Family:Nicholas Youngman and Mary Wright (1)

Parents: Ebenezer Youngman and Mercy Jones Nicholas Youngman b. 18 Oct 1723 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States d. 24 Sep 1814 Hollis, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States	Parents: Samuel Wright and Mary Case Mary Wright b. 10 May 1721 Lebanon, New London, Connecticut, United States d. 10 Jan 1802 Hollis, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States

Family tree▼

Facts and Events

Marriage^[1]^[2]

12 Feb 1746/47

Children

		Birth	Death
1.	Ebenezer Youngman	9 Jan 1747/48 Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States	17 Jun 1775 Charlestown, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
2.	Mary Youngman	Abt 1750 probably Dunstable, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States
3.	Rhoda Youngman	4 Mar 1756 Dunstable, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States
4.	John Youngman	Abt 1758
5.	Thomas Youngman	Abt 1760
6.	Jabez Youngman	4 Mar 1764 Hollis, Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States	30 Apr 1839 Lempster, Sullivan, New Hampshire, United States
7.	Stephen Youngman	in. 1766	Jan 1815
8.	Hannah Youngman	24 Jul 1771

References

↑ Kelley, James Edward, compiler. Wilmington Records of Births, Marriages and Deaths, from 1730 to 1898. (Lowell, MA: Thompson & Hill, 1898)
p. 201.

Nicholas Youngman of Concord and Mary Wright of Wilmington Feb. 12, 1747.
[Note: 1746/47 assumed since son Ebenezer born Jan 1747, which must be 1747/48.]
↑ Youngman, David. Genealogy and biographical sketches of the Youngman family. (Boston: G.H. Ellis, 1986)
p. 10.

Nicholas Yougman [#5], s/o Ebenezer Youngman [#4] and Mercy Jones, m. Mary Wright, d/o Samuel² Wright (Abel¹) of Springfield.
[Note: this is a discussion of Mary's parentage on her talk page.]
The birth of son Ebenezer has been found recorded in Concord in 1747/48, which is quite different than the estimate given by Youngman. Since Ebenezer is considered the eldest son, this 5 year shift considerably changes the constraints on the estimated births of Nicholas' other children. The "supposed order" given in Youngman's NEHGR article two years earlier (Vol. 34, p. 402) when he did not use 1753 for Ebenezer seem much more reasonable.