There's a lot to think about when we think about Samuel Tubbs. He must have had an incredibly difficult life, with his mother's scandalous behavior being the talk of the town. Oh, wait...our Pilgrim fathers and mothers didn't gossip. He certainly had an interesting life. He would have known our ancestors William Brewster and Miles Standish and Edward Doty. He moved to New London, Connecticut and fought in King Philip's War, for long enough that he was awarded land in Voluntown, Connecticut. He may have known, and almost certainly knew of, that other famous ancestor of ours, Roger Williams. And did I mention he lived in New England during some of its earliest years?
So, here's the story...Samuel Tubbs was born in 1638, probably in Duxbury, Plymouth Colony, the son of William and Mercy Sprague Tubbs. I have written about their marriage and William's attempts to end it in another post. The divorce between the parents was finally granted in 1668, when Samuel was 30 years old, but the difficulties between his parents, and Mercy's behavior, were evident during Samuel's teen aged years, if not before. Nevertheless, he did have four (at least) younger siblings, assumed to be offspring of both parents.
No wonder our hero took off for New London, Connecticut, just about as soon as he could. He seems to have been there prior to 1664, because in that year he, along with other young single men, requested permission from the court to stay in New London. (Typically, a young single man had to live with another family until he was married, but with a large group of young men, such as New London had, there may have been other arrangements made.) Samuel probably was quite relieved when the request was approved.
William had taught his son several things. One important skill was that he passed on his own trade of shoemaker to his son. New London may have been a good place for a shoemaker to settle, because in addition to the colonists who lived there, this was a sea faring town and there were sailors and merchants who needed new shoes, or repairs.
Samuel married Mary Willey, daughter of Isaac and Joanna Lufton Willey, about 1666. They had been called up on a charge of fornication, and generally the easiest way to get a light sentence for that crime was to marry the girl. I haven't found a record of the trial or it's aftermath yet, but typically the woman was punished more heavily than the man. Even though they married, there were consequences. But if she was whipped, it was likely after the child was born,)
Despite what may have been a rough start to their marriage, Samuel and Mary apparently made the best of it. They had probably 10 children, 9 of them named in Samuel's will, which I haven't seen. Besides his shoemaker occupation,
Samuel was a busy man, but not too busy to engage in civic affairs. I don't know of any civic offices that he held, but he did participate in a "riot" in 1671, The dispute was about a meadow claimed by both New London and Lyme. Samuel was on the side of New London, which eventually won the dispute. I don't know the extent of the "riot". Then, a few years later, King Philip's War broke out. Samuel enlisted with other Connecticut men and apparently served during most if not all of the conflict, protecting both Connecticut and Rhode Island. He was later, posthumously, awarded land in Voluntown, Connecticut (located on the border with Rhode Island), as a reward for service during that conflict. Out of 180 men from Connecticut who were to be allotted land, he was number 62, in rough chronological order of when they enlisted. He was awarded lot number 85 in the Cedar Swamp there. Although he may have stayed active with a militia or training band, this is the last time we know of that he was actually involved in battle.
In fact, this is the last that I've found of Samuel. He is reported to have died before May 31, 1696, at New London, and is supposed to be buried at East Haddam. Mary died prior to 1726, but I've not found an exact date for her.
Samuel basically escaped from Duxbury, made at least one mistake in his early manhood, and then seems to have settled down. He likely attended church on a regular basis, for that was expected if not required, and he raised a large family. His military service alone is enough reason for us to remember him. He got the family name back to a certain degree of respectability, and for that, we are grateful.
The line of descent is:
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker=Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Showing posts with label Crocker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crocker. Show all posts
Friday, January 31, 2020
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Holbrook line: Kingsland Comstock, another elusive ancestor
I almost regret trying to write a blog post about Kingsland. I find wide variations on his birth date, no record of his death date, no location to be sure of, and nothing at all about him. I think I know who his parents are, I am reasonably sure who his wife was, and I do have information that may or may not be correct about his children. He may be hiding in plain sight but so far I haven't caught many glimpses of him.
Kingsland was the son of Kingsland and Mary Atwell Comstock. Supposedly his parents were married in 1711, which is a bit of a problem. First, I can't find documentation for that, and secondly, our Kingsland is presumed to be older than can be accounted for by this couple, if the marriage date is correct. We know that Kingsland married Rachel Crocker on September 18, 1717 in New London, so Kingsland would presumably have been in the neighborhood of 25 years old then. That gives a birthdate of about 1692. Kingsland Sr. and Mary were old enough to have been married when our Kingsland was born So either Mary Atwell was a second wife, or the marriage date, undocumented, is simply wrong.
At any rate, the younger Kingsland had at least three brothers and one sister. The family is believed to have stayed in New London, where our Kingsland married in 1717. But with absolutely no record to be found after a moderate amount of research, I'm wondering whether he may have taken his family elsewhere. Kingsland and Rachel are believed to have had at least seven children, all born between 1718 and 1727. After the 1727 birth, Kingsland disappears from New London records. Did they live off the grid, so to speak, or did Kingsland possibly desert his family? Did he die at sea?
I've not found a record of a will for Kingsland, nor an inventory. This further exclaims "Mystery" to me. His mother Mary died in 1755 and left a small estate, but the papers I've found didn't include a distribution. The supposition is that Kingsland was already deceased by then.
I wonder if he had actually left New London for some reason? I wonder what his occupation was and whether he attended church after his children were baptized. I wonder if he was literate. I wonder if he did leave his family an estate that has been lost. I wonder why he is so mysterious!
The line of descent is
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Kingsland was the son of Kingsland and Mary Atwell Comstock. Supposedly his parents were married in 1711, which is a bit of a problem. First, I can't find documentation for that, and secondly, our Kingsland is presumed to be older than can be accounted for by this couple, if the marriage date is correct. We know that Kingsland married Rachel Crocker on September 18, 1717 in New London, so Kingsland would presumably have been in the neighborhood of 25 years old then. That gives a birthdate of about 1692. Kingsland Sr. and Mary were old enough to have been married when our Kingsland was born So either Mary Atwell was a second wife, or the marriage date, undocumented, is simply wrong.
