Person:Nathaniel Rawson (2)

Watchers
m. 11 Jul 1673
  1. Ann Rawson1674 -
  2. Wilson RawsonAbt 1675 -
  3. Margaret Rawson1676 -
  4. Edward Rawson1677 -
  5. Edward Rawson1678 -
  6. Rachel Rawson1679 -
  7. Dorothy Rawson1681 -
  8. William Rawson1682 -
  9. David Rawson1683 - 1752
  10. Dorothy Rawson1686 -
  11. Ebenezer Rawson1687 -
  12. Thankful Rawson1688 - 1688
  13. Nathaniel Rawson1689 - 1731
  14. Ebenezer Rawson1691 - 1692
  15. Edward Rawson1692 -
  16. Ann Rawson1693 -
  17. Patience Rawson1694 - 1694
  18. Pelatiah Rawson1696 -
  19. Grindal Rawson1697 - 1697
  20. Mary Rawson1698 - 1698/99
m. 1712
  1. Samuel Rawson1714 - 1785
  2. Nathaniel Rawson1716 - 1803
  3. Barnabas Rawson1721 - Bef 1791
  4. Edward Rawson1724 -
  5. Rachel Rawson1727 -
Facts and Events
Name Nathaniel Rawson
Gender Male
Birth[1] 3 Dec 1689 Dorchester, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 1712 to Hannah Thompson
Death[2][3] 20 Apr 1731 Mendon, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
References
  1. Boston (Massachusetts). Record Commissioners. A Report of the Record Commissioners of the City of Boston: Containing Dorchester Births, Marriages, and Deaths to the End of 1825. (Boston, Massachusetts: Rockwell and Churchill, city printers, 1890)
    p. 34.

    Nathaniel the Son of William Rawson was borne Novembar the 4th, 1689.

  2. Mendon, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Mendon, Massachusetts to the Year 1850. (Boston, MA: Wright & Potter, 1920)
    p. 491.

    RAWSON, Nathaniel, [died] Apr. 20, 1731.

  3. "Genealogical Notices of the Descendants of Secretary Rawson" in NEHGR, Vol. 3, p. 302, gives Nathaniel a daughter Rachel, b. 1741 (17 years after previous child!), which would belie a death date of 1731. Except that on p. 307, it shows the son Nathaniel m. (2) Rachel Daniels, and the Mendon VRs, p. 146, clearly show the Rachel b. 1741 having parents of Nathaniel and Rachel. So Rachel belongs to the son and there is no children born to the father after 1724. The improbability of a child born so long after others, or the clear record given by the VRs, apparently has not prevented this child from being blindly given to the father by many secondary sources.