Holbrook line: Thomas Wight 1607-1674 Immigrant

It's been a while since I found a very early immigrant that I've not written about.  But here he is, with all his mysteries.  Thomas is attributed to two sets of parents, but the ones I've seen most commonly and the one that seems to make geographical sense is that he was born to Robert and Elizabeth Fulshaw Wight about December 6, 1607 at Hareby, Lincolnshire, England.  Robert definitely had a son named Thomas, per his will.  However, Exeter, New Hampshire also claims this Thomas Wight so it is possible that more records need to be found in order to establish with certainty his origins.  Another argument that might point toward a different parentage is that Thomas doesn't seem to have named a son Robert. 

It also has not been determined for certain the name of his first wife, the mother of his children.  He was married when he arrived in Massachusetts Bay Colony about 1637, and his wife named Alice died prior to 1665, when he married Lydia Eliot Penniman, sister to the Apostle to the Indians, John Eliot.  Tradition and not much else says that her name was Alice Roundy.  Tradition also says they were married about 1630 on the Isle of Wight, but records to support these statements are lacking. 

Thomas and Alice settled first in Dedham, or at least were among the first settlers in Dedham.  The village of Dedham started forming in 1635 although it was a few years later before it became a town.  His name is found on a list of freemen who were in Dedham before 1647.  Thomas was a selectman in Dedham, and also a church deacon. 

Then he somehow shows up in Medfield.  The two towns are about 10 miles apart, so it is possible that he never moved from his original location but that his land was included in the new area.  That would be a fun thing to research at some point.  In Medfield, he again was a deacon.  I've not found anything about the town government yet, so I don't know if he served in some capacity there.  He married for the second time in Medfield, and that's where his wife died, so he was there for at least a few years, anyway. 

Thomas died March 17, 1674 in Medfield.  His will indicates that he and Lydia had a contract before marriage, and he then disposes of his land, house, household goods and clothing.  His son Ephraim seems to get the lion's share of the estate, so perhaps he had been caring for his father.  The inventory is interesting because it breaks out each item, room by room, so you can almost walk through the house and the out buildings with the appraisers.   He had books valued at one pound and 10 shillings, and a pike and a musket, as well as the usual kind of household goods (probably more than the average man, I would guess), farm implements, a spinning wheel, cattle, sheep, and swine but no horses.  The total value of his inventory was just over 465 pounds.

I of course would like to know more about Thomas, especially when he moved (if he did) and why.  Why did he come to America?  He lived more or less on the frontier.  What experiences did he have with the native Americans?  With John Eliot as a brother in law, he surely must have heard stories,  As a deacon, did he visit with some of them regularly?  Did he know some of their language?  There are questions that may never have answers, but we do know this much about his life, and I think we owe him respect. 

The line of descent is:

Thomas Wight-Alice

Samuel Wight-Hannah Albee

Hannah Wight-John Thompson

Joseph Thompson-Mary Holbrook

Alice Thompson-Joseph Rockwood

Levi Rockwood-Deborah Lazell

Susannah Rockwood-Nahum Holbrook

Joseph Holbrook-Mary Elizabeth Whittemore

Fremont Holbrook-Phoebe Brown

Loren Holbrook-Etta Stanard

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

Beeks line: Shubael Smith 1692-1768

There's enough information about Shubael (also seen as Shobal) Smith to make things, er...interesting.  In other words, there are a few things that don't add up, or make sense, and sometimes they contradict each other.  I'm going to choose the dates and places that seem to make the most sense, but that doesn't mean they are correct. 

For instance, when and where was he born?  His parents are generally accepted to be Samuel and Elizabeth Pierce Smith, who were married in either 1690 or 1692.  (Elizabeth was Samuel's second wife, his first being Esther Dunham. She died August 14, 1690.)  Samuel and Elizabeth were married June 8, 1690, which doesn't compute.  I suspect that one date or the other was either entered incorrectly or possibly, if it was a Quaker date, miscalculated.  I'm willing to accept that Samuel would not have married one wife while the other was still living!  And then there's Shubael's birth date, variously given as January 2, 1692 and January 2, 1693.  Since Shubael was Samuel and Elizabeth's first known child, I would suspect it's the 1692 date, but I can't be sure about that.  At any rate, although Shubael was his mother's first child, he was born into a family that already had three children, and there would be two more born after him. 