At any rate, the younger Kingsland had at least three brothers and one sister. The family is believed to have stayed in New London, where our Kingsland married in 1717. But with absolutely no record to be found after a moderate amount of research, I'm wondering whether he may have taken his family elsewhere. Kingsland and Rachel are believed to have had at least seven children, all born between 1718 and 1727. After the 1727 birth, Kingsland disappears from New London records. Did they live off the grid, so to speak, or did Kingsland possibly desert his family? Did he die at sea?
I've not found a record of a will for Kingsland, nor an inventory. This further exclaims "Mystery" to me. His mother Mary died in 1755 and left a small estate, but the papers I've found didn't include a distribution. The supposition is that Kingsland was already deceased by then.
I wonder if he had actually left New London for some reason? I wonder what his occupation was and whether he attended church after his children were baptized. I wonder if he was literate. I wonder if he did leave his family an estate that has been lost. I wonder why he is so mysterious!
The line of descent is
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, August 9, 2019
Holbrook line: John Crocker the invisible, almost 1672-
My goodness. Some of these ancestors not only played hide and seek, but they apparently dug holes in the ground and stayed there most of their lives-or possibly went out to sea. I have found very little about this ancestor. In fact, some authorities think he died young. Well, perhaps he did, but it was after he had married and fathered four children.
John was a son of Thomas and Rachel Chappell Crocker, born in New London, Connecticut and probably died there, too. I say "probably" because I've found no death record, and the will for the John Crocker I've found is for a man by the same name in Barnstaple, Massachusetts. He names several children that are not our ancestor's children, and doesn't name our John's children at all, so my conclusion is that this is not our John Crocker. Perhaps he died at sea and his death was not recorded.
We do know that he married Mercy Tubbs, the daughter of Samuel and Mary Willey Tubbs probably by 1701. The two of them had four children together, three daughters and a son.
The only other tidbit of information I was able to pull from my search of quite a few records (not an exhaustive search, so keep looking, if you're also a descendant) regards one night of bad behavior in September of 1699. One wonders whether this was the result of a bachelor party for John, although I've certainly not heard of the tradition being observed in this time period. Nevertheless, John Chapell, Isreael Richards, John Crocker and Thomas Atwell were accused of "nightwalking" on the Sabbath eve of September, committing "various misdeameanors as pulling up bridges and fences, cutting the manes and tails of horses, and setting up logs against peoples doors." For this, they were charged in county court, and sentenced to pay 10 shillings each, and to sit two hours in the stocks. (Found in Frances Manwaring Calkins History of New London, Connecticut).
Yikes! They really had stocks? And our ancestor was placed there? Well, it wasn't the only time we had ancestors in the stocks, and they all survived that experience. John must have learned his lesson, for his name isn't mentioned again in the research I've done.
Other than a possible death date of August 25, 1706, which I have been unable to document, that is what is known of John Crocker. He would have been only 34 years old. He left three children, Hannah having died as an infant, and a widow. Mercy lived 52 more years, dying on March 4, 1758 in New London. She married a man twenty years older than herself, Thomas Leach, in December of 1706, and had more children with him.
Of course I would love to find out more about him. Did he die at sea, or in a military expedition, or from a sudden illness? Was Mercy happy to be married to him? Was she happy in her second marriage? What did John do for a living? Surely we are not the only people pondering these questions.
The line of descent is:
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
John was a son of Thomas and Rachel Chappell Crocker, born in New London, Connecticut and probably died there, too. I say "probably" because I've found no death record, and the will for the John Crocker I've found is for a man by the same name in Barnstaple, Massachusetts. He names several children that are not our ancestor's children, and doesn't name our John's children at all, so my conclusion is that this is not our John Crocker. Perhaps he died at sea and his death was not recorded.
We do know that he married Mercy Tubbs, the daughter of Samuel and Mary Willey Tubbs probably by 1701. The two of them had four children together, three daughters and a son.
The only other tidbit of information I was able to pull from my search of quite a few records (not an exhaustive search, so keep looking, if you're also a descendant) regards one night of bad behavior in September of 1699. One wonders whether this was the result of a bachelor party for John, although I've certainly not heard of the tradition being observed in this time period. Nevertheless, John Chapell, Isreael Richards, John Crocker and Thomas Atwell were accused of "nightwalking" on the Sabbath eve of September, committing "various misdeameanors as pulling up bridges and fences, cutting the manes and tails of horses, and setting up logs against peoples doors." For this, they were charged in county court, and sentenced to pay 10 shillings each, and to sit two hours in the stocks. (Found in Frances Manwaring Calkins History of New London, Connecticut).
Yikes! They really had stocks? And our ancestor was placed there? Well, it wasn't the only time we had ancestors in the stocks, and they all survived that experience. John must have learned his lesson, for his name isn't mentioned again in the research I've done.
Other than a possible death date of August 25, 1706, which I have been unable to document, that is what is known of John Crocker. He would have been only 34 years old. He left three children, Hannah having died as an infant, and a widow. Mercy lived 52 more years, dying on March 4, 1758 in New London. She married a man twenty years older than herself, Thomas Leach, in December of 1706, and had more children with him.
Of course I would love to find out more about him. Did he die at sea, or in a military expedition, or from a sudden illness? Was Mercy happy to be married to him? Was she happy in her second marriage? What did John do for a living? Surely we are not the only people pondering these questions.
The line of descent is:
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Holbrook line: Daniel Comstock abt 1624-1683
Contrary to what most websites say, Daniel Comstock was born before (probably shortly before) July 21, 1624 in Uxbridge, Middlesex, England. His parents were William and Elizabeth Daniel Comstock. He was probably in New England by 1639, when his father has records in Wetherfield, Connecticut, but because he was underage there don't seem to be records of his arrival here.
The first we know of Daniel for sure is that he was in Providence, Rhode Island in 1645, but we don't know why he was there. It's possible that he served as an indentured servant to one of the other families in the settlement. He was granted 25 acres of land there in 1645, and was there in 1648 when John Elderkin, his future father in law, took Robert Williams to Daniel's home to sleep off the effects of too much alcohol. That same year, he was fined for making a false report of an Indian attack.
