Family:Nathan Seeley and Love Penny (1)

Parents: John Seeley and Hannah Briggs Nathan Seeley b. 3 Jun 1733 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States d. 24 Aug 1815 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States	Parents: John Panny and Sarah Wheeler Love Panny b. 31 Dec 1753 Norton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States d. Bef 15 Apr 1842 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States

Family tree▼

Facts and Events

Marriage^[1]^[2]

27 Oct 1784

Children

		Birth	Death
1.	Polly Seeley	2 Oct 1777 Mansfield, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
2.	Sarah Seeley	21 Aug 1784 Mansfield, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
3.	Abigail Seeley	22 Feb 1786 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
4.	Hannah Seeley	28 Aug 1788 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
5.	Anna Seele	14 Jun 1790 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States	23 Jun 1809 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
6.	John Seeley	28 Jun 1792 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
7.	Ruth Seeley	2 Feb 1795 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States	14 Dec 1838 Mansfield, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States
8.	Nathan Seeley	1 Aug 1796 Easton, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States

References

↑ Easton (Massachusetts). Town Clerk. Births, deaths, and marriages by families, 1697-1847. (Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1973)
p. 277.

Bristol ss. October 27th 1784. Then Nathan Seele of Easton was married to Love Penny of Mansfield by James Perry, Justice of Peace.
↑ Mansfield, Bristol, Massachusetts, United States. Vital records of Mansfield, Massachusetts, to the end of the year 1849. (Salem, Massachusetts: Essex Institute, 1933)
p. 143.

SALLEY, Nathen (Seele), of Easton, and Love Penny of M., int. Jan. 24, 1784.
[Note: original: the Intentions of Marriage between Nathan Seele of Easton and Love penny of Mansfield ware Entered January 24th 1784 & gave Certificate Feb'y 9th 1784 by James Gilbert one of the Constables of said Mansfield.
Also note: on familysearch.org, the certificate date was indexed separately, and incorrectly, as 9 Feb 1782.]