Some sites are giving his birth place as New Castle, Delaware but most say Woodbridge, New Jersey.  Perhaps his birth was noted in Quaker records in Delaware, but if so, I can't find them.  There seems to be no family reason for his birth to have taken place in Delaware, and that was at least 100 miles from Woodbridge.  So until I can find evidence otherwise, I'm going with Woodbridge as the place of his birth, as it was of his death. 

Shuabel's father was a yeoman (land owning farmer) and that is the way Shubael is described in the abstract of his will. I did find one reference that said he was a mariner, plying his trade between the New Jersey and Long Island NY coasts.  It's possible that he held both positions, or that he was an owner or part owner of a boat, without being involved in the actual sailing.  Or, it's possible that this was a different Shubael Smith, because there was more than one man by this name.  I didn't find a source for the statement about his position as a mariner, so take it for whatever it's worth. 

We know that he inherited at least 40 acres when his father died, and he may well have acquired more land during his lifetime.  He married Prudence Fitzrandolph, daughter of Samuel and Mary Jones Fitzrandolph, after March 17, 1716 at the Woodbridge Monthly Meeting.  The Smith family had Quaker leanings for at least two generations but it's not clear when they were first noted in record books, because some of those are missing.  At least some of the Fitzrandolph family were Quakers at this time, too.  Shubael and Prudence had at least six children together, some sources listing as many as eleven.  There is a reference that this couple lived on the "Old Smith homestead", which if I had to guess, would be on Smith Creek, now the home of 9 marinas in a stretch that is just over half a mile long. 

Shubael's death was noted in the Woodbridge Month Meeting records on May 31, 1768, so the family must have stayed part of the Quaker congregation.  Prudence died about two years before Shubael.  He left decent sized bequests to children and grandchildren, but I didn't find an inventorh listing for him.  His daughter Mary received 300 pounds. 

So we have an idea of his occupation and of his religion.  I didn't find anything that indicated whether or not he was literate, nor did I find anything about possible military service.  As a Quaker, it was not likely that he served in the militia but I will keep looking for that information. 

And what else did Shubael do?  He became the ancestor of Barack Obama, Kevin Bacon, and this family!

The line of descent is

Shubael Smith-Prudence Fitzrandolph

Mary Smith-Jonathan Dunham

Samuel Dunham-Hannah Ruble

Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight

Samuel G Dunham-Eliza Matilda Reese

Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge

Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks

Mary Beeks=Cleveland Harshbarger

Their descendants

 

 

Holbrook line: Thomas Marsh 1676-1726

I started preparing this blog post without much hope.  Here's another ancestor who lived in what seems to be a kind of "dead zone" for genealogy records, even in New England.  My initial searches added little to the dates and location I already had.  I gave a great sigh, checked one more web site, and eureka!  There were his estate papers.  Looking them over, I had reason to rejoice.  This man was different from some of our other ancestors.  Let me count the ways...

Thomas Marsh was the son of Thomas and Sarah Lincoln Marsh.  He was born October 24, 1726 in Hingham, Massachusetts, the first of at least six children.  He was in the second generation of Marsh children born in the colony.  His father, another Thomas Marsh, was also born in Hingham, and his grandfather and great grandfather died there.  So Hingham was in his blood, so to speak. Thomas married Mary Burr, daughter of John and Mary Warren Burr, also of Hingham, on August 26, 1708, and Hingham is where the family stayed.  Thomas and Mary had at least 8 children, some of whom also seem to have stayed in Hingham.  The only town office I found that he held was that of constable, in 1716, but it is possible there were more. 

One wonders what the charms of Hingham were, besides family.  It is located on what is now called the "South Shore", part of the greater Boston area, although at the time Boston would have been maybe 30 or more miles away.  The fastest way to travel there would have been by boat.  So the little town, founded in 1635, was somewhat isolated.  Nearer neighbors were the towns of Weymouth, Braintree, and Quincy, as each town formed.  We recognize Weymouth as being a town where Holbrooks settled, and Braintree as being a town where Rockwoods and other family members settled, so this is one area that should be visited by anyone doing our family research.  Hingham's first settlers were necessarily farmers, and at the end of his too short life, that is how Thomas Marsh is described, as a "yeoman", meaning he owned the land he farmed.  That could be the end of the story, if the estate papers, like so many others, had been lost.  Fortunately, his weren't. 