John married Palthiah Elderkin probably in Providence about 1653, as their first daughter is thought to have been born in 1654. The family stayed in Providence for a few years and then moved on to Norwich, Connecticut. Daniel was selling land about 1657 and that may be when the family moved.
Daniel and Palthiah's family was large but there are differing opinions on just how large it was. Most seem to agree there were at least 11 children, and some add more. At any rate, Daniel and Palthiah were kept busy with their young brood. We don't know what his occupation was but perhaps he worked with his father in law. Elderkin was a ship's carpenter, and if Daniel followed the same trade, that could explain why he moved to Norwich and then on to New Haven, following the work.
He was made a freeman in New Haven, Connecticut in 1669. If he hadn't been a freeman in the other towns, this would have been his first chance to vote. We don't know whether he was involved in King Philip's War, or any of the earlier skirmishes between the colonists and the natives. He would have been at least 50 years old when the war started and perhaps he was excused from duty because of his age. Many Connecticut men were called to duty, either to fight the Indians or to stay behind and protect the families left behind, so it would not be totally unexpected if he took one of these roles.
Daniel died, probably in New Haven, in 1683. His inventory was taken there in November, and valued at almost 222 pounds. Most of the value appears to have been in real estate, including plots of 100 acres and 150 acres of land. His wife was to have control of the estate to assist her in raising their younger children, at least three of whom were minors.
Many times the second and third generations of immigrants are more difficult to trace than the original settler was, so we can be grateful for the bits and pieces we have here. We don't know whether he was a church member, nor do we know whether he was literate, nor his occupation. But we know he adjusted to his new life and contributed to the story of our family. Perhaps more will be found in the future, but this is at least a start.
The line of descent is:
Daniel Comstock-Palthiah Elderkin
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first we know of Daniel for sure is that he was in Providence, Rhode Island in 1645, but we don't know why he was there. It's possible that he served as an indentured servant to one of the other families in the settlement. He was granted 25 acres of land there in 1645, and was there in 1648 when John Elderkin, his future father in law, took Robert Williams to Daniel's home to sleep off the effects of too much alcohol. That same year, he was fined for making a false report of an Indian attack.
John married Palthiah Elderkin probably in Providence about 1653, as their first daughter is thought to have been born in 1654. The family stayed in Providence for a few years and then moved on to Norwich, Connecticut. Daniel was selling land about 1657 and that may be when the family moved.
Daniel and Palthiah's family was large but there are differing opinions on just how large it was. Most seem to agree there were at least 11 children, and some add more. At any rate, Daniel and Palthiah were kept busy with their young brood. We don't know what his occupation was but perhaps he worked with his father in law. Elderkin was a ship's carpenter, and if Daniel followed the same trade, that could explain why he moved to Norwich and then on to New Haven, following the work.
He was made a freeman in New Haven, Connecticut in 1669. If he hadn't been a freeman in the other towns, this would have been his first chance to vote. We don't know whether he was involved in King Philip's War, or any of the earlier skirmishes between the colonists and the natives. He would have been at least 50 years old when the war started and perhaps he was excused from duty because of his age. Many Connecticut men were called to duty, either to fight the Indians or to stay behind and protect the families left behind, so it would not be totally unexpected if he took one of these roles.
Daniel died, probably in New Haven, in 1683. His inventory was taken there in November, and valued at almost 222 pounds. Most of the value appears to have been in real estate, including plots of 100 acres and 150 acres of land. His wife was to have control of the estate to assist her in raising their younger children, at least three of whom were minors.
Many times the second and third generations of immigrants are more difficult to trace than the original settler was, so we can be grateful for the bits and pieces we have here. We don't know whether he was a church member, nor do we know whether he was literate, nor his occupation. But we know he adjusted to his new life and contributed to the story of our family. Perhaps more will be found in the future, but this is at least a start.
The line of descent is:
Daniel Comstock-Palthiah Elderkin
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, April 12, 2019
Holbrook line: Benjamin Atwell, 1640-1683, probable immigrant
He married an Indian woman named Mary Uncas? How exciting!! Oops, how wrong! It seems there is no evidence whatsoever for this "fact" so let's just file thais in the back of the folder with a huge "unproven" on it. Benjamin did have a wife named Mary, who later married Joseph Ingham, but she was not Mary Uncas, at least not so far as we know. It would be totally out of character for a man married to an Indian to be named a constable of his town, anyway.
So let's start with what we think we know, since Benjamin is really the first documented person in the Atwell line. He was probably born about 1640, probably in England. There is a Benjamin Atwell in Maine by this time period but he is not considered a likely candidate to be Benjamin's father. Perhaps there is a tie in further back in England, but it's not yet been discovered. He is in New London, Connecticut in 1667 and may have arrived earlier, but if so, it is strange that his marriage and the birth of his first son were not entered in the New London records.
Benjamin was a carpenter by trade. We don't know whether he worked in the shipbuilding business which was part of New London's heritage, or whether he built houses and buildings, but he was a skilled tradesman. He was elected constable in 1675 and may have held that office earlier. At one time he owned two houses and lots in New London, but sold one in 1672. Perhaps he had built a new, larger house as his family grew.
Benjamin and Mary had eight children together, from about 1668 to April of 1682. Benjamin died between October 1682 and November 1683, and Mary married Joseph Ingram shortly after, probably about 1684. Benjamin's estate wasn't settled until 1712, after one son petitioned for a settlement in 1707.
Mary had one child with Joseph but they had separated by 1686 and despite court orders, Mary did not return to her second husband. Mary may have had a backbone somewhat unusual in our female ancestors of the 1600s. Whether this was a case of spousal abuse, or alcoholism, or any of a number of other factors, something made Mary decide to raise her 9 children on her own, except that Joseph eventually got custody of that child. She was a feisty woman, I would guess.
This is what we know of the story of Benjamin and Mary. I see Benjamin as a hard working man (aren't all carpenters hard workers?) and since he was elected constable he had the respect of his community. Mary was probably a woman who conformed to the times until she couldn't stand it any longer. I find much to admire in both of these ancestors. I just wish we could find Mary's identity!
