Person talk:Joseph Nash (4)

Extra Wife [22 June 2009]

I removed an extra wife Person:Mary Nash (43). While there is a marriage of Lt. Joseph Nash to a Mary Holbrook, this doesn't seem to be honored by many sites and the removed page did not reflect the dates that would pertain to that marriage. So it was assumed that the removed page really was describing the wife of Joseph's brother John, since the dates presented did match what is known about her and she was merged into the page describing John's wife (see Person:Mary Unknown (4449)).

This action leaves Joseph with three wives: Phebe Marsh, Mrs. Hannah Sturges, and Mrs. Hannah Vinson, which matches, for example, Source:History of Weymouth, Massachusetts, p. 4:423.

From Vital Records of Weymouth
Nash, Joseph, Lt., and Mary Holbrook, wid., of Braintree [int. Brantree] Dec. 4, 1735 [sic].
Nash, Joseph, Lt., and Mrs. Hannah Vinson [int. wid., omits Mrs.], Dec. 4, 1735 [sic].

I still have not found an explanation for the two marriage records on the same date, which appears to be a clerical error, probably by the town clerk, since the compiler's "sic" indicates he noticed and confirmed the verity of his transcription. The consensus seems to be that the marriage to Mrs. Hannah Vinson was the correct record. Is there a Mary Holbrook that married somebody else and Joseph Nash's name was used by mistake? Was this an error that did not get crossed out, so this record does not correspond to an actual marriage?

Joseph has an uncle Joseph Nash who married an Elizabeth Holbrook in 1674. Looking for a further connection between Nashs and Holbrooks in this branch, we find that he had a son Joseph (cousin to this Joseph) who was named as grandson Joseph Nash in will of John Holbrook (Elizabeth's father), m. (1) Hannah Curtis, m. (2) Miriam Brooks, d. 1732 so the record could not apply to him. This last Joseph Nash had a son Joseph Nash who m. 1730 Deborah Merritt, who lived until 1773, so the record could not apply to him. He, in turn, had a son Joseph Nash who was b. 1739 so the record could not apply to him since he was born after the marriage date. (See Source:Pane-Joyce Report for a very useful summary of this family.) --Jrich 10:44, 22 June 2009 (EDT)