Thomas likely died of a sudden illness or accident, because he didn't have a will.  He did, however, have an inventory, highly detailed and surprising.  And he had a clever wife, who had a houseful of young ones, the youngest being jut two years old.  The probate wasn't finalized until at least 1747, and meanwhile, Mary kept excellent records.  As for the inventory, it started out with a stunner...wearing apparel, 24 pounds"  This is a huge amount, much larger than for any other "yeoman" I've found.  What else would I find?  Well, there was more household furniture than seems usual, and especially more cloth and bedding than usual, and a French spinning wheel.  Where did these items come from?  Aha! 

Farmer though he may be, Thomas owned parts of a brigantine and several sloops. Brigantines were two masted ships suitable for sailing over the open sea, and sloops were one masted vessels that were likely used in coastal trade. Even though he may have never set foot at sea (and he could have made trips, we don't know), he was also what was known as a mariner, a ship-owner, or in this case, part owner.  He was smart enough to not put all of his eggs in one basket, it appears, but instead owned fourths and sixths of several sailing vessels.  He owned more land than our typical ancestor, including land on at least two coves, and he owned part of two saw mills. 

His inventory totalled 1733 pounds, 14 shillings and three pence.  There follows a list of debts that he was apparently owed, and a longer list of accounts that were paid, and then another list of debts that were collected.  I daresay everyone in town was on one list or the other, but the last accounting seems to have pushed the estate's value to over 2047 pounds.   Finally, in 1729, the estate is divided.  Mary gets her one third dowry for the rest of her life, as long as she doesn't remarry, son Thomas gets a double share of what is left, and the division of the lands is truly breathtaking.  How did they figure that out, anyway? There were a total of six children who received land and other items, so two of the children must have died earlier.  Mary died in 1747, when her remaining property was apparently dispersed.

The picture I have of Thomas is that he was a man of ambition, and that Mary likely shared his goals.  For a man of just 50 years of age, he had his finger in a lot of pies, and had he not died at that too early age, who knows what he would have accomplished.  I hope he was a kind and gentle man, too. 

The line of descent is:

Thomas Marsh-Mary Burr

Deborah Marsh-Isaac Lazell

Deborah Lazell-Levi Rockwood

Susannah Rockwood-Nahum Holbrook

Joseph Holbrook-Mary Elizabeth Whittemore

Fremont Holbrook-Phoebe Brown

Loren Holbrook-Etta Stanard

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

Allen line: Richard Church 1663-1730

Men who have the same name as more famous men and who lived in the same time period, roughly, as that more famous man, or his descendants, have a way of staying invisible.  Whether or not they actually donned a "Cloak of invisibility", the result seems to be the same-brief sightings and much mystery.  Such is the case with Richard Church. 

Richard was born in 1663 in Hartford, Connecticut, the son of John and Sarah Beckley Church. (I have seen one tree that gives him different parents but after looking at the locations, etc, and the fact that there is no documentation for this set of parents, I am not even going to mention them. Someone has convinced someone that our Richard Church ties back to the Mayflower Richard Church, and sadly, that is not the case. 

However, he is the grandson of Richard Church who was early in Hartford, Connecticut, so he has deep roots there.  John and Sarah are thought to have had at least 10 children, so that would have been another busy household.  Our Richard would have grown up learning farming skills, possibly a trade, learning to read and write, because that's what Puritan boys did, and absorbing as much as he could before his father died in 1691. 

Richard married Elizabeth Noble of Westfield, Massachusetts on March 3, 1691/92, around the time of his father's death.  Elizabeth was the daughter of Thomas and Hannah Warriner Noble.  I have not yet figured out how Richard and Elizabeth met.  Perhaps she was a visitor in Hartford, or perhaps Richard had some sort of trade that took him to Westfield.  I haven't found a reference to Richard in Westfield's history, other than the marriage, so my guess is that they went to live in Hartford County, where a Richard Church (not sure that he is ours, but it seems possible) had some land dealings in 1697.  He is noted on an index as being a grantor then. 

He was apparently in Colchester by 1705, or perhaps he never moved and Colchester was formed to include the land he lived on then.  Surprisingly, I don't find his name in the early Colchester history, but in 1714, the town had about 50 families living there (English families, as opposed to the natives who were still there) and his was surely one of them.  Richard and Elizabeth had 8 children together and all were entered in the Westfield records at birth.  That may or may not mean that the family lived there, but perhaps they did.  Or perhaps Elizabeth wanted to have them baptized in Westfield, for whatever reasson.  At any rate, they left Westfield and ended up in Colchester. 

