Re: Martha (-----) Ide WAS NOT Thomas Bliss's Daughter

Steve Hassall informs me that the 8 December 1622 Daventry baptism that Ty Bliss (GENEALOGY OF THE BLISS FAMILY IN AMERICA, 1:36) attributes to NATHANIEL BLISS, son of Thomas1 of Rehoboth, has been determined, from an examination of the original church record, to be that of a daughter MARTHA.

While this seems to refute my assertion that no record exists of Rehoboth Thomas's having had a daughter Martha, my original posting still contains sufficient evidence, I believe, to support the twin propositions that (1) Nicholas Ide was Thomas Bliss's stepson, and (2) his wife, Martha, was not Bliss's daughter.

To the points presented in the message to which this is a follow-up are added these additional ones (preceded by a tiny bit of overlap): If Thomas Bliss's will's use of the term "sonninlaw" to describe Nicholas Ide doesn't denote a stepson, why the reference to "fouer children" when only three natural children are named? And why would Nicholas have petitioned for a child's portion of Bliss's estate? Only a natural child or stepchild would have had the legal standing for such a challenge.

If Nicholas Ide's son Nathaniel had been Thomas Bliss's natural grandson (Bliss's will refers to him only as Ide's son), Ide's petition for a full, child's share of Bliss's estate would have been made on behalf of Nathaniel; it wasn't. Of course, if the petition were on behalf of Nathaniel, it would indicate that his mother (a Bliss daughter in this scenario) had died. But Martha Ide (bur. Rehoboth, 3 Nov. 1676) was alive when both the will and the petition were made (8 Oct. 1747 and 7 June 1648, respectively). That being so, if she had been Thomas Bliss's daughter, Nicholas Ide would have had absolutely no grounds for his petition.

Nowhere in Thomas Bliss's will does the name Martha appear. After referring by name to a son, two daughters, and the latters' respective husbands, it's highly unlikely that the will would fail to name another living daughter and mention only her husband and son. And if that HAD occurred, the petition would have been filed by Martha (or by Nicholas on her behalf). But the name of Nicholas's wife also fails to appear in the petition.

To summarize: That Rehoboth Thomas Bliss may have had a daughter with the hardly distinctive name of Martha (I've ordered microfiches of Daventry Parish Records) is, by itself, no reason to believe that Martha (Mrs. Nicholas) Ide was she. There is far too much evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion.