vital records sources
go to Deliverance Byram's page

John's mark on his will

children of John Porter and Deliverance Byram (order partly based on circumstance and how they are mentioned in John's will, especially the sons. Sarah's birth is estimated based on when she married and that she plausibly was born when her mother was in her early to mid 40s, with a four-year gap between her and Ebenezer, which was a normal fertility pattern in New England at this time):

i. Mary, b.22 October 1662
ii. Susanna, b. 2 June 1665
iii. John b. 2 July 1667
iv. Samuel, b. abt. 1670
v. Nicholas, b. 11 April 1672
vi. Thomas, b. abt. 1674
vii. Ruth, b. 18 September 1676 (named before Susanna in their father's will)
viii. Ebenezer, b. abt. 1678
ix. Sarah, b. abt. 1682

vital records sources:

1. . Possibly the child unnamed in the oldest manuscript Weymouth vital records and later transcriptions, who was b. 11 April 1672;[https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/7944976:2495?tid=&pid=&queryid=511b2029-3bb6-469b-ab9f-bce77b6b6379&_phsrc=AQn689&_phstart=successSource "Massachusetts, U.S., Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,"] Ancestry.com database online (Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011), Weymouth>Births, Marriages and Death (sic), image 513. This is the oldest set of Weymouth's vital records, based on a damaged original that hasn't been located on microfilm. A later transcription from 1852 also has no first name but "Nicholas" was inserted at a later date [https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/7934312:2495?tid=&pid=&queryid=2a79dad1-9c7b-43f5-99e0-059e0189e43e&_phsrc=AQn684&_phstart=successSource "Massachusetts, U.S., Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,"] Ancestry.com database online (Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011), Weymouth>Births, Marriages and Death (sic), image 288. The published vital records concur with the manuscript records and don't give a first name for this child (Vital records of Weymouth, Massachusetts, to the year 1850], vol. 2 (Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1910), 220). The insertion of "Nicholas" may have occurred after the publication in 1910. In any case, although plausible, there are no other records to say definitively that this was Nicholas's birth.