Richard was  one of four town rate (tax) collectors in 1714, the town way warden in 1717, and a freeman of the town in 1729.  I haven't yet found any evidence of military activity but it's possible that he was involved in one or another of the wars that took place during his lifetime.  He would have been too young to participate in King Philip's War, but others are possibilities.  He would have always been conscious of the possibility of attacks, and would have trained for them all his life, as men did in those days. 

We don't know the cause of death for Richard, but his date of death is given as April 1, 1730.  His executor was his son James, and the estate was valued at 224 pound, 13 shillings and 9 pence.  I have not found a copy of the actual inventory, nor of his will.  However, Elizabeth lived for another 21 years so she probably received her one third until or unless she remarried.  I would love to know whether that inventory included his land, or whether there was separate land  The inventory might also give clues as to whether he had a trade separate from farming. 

So, these invisible men have won again!  There is much we would like to know about Richard-military history, life in Westsfield, if the family actually lived there, church of choice, literacy, and so much more.  But the glimpses we've found show a family man, one who stayed out of trouble, and built a small estate to share with his family.  The one clue to his status is that in the Colchester cemetery, he is listed as "Mr." Richard Church.  That is a courtesy title that was not listed often in the cemetery records of that time.  So he was somebody, even if he wasn't related to the more famous Richard Church.

The line of descent is

Richard Church-Elizabeth Noble

Jonathan Church-Ruth Hitchcock

Ruth Church-Stephen Noble

Ruth Noble-Martin Root

Ruth Root-Samuel Falley

Clarissa Falley-John Havens Starr

Harriet Starr-John Wilson Knott

Edit Knott-Edward Allen

Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook

Their descendants

Holbrook line: Stephen Paine

At last, I've found an ancestor who has been well researched.  I am so grateful for Sidney Paine, who wrote a fine article in volume 143 of the NEHGS Register, found on AmericanAncestors.org, and to American Ancestors for also making available the Vital Records of Rehoboth, Massachusetts on line.  There is a wealth of information in these two sources, and they are the answer to a genealogist's prayer.  There are still questions, of course, and still more information I would like to find, but it's wonderful to have this much to draw on.

Stephen Paine was born in about 1602 (some sites say 1599) in Great Ellingham, Norfolk, England.  This was a small village a few miles inland from the sea.  His parents were Dann Payne and Margaret Williams, and Dann was a linen weaver by trade.  His only known sibling was a brother, Edward.  He married Neele Adcocke (sometimes referred to as Rose), daughter of John Adcocke and Elizabeth Eldred, although it doesn't appear that their marriage records have been located.

By 1638, much had happened in the family of Stephen and Neele Paine.  Their four children had been born.  Stephen had become a shipper of wheat and malt, including a shipment from Yarmouth, Norfolk, England to New England in 1638.  Stephen had sold land he had inherited to his father in law, and also to his mother and step-father.  Apparently this left Stephen rather well off, or at least not as deprived as many of the early immigrants.  When the family sailed from Ipswich, Suffolk, England in the Diligent in June of 1638, they also had four servants with them.  Their daughter Rebecca apparently died on the voyage and son John died shortly after.  So the family now consisted of Stephen and Neele, and their sons Stephen and Nathaniel. 

When the family landed at Boston, they went directly to Hingham, Massachusetts Bay Colony, where they stayed about five years.  Stephen was made a freeman there in 1638, and a Deputy to the General Court at Boston in 1641. By 1643, he had purchased a significant amount of land in what became Rehoboth, and moved there about that time. On the List of Purchasers, Settlers and Inhabitants with the value of their "allotments", about 1643, Stephen Paine's holdings are valued at 535 pounds, a value matched only by "Mr. Peck."

Stephen led what appears to be a good life in Rehoboth.  He was a "miller", meaning he ran a saw mill, and was active in town civic life.  He was elected to the first Board of Selectmen in December of 1644, and was elected as a Deputy to the Court at Plymouth continuously from 1647 to 1660, and then often until 1671.  He was well respected in his town.  He continued to buy land, owning land in what became Swansea, Massachusetts, Warren, Rhode Island, and Attleboro, Massachusetts.  These were all areas adjoining Rehoboth at the time.

