|
|
marriage estimate [4 October 2013]
I am unsure why the marriage estimate is given as "bef 1680". No information is given in the cited source as to the date of the marriage, and since it says Nicholas was born about 1660, and for his children, it shows Samuel first, but with no birth date, then Abigail b. 1687, then David 1695, there is no apparent reason why it need be much before 1684. Further, since I see Nicholas's birth estimate of 1655 on the WeRelate page is derived from this marriage estimate, and the same source is cited even this source does explicitly give an estimate of about 1660, things don't quite connect. NEHGR 83:261 says "Nicholas Rich, a taxpayer at Salem in 1683, married Abigail Green of Salem; and in 1687 they were in Wenham, Mass., where their son David was born 18 July 1695." So nothing there hints at a marriage before 1680, and could be construed to say after 1683? --Jrich 02:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't gotten around to adding him yet, but according to the Chase article, son Samuel married for the first time, at Salem, in 1705, one Hannah Marsh (Salem VR 4:251). Using Anderson's thumb rule of men marrying for the first time at 25 gets me back to 1680. NEHGR 83:261 does not say they married in 1683, it says (1) he was a taxpayer at Salem in 1683 and (2) he married Abigail Green (who was born 1660/61). Nothing there precludes their having married sometime earlier than 1683 (or later for that matter, except for reconciling the date to Samuel's first marriage). I would observe that there is a lack of solid dates for this family. All we have documented is Abigail's birth (1660/61), the two children recorded at Wenham (Abigail-1687 and David-1695) and Samuel's first marriage (1705). There's a lot of room for undocumented events; more children or even an unknown first wife for Nicholas Rich since his first recorded child was not born until 1687. I see no reason to change my estimates, and I think yours squeezes Samuel a bit.--jaques1724 14:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really have an estimate. I used 1684 because 1 year after marriage, two years between children, second child b. 1687 which adds up to 1684, rather than adjusting the source's birth estimate for Nicholas, in case it is based on some evidence I am unaware of. The question was what was the justification for going with an estimate 5 years off from the source you cited. It is apparently your estimate of Samuel's birth, but since that is an Alt Birth, it does not show up on the family page and that was not/is not clear. Obviously we have to make assumptions and estimates, they just need to be explained as clearly as possible. I said "construed" meaning there is an assumption that the events were described in chronological order, and he wrote it like it is the first record of Nicholas in Salem, and one could infer that Nicholas then met Abigail and married her since she already lived there. He did not explicitly state they were married after, or before. --Jrich 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
|
|
