John Gillett, I - Suggestion: Change Suffix to Avoid Confusion

Private User - I agree with you. I prefer toponyms in display name as not only being a more precise disambiguation, they are usually sourceable from will or published articles. Dynastic numbering in Colonial America seems a genealogist's “convenience” for charting. And I’ve never seen a vital record in New England using Roman numerals.

Your source calls him “John Gillett, of Deerfield & Lebanon” so that’s probably best.

Re: your questioning the parentage of Eunice Ordway b. 1728

This is what I see so far.

The Phelps family of America and their English ancestors, with copies of wills, deeds, letters, and other interesting papers, coats of arms and valuable records. by Phelps, Oliver Seymour; Servin, A. T. (1899) Page 1275. < Archive.Org >

10. Nathaniel Phelps, b. Windsor, Ct., 9 Dec, 1653, m. Eunice —. After Mr. Phelps's death she was published to be married to John Gillett, 15 Jan., 1725. We have no record of the marriage. Shed. Westfield, Mass., 17 Dec, 1738.

That would be Eunice Phelps I think a widower / widow marriage with a lost record is plausible, but a child born 1728 to widow Phelps seems unsustainable.

Her daughter Eunice b 1688 Eunice Moore either was or wasn’t the first or second wife of Benjamin Moore If she was a 2nd wife, married after 1732, she could have had a child with John Gillett. But it doesn’t make much sense as Moore was killed in action, Battle of Louisberg, 1745; and Gillett didn’t die until 1755.

I’m thinking both current Eunice’s should be detached from John Gillett, but a hard look into widow Eunice as a 2nd (and childless) wife.

NB. Divorce was so unusual I’m not even thinking it. :)