His wife Neele died in 1660 and Stephen then married Elizabeth Alice widow Parker.  By the time Stephen died in August of 1679, he had outlived his first wife and all of his children.  His bequests were to his grandchildren a daughter in law, and two servants.  Elizabeth or Alice would have received her one third, also.  I haven't found an inventory for him yet, and I would love to do that!

We can be proud of Stephen, who not only stayed out of trouble but was respected.  He served his town for many years, made a living, and apparently improved his circumstances by his own hard work. He left us a fine heritage! 

The line of descent is:

Stephen Paine-Nelle Adcocke
Stephen Paine-Ann Chickering
John Paine-Elizabeth Belcher
Stephen Paine-Sarah Vallett
Stephen Paine-Sarah Thornton
Nathan Paine-Lillis Winsor
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph B Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants

Allen line: Robert Booth of Maryland or Virginia or both

As you can probably tell from the title of this post, records are a little confusing, or missing for this man.  We know he was married in Prince George's County, Maryland, and we know his will was filed in Loudoun County, Virginia.  There are also records of a couple of land deals that someone else has found, and so far, that is it.  So, this will likely be a short post.

Speculation about Robert Booth's birthdate and parents are just that, speculation.  It is possible that his parents were Thomas and Mary Booth, but it's also possible that his parents were someone else.  I have seen that he was born in 1700, but I don't think that is accurate.  His first known child was born in 1718, so that puts his marriage in 1717, or possibly sooner.  His wife was Sarah Fillmore or Filmoore.  He may have had a second wife, because the church records of St John's or Piscataway Parish, Prince George's County, note only John and Jane as children of this couple.  Likely Robert moved, with or without Sarah, and other children were recorded elsewhere.  We know there were more children because they were mentioned in his will. 

Robert Booth owned land in Prince William County in 1729-1730, on Dutchman's Creek.  Prince William and Loudoun counties share a short common border, so perhaps Robert's land was near the border of the two counties.  Dutchman's Creek is clearly in Loudoun county now, so borders may have changed.  It appears that Robert stayed there most or all of his life, as he had the land surveyed in 1729/1730 and was still there when a neighbor sold land in 1740/41.

It's hard to tell how much land he owned.  I found a reference to him as a wealthy land owner.  In his will, he give son John 60 acres "where he settled", Jane Stump "my own plantation and 200 acres, Anne Chambers the plantation where MaCough now lives with 200 acres, and James Booth,  Price's place with the remainder of the land.  Alexis Jackson and his wife Henrietta were paying a yearly rent and weren't to be disturbed, but it's not clear whether his is part of James's land or something else.  (I think this Alexis Jackson was the son of another of our ancestors, John Jackson.)  So he clearly had at least 460 acres plus whatever was in James's parcel. The will was written September 20, 1759 and doesn't mention Sarah, so she must have died earlier.  The will was proven March 12, 1760, so Robert died probably sometime during that winter, aged at least 65.  His inventory is so small, valued at only a little over 16 pounds, that it is easy to draw the conclusion that he must have been living with a child at the time of his death.  He had no guns or ammunition, very little in the way of household goods (a cider cask was mentioned, and a broken pot), and just a few animals.  He had two books.  If he had been a wealthy land owner, he had certainly disposed of most of his movable estate prior to his death. 

I don't know if this much land qualifies him as a "wealthy land owner", but it does present the question "Did he own slaves?"  Given the location of his land, not far from the Potomac River, I would guess that the answer is yes but I'd like to document that.  Neither his will nor his inventory indicates slave holding, but that is not conclusive evidence.   

Robert and Sarah had the four children mentioned above.  I have also seen reference to Arthur, and to Eva Margaret.  I believe Eva Margaret was the daughter of a different Robert Booth, and I can't find any reference to Arthur.  Perhaps he died early. ( A sad side note: Robert's son, James Booth, who was married with 4 children, was killed by native Americans June 16, 1778 in what is now Marion County, West Virginia.  He is identified as being a Captain, so perhaps he was on a military expedition, or manning a fort, when he was killed.)

Robert was another ancestor who lived in interesting times and places.  I wonder whether he saw Baraddock's army as they left Virginia, or as they returned after their defeat.  Did he glimpse a young George Washington, who may have surveyed land around him?  Perhaps he even surveyed Robert's land, as Washington is known to have surveyed a lot of Virginia frontier land.  I wonder if this area ever felt threatened by native Americans, during his lifetime.  There are so many things to wonder about!

