American AcornsRecords & photos · Birth, marriage and death records
Vital Records of Marlborough (1908), Births, p. 142, under OAKE: Natthaniel (7 Jan 1703), William (18 Feb 1705), Hannah (27 Dec 1707), Mary (31 Mar 1710), Ann (9 Sep 1712), John (16 Mar 1714-15), Jonathan (21 Aug 1717) and George (18 Feb 1719-20, 'of Westbrow'), all children of Nathaniel and Mary.
Image · dated 1703-1720 (entries) · source: Vital Records of Marlborough (NEHGS, 1908); Internet Archive (public domain)
How it is shown: Complete page as supplied; no crop, no retouch, no search highlight.
Keep in mind: What the page says: Confirmed from the page image, with the dates as printed: Ann, d. Natthaniel and Mary, Sept. 9, 1712; Gorge, s. Nathanil of Westbrow and Mary, Feb. 18, 1719-20; Hannah, Dec. 27, 1707; John, March 16, 1714-15; Jonathan, Aug. 21, 1717; Mary, March 31, 1710; Natthaniel, Jan. 7, 1703 (the year is printed 1703); William, Feb. 18, 1705; most with the note that the church record spells the name Oak. The same page prints 'OAK, Mary, bap. Nov. 29, 1741,' a different, later Mary, and later Oakes and Oaks families (Albert and Abigail; John and Experience) that are not Nathaniel's line. Whether these are our people: Likely, not Confirmed. The eight names, their birth order and the parents' names 'Natthaniel and Mary' match exactly the eight children the 1826 Worcester Magazine footnote gives to Nathaniel Oaks and Mary Holloway, and the tree holds the same eight; the page names no surname for Mary, and the tie to the tree's Nathaniel Oak(e) and Mary (Holloway) Oak rests on that match and the Marlborough place. William (b. 18 Feb 1705) is Likely the William Oakes of 18 who died in the 1723 Shrewsbury fire, by age alone. The 1741 baptism is not tagged. A caution on the date: Natthaniel's 7 Jan 1703 falls in the old-style January-to-March window, where a year written plainly as 1703 is often meant as 1703/4 in today's reckoning; the page does not say which the clerk meant. The parents' own Concord marriage, dated "March ye 2d 1703," carries the same ambiguity and is not independently resolved either (see the Nathaniel Oake story). This is a caution about reading the date, not a claim that one reading is correct.