The line of descent is"
Benjamin Atwell-Mary
Mary Atwell-Kingsland Comstock
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
So let's start with what we think we know, since Benjamin is really the first documented person in the Atwell line. He was probably born about 1640, probably in England. There is a Benjamin Atwell in Maine by this time period but he is not considered a likely candidate to be Benjamin's father. Perhaps there is a tie in further back in England, but it's not yet been discovered. He is in New London, Connecticut in 1667 and may have arrived earlier, but if so, it is strange that his marriage and the birth of his first son were not entered in the New London records.
Benjamin was a carpenter by trade. We don't know whether he worked in the shipbuilding business which was part of New London's heritage, or whether he built houses and buildings, but he was a skilled tradesman. He was elected constable in 1675 and may have held that office earlier. At one time he owned two houses and lots in New London, but sold one in 1672. Perhaps he had built a new, larger house as his family grew.
Benjamin and Mary had eight children together, from about 1668 to April of 1682. Benjamin died between October 1682 and November 1683, and Mary married Joseph Ingram shortly after, probably about 1684. Benjamin's estate wasn't settled until 1712, after one son petitioned for a settlement in 1707.
Mary had one child with Joseph but they had separated by 1686 and despite court orders, Mary did not return to her second husband. Mary may have had a backbone somewhat unusual in our female ancestors of the 1600s. Whether this was a case of spousal abuse, or alcoholism, or any of a number of other factors, something made Mary decide to raise her 9 children on her own, except that Joseph eventually got custody of that child. She was a feisty woman, I would guess.
This is what we know of the story of Benjamin and Mary. I see Benjamin as a hard working man (aren't all carpenters hard workers?) and since he was elected constable he had the respect of his community. Mary was probably a woman who conformed to the times until she couldn't stand it any longer. I find much to admire in both of these ancestors. I just wish we could find Mary's identity!
The line of descent is"
Benjamin Atwell-Mary
Mary Atwell-Kingsland Comstock
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
George Chappell, Immigrant and minor rascal
George Chappell was born somewhere. Apparently the "accepted" parents and location are no longer "accepted" and his origin is considered unknown. There is a man of about the right age who married in 1597 in Horncastle, Lincolnshire, England, but at this point it's merely a suggestion for research and not in any way, shape or form a documentable connection. When I win the lottery, I would certainly like to look into this possibility.
The first thing that is really known about George is that in 1635, when he was aged 20, he, along with about 20 other yong men, were sent to New England, specifically Windsor, Connecticut, to build homes and structures required by Sir Richard Saltonstall and other Connecticut patentees. George was in Wetherfield for about two years, where he was trained as a carpenter but also most probably served in the Pequot war. This was not the colony's finest hour in terms of what they did (the English massacred several hundred natives during the course of the war, among other things) but the soldiers following orders, must have thought they were doing the right thing. After the war, George was granted a house and lotinWethersfield. While living in Wethersfield, probably about 1642, George married Christian, possibly Bell. They had five children todether before Christian apparently died in the early 1650's.
In 1653, George married Margaret and the family moved to New London. We don't know whether he continued the trade he learned of carpentry, or whether he had another occupation. He apparently still was doing some farming, based on land records. George and Margaret also had five children together.
I mentioned that George may have been a bit of a minor rascal. He was often in court over debts, some that he owed and some that he felt he was owed. He also was charged more than once with "excess in drinking" and with "abusing the constable". As far as the records show, he was never placed on a jury or selected for any kind of public office, so he may not have had the good reputation of our other immigrant ancestors. He also was apparently illiterate, as he had a certain"mark" he used when signing legal documents.
When he died, about 1682, he left goods to his wife to help in the upbringing of the younger children, and mentioned several of the children by name. I have not been able to find a copy of the estate records, but I will keep looking. I love to look at the inventories to see what they might suggest about our ancestor.
The line of descent is:
George Chappell-Christian possibly Bell
Rachel Chappell-Thomas Crocker
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first thing that is really known about George is that in 1635, when he was aged 20, he, along with about 20 other yong men, were sent to New England, specifically Windsor, Connecticut, to build homes and structures required by Sir Richard Saltonstall and other Connecticut patentees. George was in Wetherfield for about two years, where he was trained as a carpenter but also most probably served in the Pequot war. This was not the colony's finest hour in terms of what they did (the English massacred several hundred natives during the course of the war, among other things) but the soldiers following orders, must have thought they were doing the right thing. After the war, George was granted a house and lotinWethersfield. While living in Wethersfield, probably about 1642, George married Christian, possibly Bell. They had five children todether before Christian apparently died in the early 1650's.
In 1653, George married Margaret and the family moved to New London. We don't know whether he continued the trade he learned of carpentry, or whether he had another occupation. He apparently still was doing some farming, based on land records. George and Margaret also had five children together.
I mentioned that George may have been a bit of a minor rascal. He was often in court over debts, some that he owed and some that he felt he was owed. He also was charged more than once with "excess in drinking" and with "abusing the constable". As far as the records show, he was never placed on a jury or selected for any kind of public office, so he may not have had the good reputation of our other immigrant ancestors. He also was apparently illiterate, as he had a certain"mark" he used when signing legal documents.
When he died, about 1682, he left goods to his wife to help in the upbringing of the younger children, and mentioned several of the children by name. I have not been able to find a copy of the estate records, but I will keep looking. I love to look at the inventories to see what they might suggest about our ancestor.
The line of descent is:
George Chappell-Christian possibly Bell
Rachel Chappell-Thomas Crocker
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, April 14, 2017
Holbrook line: Francis Sprague, Immigrant of 1623
Goodness! It's hard to imagine what the Saints, and even the Sinners, thought when Francis Sprague arrived at Plymouth Colony in 1623. He and at least two of his family arrived on the ship Anne. Francis was still a young man, having been born sometime in the 1590's, and he was evidently a free spirit. Nevertheless, he probably had to sign something that said he would abide by the rules of the Colony, even though he was not of their (or, probably, any) religious persuasion. Let's just say he was likely one of those people who thought the laws didn't apply to him That makes him a fun ancestor to write about.