The line of descent is:

Robert Booth-Sarah Fillmore

Jane Booth-Thomas Stump

Elizabeth Stump-Henry Jackson

Alexis Jackson-Catherine Moore

Eleanor Jackson-Vincent McCoy

Nancy McCoy-George Allen

Edward Allen-Edith Knott

Richard Allen-Gladys Holbrook

Their descendants

Holbrook line Kingsland Comstock 1673-1721

I've written about Kingsland Comstock previously.  That post was about the son of this Kingsland Comstock.  I had only a little bit to say about that Kingsland, and the same is true of his father.  I know about when he was born, about when he died, and I know he lived his whole life in the same area.  But I can find nothing to hook us into his life, to give us a sense of the kind of man he was.  Still, he is our ancestor, and deserves this brief moment in the sun.

Kingland was born sometime before November 2, 1673, which is his christening date.  His parents were Daniel and Palthiah Elderkin Comstock, and he was one of at least eleven children. He may have been the youngest child, but was surely one of the youngest.  This name came from his maternal grandmother's maiden name, although it also same with a variety of spellings, such as Kensley and Kingsley.  The family lived in Norwich, New London County, Connecticut.  Grandfather William Comstock had settled there, father Daniel inherited some of his land, and Kingsland in turn inherited some of that land,  His father died in 1683, when Kingsland was only about 11 years old, but the land was held for him until he reached the age of 21.  So by the time Kingsland married, the Comstock land had been in the family for "generations", and it appears that it stayed in family hands for quite a long time. 

Kingsland married Mary Atwell, daughter of Benjamin and Mary Atwell by 1697, and they had at least six children together.  Since he had the land farmed by his grandfather and father, he probably farmed, too.  If he had an additional occupation, I've not been able to determine it. 

I know nothing of any military service, I know nothing of his religious beliefs.  It appears that the children were baptized but I have not found that Kingsland ever joined the church.  Perhaps he did, because Connecticut was still quite Puritan by the time of his marriage and Mary may have influenced him to do so. 

He died suddenly, from a fall from a horse.  Did he have a stroke or heart attack that caused him to fall, or did the horse get spooked for some reason?  This was before April 17, 1721 ir oissubkt 1722.  The location of his death is listed as New London, New London, Ct. so perhaps he was there on some sort of business trip, or perhaps he and Mary had moved to the larger town.  Kingland would have been about 50 when he died. 

He left no will so the children agreed to sell the land that was theirs to their uncle, Daniel Comstock. There is a confusing entry that on March 1739/1740 the heirss of Kingsland Comstock agreed to the distibution of the estate.  Why had it taken this long?  Did Mary receive some sort of support while she raised the young children?  Their youngest son apparently was not born until about 1719, so that may explain the delay in settling the estate. 

That's what I know about Kingsland.  King Philip's war occurred when he was just a very young child.  He may or may not have been involved in Queen Anne's war, or in the expedition to Maine.  We just don't know.  But we do know he's our ancestor, and for that, we honor him.

The line of descent is

Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell

Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker

Rachel Comstock-John Eames

John Eames-Elizabeth Longborrom

Hannah Eames-James Lamphire

Sussan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy

Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard

Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick

Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

Holbrook line: Othniel Brown 1706-1755

Othniel!  What a name!  Of course, what else can you expect when your father is Hosanna and your mother is Mary.  Surely a Biblical name was important to this family, and the Biblical Othniel was the first judge of Judah.  His parents surely hoped for great things from him. 

Othniel, the son of Hosanna and Mary Hawkins Brown, was born about 1706 in Providence, Rhode Island, probably the northern part of the area, as that is the area that later became Gloucester and then Glocester.  From his name, we might guess that this was a Puritan family, but guessing is not always a wise thing to do, especially when we're talking about religion.  We do know that in the 1740's, a special prayer was required for the English monarch, and all the people in Glocester complied. 

Othniel was one of three children of Hosanna and Mary.  She died sometime after the birth of her third child and Hosanna had then married again, so Othniel had several half brothers and sisters, too.  Hosanna had been called 'yeoman", meaning farmer who owned property, and Othniel carried the same designation in 1726.  He was fortunate to own property at such a young age.   

There is some debate about whom Othniel married.  One source I saw said that he married Deborah unknown.  Another has given the names as Deborah Burlingame.  I have thought, it appears without good documentation, that she was Deborah Brown, the daughter of Richard and Mary Pray Brown.  So take your pick, until someone can find the actual records. 

