AllenParkinson - Person Sheet
AllenParkinson - Person Sheet
NameDaniel Child 
Birth9 Apr 1709, Watertown, Middlesex, MA121
Death16 May 1792, Waltham, Middlesex, MA122
FatherDaniel Child (1673-1723)
MotherBeriah Bemis (1681-1768)
Spouses
Birth1709124
Death26 May 1777, Waltham, Middlesex, MA106
FatherNathaniel Bright (1686-1737)
Mother(Unknown)
Marriage13 Jan 1729125
Notes for Daniel Child
He was a selectman in Waltham, MA in 1758 and 1759.126
Notes for Mary (Spouse 1)
Listed as the “natural” daughter of Nathaniel Bright.127
"...Mary was married under her father's surname! I did not find in the records of the Town Meetings any mention of Nathaniel Bright being named by the mother of her bastard child, or any order for him to pay maintenance to such a person, and can only suppose the description of Mary as his 'natural daughter' is in his will, unless it was a mere supposition by Henry Bond due to the young age of Nathaniel's lawful wife relative to the apparent year of birth of Mary.
However, until at least the 17th century in England, 'natural' in this context did not mean bastardy, a stock legal phrase being 'natural and lawful' to show the child was of the testator's own body born in wedlock, not a step-child, adopted or foster child, or son- or daughter-in-law. English legal expressions were naturally carried over into New England.
From the fact Mary married as 'Bright' I now think she may indeed have been a child of Nathaniel Bright by his wife Ann Bowman, perhaps born several months, even a year or two, before they married, which could be why the birth was not recorded...." --Michael J. Wood (quoted from e-mails from Michael J. Wood, michaeljwood@ukonline.co.uk, 4 and 14 Sep 2005 - http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op...lencoe&id=I22196)
"...Mary was married under her father's surname! I did not find in the records of the Town Meetings any mention of Nathaniel Bright being named by the mother of her bastard child, or any order for him to pay maintenance to such a person, and can only suppose the description of Mary as his 'natural daughter' is in his will, unless it was a mere supposition by Henry Bond due to the young age of Nathaniel's lawful wife relative to the apparent year of birth of Mary.
However, until at least the 17th century in England, 'natural' in this context did not mean bastardy, a stock legal phrase being 'natural and lawful' to show the child was of the testator's own body born in wedlock, not a step-child, adopted or foster child, or son- or daughter-in-law. English legal expressions were naturally carried over into New England.
From the fact Mary married as 'Bright' I now think she may indeed have been a child of Nathaniel Bright by his wife Ann Bowman, perhaps born several months, even a year or two, before they married, which could be why the birth was not recorded...." --Michael J. Wood (quoted from e-mails from Michael J. Wood, michaeljwood@ukonline.co.uk, 4 and 14 Sep 2005 - http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op...lencoe&id=I22196)