We don't know much about his family, although his parents are frequently given as Edward Sprague and Christiana or Margaret Holland. This couple was from Dorset, England but I am not aware of any documentation that shows Francis as a son of theirs. Still, it may be true.
There is also considerable confusion about his first wife, and whether or not she accompanied him to New England. Her name is now believed to be Lydia, possibly Archer, and she may have been an interesting person herself. If she encouraged Francis to come to America, perhaps she lived to regret that encouragement, or perhaps life for the Spragues in England was so difficult that living on the frontier was not harder, just different. Certainly the family had cause to wonder whether they had done the right thing when the left the ship "Anne" in 1623 and saw the condition of the settlers who had been at Plymouth Colony for two or three years. However, they didn't return to the ship but stayed to make their new home in the New World.
Because Francis was here in 1623, he received land in the division of 1623 and was part of the next division of land and cattle in 1627, receiving 15 acres of land plus cattle, sheep, and goats. About this time he also made an agreement with William Bradford to become a recognized fur trader. This job would not have been easy, as it meant going into lands occupied by the natives and taking pelts and animals that the natives had relied on for years. It was what we would consider a high risk occupation.
By 1637, a few years after his second marriage, Francis was ready to settle down a little more, and he was approved by the courts to become an innkeeper. Innkeeper is really a misnomer, for the main attraction of his establishment seems to have been liquor, although "hard" liquor was not officially permitted. This was in Duxbury, a newer settlement of the Colony, .He joined the militia under Captain Myles Standish (another Holbrook ancestor) in 1638. He was cited by the courts several times through the years for various infractions regarding dispensing of liquor, and appears to have had his license suspended for as long as 6 years, from 1640-1646. He was also made a freeman in 1637, and later was a constable for the town.
The tavern business was good to him for he was able to make other real estate investments, and was regarded as rather wealthy and somewhat respectable when he died in 1676. By then, he had deeded much of his land to his son John. Considering the hardships he faced and lived through, he had quite a long life. He's an interesting addition to the family.
The line of descent is:
Francis Sprague-Lydia
Mercy Sprague-William Tubbs
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
We don't know much about his family, although his parents are frequently given as Edward Sprague and Christiana or Margaret Holland. This couple was from Dorset, England but I am not aware of any documentation that shows Francis as a son of theirs. Still, it may be true.
There is also considerable confusion about his first wife, and whether or not she accompanied him to New England. Her name is now believed to be Lydia, possibly Archer, and she may have been an interesting person herself. If she encouraged Francis to come to America, perhaps she lived to regret that encouragement, or perhaps life for the Spragues in England was so difficult that living on the frontier was not harder, just different. Certainly the family had cause to wonder whether they had done the right thing when the left the ship "Anne" in 1623 and saw the condition of the settlers who had been at Plymouth Colony for two or three years. However, they didn't return to the ship but stayed to make their new home in the New World.
Because Francis was here in 1623, he received land in the division of 1623 and was part of the next division of land and cattle in 1627, receiving 15 acres of land plus cattle, sheep, and goats. About this time he also made an agreement with William Bradford to become a recognized fur trader. This job would not have been easy, as it meant going into lands occupied by the natives and taking pelts and animals that the natives had relied on for years. It was what we would consider a high risk occupation.
By 1637, a few years after his second marriage, Francis was ready to settle down a little more, and he was approved by the courts to become an innkeeper. Innkeeper is really a misnomer, for the main attraction of his establishment seems to have been liquor, although "hard" liquor was not officially permitted. This was in Duxbury, a newer settlement of the Colony, .He joined the militia under Captain Myles Standish (another Holbrook ancestor) in 1638. He was cited by the courts several times through the years for various infractions regarding dispensing of liquor, and appears to have had his license suspended for as long as 6 years, from 1640-1646. He was also made a freeman in 1637, and later was a constable for the town.
The tavern business was good to him for he was able to make other real estate investments, and was regarded as rather wealthy and somewhat respectable when he died in 1676. By then, he had deeded much of his land to his son John. Considering the hardships he faced and lived through, he had quite a long life. He's an interesting addition to the family.
The line of descent is:
Francis Sprague-Lydia
Mercy Sprague-William Tubbs
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, October 7, 2016
Holbrook line:: Thomas Crocker 1633-1715/16 Immigrant
I can say Thomas Crocker was an immigrant only because I know he died here and was born in England. He is often said to have been born in 1633 and to have been the son of Hugh Crocker and Elizabeth Colleton, and to have been christened at St Olave, Exeter, Devonshire, England. Some of those facts may be true, none of them may be true, or all of them may be true, but many family historians are leaving his parentage blank. So we will simply say he was born in England.
It seems that he was in New London, Connecticut by 1667, when he married Rachel Chappell, daughter of George Chappell and Christian possibly Bell Chappell. I've not found speculation as to when he emigrated to America, or why. If indeed he was the son of Hugh and Elizabeth, he may have come at a young age with his brothers, or followed soon after. Perhaps his parents had the foresight to send him out of the country before the Civil War broke out. Hugh, mayor of Exeter, if this is the correct Hugh) was a Royalist but his sons seem to have tried not to take sides in America. Or it may be that he didn't come until later. He seems to have bought a house in New Street in New London, Connecticut in 1660, although other sources say he didn't arrive until a few years later, and was named in a land grant of 1663 and again in 1704.
He and Rachel had at least eight children, born between 1669 and 1685 (none named Hugh!). We don't know what he did for a living but perhaps he worked in the maritime trades. His father in law was a carpenter, so perhaps he learned that, or a similar, trade. I've not yet located a will for him, which could probably tell us a good deal more than we know now. Thomas Crocker died January 18, 1715/16 and it appears that Rachel lived until 1728. Once Thomas arrived in New London, that is where he stayed (unless he made trips for trade purposes, for which there is no indication).
Thomas may or may not have left other records, showing land or court records, church affiliation, and town offices or responsibilities. So far, I haven't found them. He is pretty much a mystery, but he is one of the men who, however low their social status may (or may not) have been, made America.