I'm not sure what military service Othniel may have been involved in, before Glocester was split off from Providence.  But when Glocester formed in 1731, he was elected an ensign in the militia, and by 1734 he was the lieutenant in Captain Obadiah Jenckes' company from Glocester.  His cousin Chad Brown was the ensign.  We don't know for sure what the militia did but I found a statement that "It was necessary to keep some vessel of force cruising the coast of New England for the safety of trade" during this time period.  I also learned that each person in the militia (all healthy men between the ages of 16 and 60) was required to furnish, at his own expense, a musket or fusee (possibly an explosive device), a sword or bayonet, and a cartouch box holding one pound of good powder and four pounds of bullets. I would love to hear Othniel's stories of where he went and why, and what adventures he had.  

Othniel and Deborah had at least eight children.  I am not sure when Deborah died, but it may have been before Othniel died on June 4, 1755.  I don't know where they are buried, but Hosanna is buried in a place called the "Brown lot".  Hosanna died after Othniel, so it's possible that Othniel was buried there first, but I don't know that to be a fact.  I know that Othniel left a will but I've not been able to find it on line-yet. 

This is the brief version of Othniel's life.  It seems so little, for there were surely challenges he faced.  At least eight times, he would have paced while Deborah gave birth.  He helped his neighbors, attended church, served his town and colony, raised his children, and had an estate of some sort, apparently.  He is a man to be honored.

The line of descent is

Othniel Brown-Deborah

Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy

Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine

Joseph Brown Eddy-Susan Lamphire

Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard

Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick

Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Holbrook line: John Hawkins 1643ish to about 1725

It's amazing to me that so many second generation but still early settlers in New England (and elsewhere, for that matter) have gone into hiding.  And sometimes, ancestor hunters see other people with the same name and assume they are the person they are tracking.  I think both of those situations exist with our John Hawkins.  But he is so good at hiding, that I'm not sure.  Here's what I know, and what I think...

John Hawkins was born about 1643, maybe a year or so either way, in Providence Plantation, Rhode Island.  This was very early in the colony's history, so John basically grew up with the colony.  His parents were William and Margaret Harwood Hawkins, who had arrived in Providence about 1638.  John had at least five siblings, and it makes me smile to think how they could have "tormented" some of out other ancestors who were there at the same time, not the least of which would be Roger and Mary Williams. 

Providence was next to the sea, and also had plenty of arable land, so most people who settled here early were either farmers or mariners of some sort.  One website I saw indicates that our John became a mariner, but I don't know where that information was found.  It is certainly within the realm of possibility.  John, however.  We know that he acquired land because from 1684 until 1717 he deeded a total of 325 acres to one or another of his children.  So he probably farmed, whether or not he was a mariner.  Perhaps he did both jobs, or perhaps he was a mariner in the sense that he owned a boat, or shares in a boat. 

I'd like to tell you who he married, I really would.  A lot of sites show him as marrying Sarah Demeral, a widow, in Boston in 1654.  There was a John Hawkins in Boston who married this widow in 1654, but our John Hawkins was only about 11 years old at the time, so this can't be our John.  Torrey's New England Marriages Prior to 1700 says only that he married Sarah, prior to 1679.  She is frequently identified as Sarah Daniels, which is possible.  However, I've not found a Daniels family that was living in the area at that time, so it's also possible that he married another Sarah, since usually men married women within courting distance.  As far as I'm concerned, the search continues. 

John and Sarah had at least 10 children together.  Or at least, John is credited with having 10 children.  If all of these children are his, it's possible that Sarah died and John remarried, because most of the children were born by 1685 but it appears there was another child in 1690 before Abigail, the last, was born about 1695.  Or perhaps John and Sarah had other children born in between those time spans who didn't survive, or who were still born. 

Another big question is his religion.  His father was believed to have been a friend to Quakers, if not a friend himself.  I found one statement that John was a Quaker, and he may well have been, but I've not found him in the usual sources so take that for what it's worth. 

I've not found John on any lists for serving in any kind of military service, not even during King Philip's War.  His father was one of those who stayed, not abandoning Providence, so John may have stayed, too.  If so, Sarah and the first of the children may have gone elsewhere. I think it's quite likely that there home was destroyed during the War, but these are other questions that may or may not be answered with additional research. 

