Ah, Gene, this has been most interesting and frustrating.I have tried to apply Occum's Razor to the matter but even that seems to fail.
The list of don't knows and assumptions are staggering.See if I have missed any. 1.We don't know the relationship between Thomas Bliss and Nicholas Ide. 2.We don't know if there was a Widow Ide much less if she married Bliss. 3.We don't know if Martha Ide was Bliss' daughter. 4.We don't know who the Nathanel, son of Nicholas Ide, is or how old or his relationship to Bliss.
In an attempt to answer these we (researchers in general) have assumed: 1.Two Marthas 2.Errors in record keeping 3.Errors in familial memories. 4.Errors in dates. 5.the term soninlaw was used in two different meanings; as applied to Nicholas Ide (as step-son)and Nathaniel Harmon (as husband of my daughter)in bliss' will.
The one thing we haven't assumed is that everything is correct!Horrors!;-)It sure would be nice to have Mr. Peabody's way-back machine.
As I set here and type this, a new thought has come to me.It is wild and off the wall but has possiblities ;-)
What if the reason Bliss did not leave a full child's portion to Nathaniel in his will was because Nathaniel was not yet born?Nicholas may have been bound to name his newborn (if a son) Nathaniel in order to receive the inheritance.Its far-fetched, I admit, but it does offer a simpler solution than some we have discussed.
Oh, well, have a great weekend.Oh, yes, I have seen the Silas Ide book, it added nothing to my original theme on William Ide.