The line of descent is
Thomas Crocker-Rachel Chappell
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Harriet Eames-James Lamphire the missing
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
It seems that he was in New London, Connecticut by 1667, when he married Rachel Chappell, daughter of George Chappell and Christian possibly Bell Chappell. I've not found speculation as to when he emigrated to America, or why. If indeed he was the son of Hugh and Elizabeth, he may have come at a young age with his brothers, or followed soon after. Perhaps his parents had the foresight to send him out of the country before the Civil War broke out. Hugh, mayor of Exeter, if this is the correct Hugh) was a Royalist but his sons seem to have tried not to take sides in America. Or it may be that he didn't come until later. He seems to have bought a house in New Street in New London, Connecticut in 1660, although other sources say he didn't arrive until a few years later, and was named in a land grant of 1663 and again in 1704.
He and Rachel had at least eight children, born between 1669 and 1685 (none named Hugh!). We don't know what he did for a living but perhaps he worked in the maritime trades. His father in law was a carpenter, so perhaps he learned that, or a similar, trade. I've not yet located a will for him, which could probably tell us a good deal more than we know now. Thomas Crocker died January 18, 1715/16 and it appears that Rachel lived until 1728. Once Thomas arrived in New London, that is where he stayed (unless he made trips for trade purposes, for which there is no indication).
Thomas may or may not have left other records, showing land or court records, church affiliation, and town offices or responsibilities. So far, I haven't found them. He is pretty much a mystery, but he is one of the men who, however low their social status may (or may not) have been, made America.
The line of descent is
Thomas Crocker-Rachel Chappell
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Harriet Eames-James Lamphire the missing
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, July 29, 2016
Holrook line: William Comstock 1595-1683 Immigrant
We know a lot more about William Comstock than we know about some of our other immigrant ancestors. In this case, that might not be such a good thing, because there is at least one troubling event that we'll need to discuss further.
But in the beginning, he was born to William Comstock and an unknown mother on July 4, 1595 at Culmstock, Devon, England. This was a very small village but it had a church, All Saints, which was where he was baptized and which is still in use today. If I were ever to take a trip to England, one goal would be to worship in an ancestral church like this one. For us, it is hard to think of a church that has been standing for 700 years, but that's the approximate age of the oldest parts of this building. You can find pictures of the church on Google, which may be the next best thing to an in person visit.
William's family likely were sheep farmers, or/and weavers, for this part of Devon is known for its wool. About 1623 or 1624, William married Elizabeth. Most on line sources say her name was Daniels but there is a decent cast to be made for her name have been Cock or Cocke. As far as I can see, the jury is still out on that one. There were five or possibly six children born to the Comstock family in England. It's possible that Christopher, the youngest, was born after n earlier Christopher was born and had died as an infant.
We also don't know when or why William, Elizabeth, and family left for New England, or where their first stop was. Some say that they were in Watertown, Massachusetts Bay Colony for a short time. Others think they went directly to Wethersfield, Connecticut. He purchased land then that had previously been awarded to Richard Mylles, so William had at least some money by that time.
The evidence that "proves" he was in Wethersfield prior to that is scanty, but troubling. His name is apparently listed (where???) as being a private at Wethersfield, and 26 privates from Wethersfield were involved in a shameful incident in the Pequod War, when between 400 and 700 members of the tribe, mostly women and children, were massacred. The English set their village on fire, and shot anyone who tried to escape. This was in supposed retaliation for previous raids on the English settlers. So if William Comstock was at Wetherseifeld by May 26, he likely took part in this horrible event. If not, most of his neighbors would have been there. Wethersfield was small enough that everyone below the age of 55 or so would have gone, with only the older men left behind to guard the town.
William and his wife raised their children in Wethersfield until about 1650, when they moved to Pequot, which was quite near New London, Ct. He contracted with John Winthrop to establish a corn mill there, and in 1651 he was working on the dam for the mill. In 1659, he and Elizabeth sold land in New London.
He was chosen to be sexton on February 25, 1661.62,to order youth in the meeting house, sweep the meeting house, and beat out dogs. He was to be paid 40 shillings a year for this job, plus 4 shillings for each adult burial and 2 shillings for each child burial. He, at the age of 66 or more, had to dig the graves for the burials. It's not reported how long he held this job.
Traditional sources say that William lived until 1683, with only two of his sons surviving him. I've not found a record of a will.
So, really, there are still a lot of unknowns for our William. Besides the missing facts, I would most like to know if William really was part of the massacre, and if so, what he was thinking before, during, and after the event. Did he suffer from anything like PTSD? Was he "just following orders"? Or was he an eager participant, doing what he felt needed to be done to keep his family safe? Had he been in the Colonies long enough to be able to make an informed decision? It's hard to come upon a "probable" like this, which to our thinking leaves a big black mark on his name.
The line of descent is:
William Comstock-Elizabeth
Daniel Comstock-Palthiah Elderkin
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Glady Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Fun Fact: William Comstock was an ancestor to Gerald Ford, making us distant cousins to another president.
But in the beginning, he was born to William Comstock and an unknown mother on July 4, 1595 at Culmstock, Devon, England. This was a very small village but it had a church, All Saints, which was where he was baptized and which is still in use today. If I were ever to take a trip to England, one goal would be to worship in an ancestral church like this one. For us, it is hard to think of a church that has been standing for 700 years, but that's the approximate age of the oldest parts of this building. You can find pictures of the church on Google, which may be the next best thing to an in person visit.
William's family likely were sheep farmers, or/and weavers, for this part of Devon is known for its wool. About 1623 or 1624, William married Elizabeth. Most on line sources say her name was Daniels but there is a decent cast to be made for her name have been Cock or Cocke. As far as I can see, the jury is still out on that one. There were five or possibly six children born to the Comstock family in England. It's possible that Christopher, the youngest, was born after n earlier Christopher was born and had died as an infant.
We also don't know when or why William, Elizabeth, and family left for New England, or where their first stop was. Some say that they were in Watertown, Massachusetts Bay Colony for a short time. Others think they went directly to Wethersfield, Connecticut. He purchased land then that had previously been awarded to Richard Mylles, so William had at least some money by that time.