We don't know when Sarah died, and we have only an approximate date for John.  We know that his son Edward referred to his father, John, as deceased in a deed on April 13, 1726, so it was prior to that date.  Apparently Edward had cared for him in his old age because he had received by deed, in 1702, a gift of land  from John.  John in 1719 also gave him half the homestead, house, and lands, and the other half at his decease. 

I've found no will, but that may be because he had already given land to each of his children and had nothing left to give.  Or it could be that the will is lost.  If it still exists, I'd love to see those final papers. 

That's what we know of John Hawkins.  Whether or not he was a mariner, or a Quaker, he lived through interesting times, knew interesting people, and obviously cared for his family.  Thank you, John Hawkins.

The line of descent is:

John Hawkins-Sarah

Mary Hawkins-Hosanna Brown

Othniel Brown-Deborah Brown

Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy

Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine

Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire

Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard

Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick

Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook

Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen

Their descendants

Holbrook line: Thomas Strong 1637 ish to 1689

I hate to use "ish" with a date.  It shows my ignorance, or ability to find documentation to support a date.  However, that's the way it is.  The most specific date I found, which I can't support with a document, is October 24, 1637, likely in Hingham, Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts.  There are even those who state that his parentage isn't known, or at least that his mother isn't known.  However, most sources report him to be a son of Elder John Strong, whom I wrote about earlier, and his (possibly second) wife, Abigail Ford.  Thomas, as still a young boy, moved in 1647 to Windsor, Connecticut, where his parents lived until 1659.

Thomas lost no time in marrying Mary Hewitt at Northampton on October 3, 1659.  She was the daughter of Rev. Ephraim and Isabel Overton Hewitt (also spelled Huit, particularly in earlier records).  Thomas's father was the elder of the church, or soon would be, and Rev. Ephraim was a strong Puritan pastor, so Thomas and Mary would seem to have been well-matched.  However, Thomas's name is not on the list of those who first owned the Covenant, nor is Mary's. One wonders where they were spiritually, that they would not have joined the church immediately.  I've not been able to learn the dates that they joined, but it must have happened, because Thomas was a tithing man in 1669 and possibly for years thereafter.  (A tithing man was a sort of "law enforcer" for the church).

Thomas would have belonged to the militia of the town and would have been deeply involved in defending the town during King Philip's War.  I have not found his name on any lists indicating he fought outside of town but every able-bodied man would have been needed.  There were native American attacks on the palisades the men had built, and it was the spirit of the men (and women) inside that kept the rest of the townspeople safe (several died in the fields as some of the attacks began).  Thomas is listed as a "trooper" for Windsor, Connecticut in 1658 under Captain John Mason, but I haven't been able to determine what that service would have entailed, or why it was needed.

Thomas and Mary had five children together before she died February 20, 1671.  He then married Rachel Holton and they had at least eleven children together.  The youngest was born after her father's death, which occurred on October 3, 1689.  The estate papers are really hard to figure out, although they are mostly legible.  Apparently nothing was filed until 1695.  The estate seems to have been valued at over 400 pounds, more or less.  Rachel or a committee, or both, attempted to divide the estate so that each of the children would have their portion, and so the younger children could be raised until put to work.  I didn't locate an actual will, but she seems to be following some sort of directions from someone.  (Rachel later remarried, so some of the adult children actually had a step mother and a step father)

From the inventory, it appears that Thomas was a farmer, as he had several plots of land, oxen, cattle, horses, sheep, and lambs.  He may have been a shoemaker at one time, as there is the "remains of a last" in the list.  The inventory was taken 6 years after his death, so it is not a perfect look at his holdings.  Some goods, such as food and seeds, were used up in the meantime, as were cloths that were cut up for clothes for the children.  There were two guns listed, but no Bible that I could see.  Surely Thomas would have been able to read, though, as all Puritan boys were expected to meet this standard.

I wish we knew more about John Strong.  His father overshadowed him and out-lived him, too.  So was our John a meek and mild-mannered man, or was he strong and silent?  Was he a source of help to the community during and after King Philip's war, when some had lost their husbands and fathers and many had lost their homes and crops?  There is so much more I'd like to know!

The line of descent is

Thomas Strong-Mary Hewitt
Maria Strong-Samuel Judd
Elizabeth Judd-Ebenezer Southwell
Eunice Southwell-Medad Pomeroy
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stanard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants

Fun fact:  Thomas Strong is the 8th great grandfather of Lady Diana.  He is my 8th great grandfather, too.  So that makes us ninth cousins, which is kind of fun.