Marlborough, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Worcester, Massachusetts: Franklin P. Rice, 1908)
    288.

    Morse, Jonas Jr. and Mary Ward, Nov. 3, 1761.
    [Note this appears wrong since p. 134 shows daughter Mary b. 23 Oct 1761.]

  4.   Martyn, Charles. William Ward Genealogy: the History of the Descendants of William Ward of Sudbury, Mass., 1638- 1925. (New York: Artemas Ward, 1925)
    143.

    Mary Ward m. 3 Nov 1759 Jonas Morse. [See comments.

  5. The birth date of daughter Mary 23 Oct 1761 suggests the marriage date in the Marlborough VRs, 3 Nov 1761, is incorrect. The publication dates of the various sources cited here suggest that the problem is the published version of the Marlborough VRs, and the original Marlborough records may be correct. Presumably one or both of Hudson and Ward referred to the original records (neither one says explicitly), since they predate the published records, so probably their date of 29 Nov 1759 reflects what the original record says (can't be sure, though, as it is possible this date comes from some separate source, like church records). As Martyn presents no explanation for his value, he appears to have picked and chosen the parts of these various source that he liked best, which would not be a valid approach, and unless evidence supporting it were to turn up, it doesn't seem worth considering.