The evidence that "proves" he was in Wethersfield prior to that is scanty, but troubling. His name is apparently listed (where???) as being a private at Wethersfield, and 26 privates from Wethersfield were involved in a shameful incident in the Pequod War, when between 400 and 700 members of the tribe, mostly women and children, were massacred. The English set their village on fire, and shot anyone who tried to escape. This was in supposed retaliation for previous raids on the English settlers. So if William Comstock was at Wetherseifeld by May 26, he likely took part in this horrible event. If not, most of his neighbors would have been there. Wethersfield was small enough that everyone below the age of 55 or so would have gone, with only the older men left behind to guard the town.
William and his wife raised their children in Wethersfield until about 1650, when they moved to Pequot, which was quite near New London, Ct. He contracted with John Winthrop to establish a corn mill there, and in 1651 he was working on the dam for the mill. In 1659, he and Elizabeth sold land in New London.
He was chosen to be sexton on February 25, 1661.62,to order youth in the meeting house, sweep the meeting house, and beat out dogs. He was to be paid 40 shillings a year for this job, plus 4 shillings for each adult burial and 2 shillings for each child burial. He, at the age of 66 or more, had to dig the graves for the burials. It's not reported how long he held this job.
Traditional sources say that William lived until 1683, with only two of his sons surviving him. I've not found a record of a will.
So, really, there are still a lot of unknowns for our William. Besides the missing facts, I would most like to know if William really was part of the massacre, and if so, what he was thinking before, during, and after the event. Did he suffer from anything like PTSD? Was he "just following orders"? Or was he an eager participant, doing what he felt needed to be done to keep his family safe? Had he been in the Colonies long enough to be able to make an informed decision? It's hard to come upon a "probable" like this, which to our thinking leaves a big black mark on his name.
The line of descent is:
William Comstock-Elizabeth
Daniel Comstock-Palthiah Elderkin
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Glady Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Fun Fact: William Comstock was an ancestor to Gerald Ford, making us distant cousins to another president.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Holbrook line: William Tubbs abt 1611-1688 Immigrant, Shoemaker, and Wronged Husband
I can't believe I haven't written about William Tubbs in the almost three years I've been doing these blog posts. He is really an interesting ancestor, and there's a lot of information about him. There's a great write up in Robert Charles Anderson's The Great Migration, and also other information primarily authored by Louis McCartney, which are worth looking at if this just whets your curiosity.
Once again, the sources disagree on when and where William was born. McCartney thinks about 1617 but Mr. Anderson thinks about 1611. If it was 1611, there is a William Tubbes who was christened September 1, 1611, in Sutton, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, England. The father's name was William Tubbes. Many family historians are accepting this as his birthplace and father. Anderson doesn't go that far, but accepts a birthdate of about 1611 due to William's marriage date.
William Tubbs was a shoemaker and a planter, but it's possible that he started out in the New World as a servant or indentured servant. He was illiterate and as either a servant or a tradesman, would have had a lower social status than some of our other ancestors from this time period. As a shoemaker, William was probably kept as busy as he wanted to be. This was not a bad job, as far as trades go. He could work inside in the winter and outside, if he wished, in the warmer months because his only equipment was his shoemaker's bench, which usually also included a box for his tools. It was also a good time to be a shoemaker, because it was only necessary to make one pattern or last for each person. Left and right shoes were still 150 years in the future.
Various dates are given for William's arrival in Plymouth but we know he was there in January of 37/38, when he was admitted a freeman. This likely meant he had been in the colony for a while. He volunteered in June of 1637 to serve in the Pequot War. This was a particularly nasty war with the Puritans murdering hundreds of Indians in their village, along with assorted battles. It did, however, help take the pressure off of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies so the English could continue to expand and start more towns and villages.
As the war wound down, William found love, or we like to think that's what happened. He married Mercy Sprague, daughter of Francis Sprague who had arrived in Plymouth in 1623. The couple had three children together, Bethiah, Samuel, and William. William referred to his two youngest children, Benjamin and Joseph, in his will. These were his children with his second wife, Dorothy.
William and Mercy moved to Duxbury in 1638 or 1639, one of the first towns that Plymouth Colony established. Some of the inhabitants of Duxbury moved there because they found Plymouth to be too strict and they hoped Duxbury would be a little freer. Others moved to Duxbury because they were promised land there. The family may have moved for both of these reasons, or it may have been that it looked like Duxbury would grow and business would be good there. He was granted various pieces of land at Duxbury, and by 1653 sold some of his property, including his "now dwelling house and orchard with housing and whatever appurtenances thereunto..." so apparently he had been busy during the 15 years he had been there. He acquired more property in 1655,1659, and 1662, and in 1658 had to have "Goodwife Thomas, a Welsh woman" removed from his land through court proceedings.
During this same time period, William Tubbs' marriage was coming apart. We don't know the ins and outs or who did what when, but this situation seems to have come right out of the tabloids. Mercy may have been a free spirit, one who was not suited to matrimony in a Puritan culture. She was admonished in 1651/52 against mixed dancing, or which she was cleared but admonished. Ten years later there were charges involving Josepth Rogers, that he had been "lying under a blanket" with Mercy Tubbs. About this time, William started asking for a divorce. In fact, he tried to divorce Mercy in the Old Testament fashion, by giving her a written divorce signed by witnesses. Of course, this was not legally binding, and there were other reports of the misbehavior or Mercy and Josepth. Finally, in 1668, William was able to obtain his divorce from the courts. "Marcye" is referred to"being a woman of ill fame and light behavior apparently manifest, hath for the space of four years and upwards absented and withdrawn herself from the husband into another colony, pretending she is at liberty..." Apparently Mercy regarded the "Old Testament" decree as being good enough for her.
William stayed single for about three years, and then married Dorothy widow Soanes, who had two children. William tried to be careful in this marriage, giving a kind of pre-nuptial agreement so Dorothy would have the use of a house and land that was to return to his heirs upon Dorothy's death.
William and Dorothy got themselves in trouble and were sued for 15 pounds in one case and 100 pounds in another case, for slander and defamation of character. One case was withdrawn, the second was found for the defendant (Tubbs). Dorothy was fined for breaking the King's peace in October of 1674.
William died March 2, 1688, leaving an estate of only 14 pounds, with no real estate included. Some he had already given or sold to a son, but we don't no what became of the rest of his land. He was an interesting character, showing up in court records and in land records, and not much else. It must have been difficult for him to hold his head up high, when his wife was causing such dishonor that a divorce was necessary. We can hope he found some degree of happiness with Dorothy.
The line of descent is:
William Tubbs-Mercy Sprague
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Once again, the sources disagree on when and where William was born. McCartney thinks about 1617 but Mr. Anderson thinks about 1611. If it was 1611, there is a William Tubbes who was christened September 1, 1611, in Sutton, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, England. The father's name was William Tubbes. Many family historians are accepting this as his birthplace and father. Anderson doesn't go that far, but accepts a birthdate of about 1611 due to William's marriage date.
William Tubbs was a shoemaker and a planter, but it's possible that he started out in the New World as a servant or indentured servant. He was illiterate and as either a servant or a tradesman, would have had a lower social status than some of our other ancestors from this time period. As a shoemaker, William was probably kept as busy as he wanted to be. This was not a bad job, as far as trades go. He could work inside in the winter and outside, if he wished, in the warmer months because his only equipment was his shoemaker's bench, which usually also included a box for his tools. It was also a good time to be a shoemaker, because it was only necessary to make one pattern or last for each person. Left and right shoes were still 150 years in the future.
Various dates are given for William's arrival in Plymouth but we know he was there in January of 37/38, when he was admitted a freeman. This likely meant he had been in the colony for a while. He volunteered in June of 1637 to serve in the Pequot War. This was a particularly nasty war with the Puritans murdering hundreds of Indians in their village, along with assorted battles. It did, however, help take the pressure off of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies so the English could continue to expand and start more towns and villages.
As the war wound down, William found love, or we like to think that's what happened. He married Mercy Sprague, daughter of Francis Sprague who had arrived in Plymouth in 1623. The couple had three children together, Bethiah, Samuel, and William. William referred to his two youngest children, Benjamin and Joseph, in his will. These were his children with his second wife, Dorothy.
William and Mercy moved to Duxbury in 1638 or 1639, one of the first towns that Plymouth Colony established. Some of the inhabitants of Duxbury moved there because they found Plymouth to be too strict and they hoped Duxbury would be a little freer. Others moved to Duxbury because they were promised land there. The family may have moved for both of these reasons, or it may have been that it looked like Duxbury would grow and business would be good there. He was granted various pieces of land at Duxbury, and by 1653 sold some of his property, including his "now dwelling house and orchard with housing and whatever appurtenances thereunto..." so apparently he had been busy during the 15 years he had been there. He acquired more property in 1655,1659, and 1662, and in 1658 had to have "Goodwife Thomas, a Welsh woman" removed from his land through court proceedings.
During this same time period, William Tubbs' marriage was coming apart. We don't know the ins and outs or who did what when, but this situation seems to have come right out of the tabloids. Mercy may have been a free spirit, one who was not suited to matrimony in a Puritan culture. She was admonished in 1651/52 against mixed dancing, or which she was cleared but admonished. Ten years later there were charges involving Josepth Rogers, that he had been "lying under a blanket" with Mercy Tubbs. About this time, William started asking for a divorce. In fact, he tried to divorce Mercy in the Old Testament fashion, by giving her a written divorce signed by witnesses. Of course, this was not legally binding, and there were other reports of the misbehavior or Mercy and Josepth. Finally, in 1668, William was able to obtain his divorce from the courts. "Marcye" is referred to"being a woman of ill fame and light behavior apparently manifest, hath for the space of four years and upwards absented and withdrawn herself from the husband into another colony, pretending she is at liberty..." Apparently Mercy regarded the "Old Testament" decree as being good enough for her.
William stayed single for about three years, and then married Dorothy widow Soanes, who had two children. William tried to be careful in this marriage, giving a kind of pre-nuptial agreement so Dorothy would have the use of a house and land that was to return to his heirs upon Dorothy's death.
William and Dorothy got themselves in trouble and were sued for 15 pounds in one case and 100 pounds in another case, for slander and defamation of character. One case was withdrawn, the second was found for the defendant (Tubbs). Dorothy was fined for breaking the King's peace in October of 1674.
William died March 2, 1688, leaving an estate of only 14 pounds, with no real estate included. Some he had already given or sold to a son, but we don't no what became of the rest of his land. He was an interesting character, showing up in court records and in land records, and not much else. It must have been difficult for him to hold his head up high, when his wife was causing such dishonor that a divorce was necessary. We can hope he found some degree of happiness with Dorothy.
The line of descent is:
William Tubbs-Mercy Sprague
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Friday, April 1, 2016
Holbrook line: Isaac Willey 1614-1685 Immigrant
I would not have wanted to carry the surname "Willey". I'm guessing young children made fun of the name, rhyming it with Silly and tormenting him with their teasing. I hope as he got older the teasing stopped.
Unfortunately we don't know for sure where the teasing would have taken place. Isaac was born in or about 1614, in either Wiltshire or Yorkshire, England, depending on which sites you believe. It appears that there no documentation has yet been found for his birth.
We know that he was in Boston by 1637, when he married Joanna Lutten, who was aged 19 and is described as a "serving woman." The definition I found on Google would be that she was a servant or an attendant. I wonder who she worked for, and how she got that position. We don't have a formal occupation for Isaac, but we know he farmed later in life, so perhaps that is what he was doing about the time he was married.
By 1644 he was in Charlestown, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the next year he was one of five original settlers on the Nameaug "plantation" that eventually became New London, Connecticut. He was chosen a selectman in 1647, and possibly served other terms also. He acquired land and by 1658 was shown as owning 3 cows, 6 calves, a litter of swine and a share in 2 or 3 sheep.
It doesn't appear that Isaac was a supporter of the Puritan church, although I hesitate to state that as fact. Joanna had joined the church, but there doesn't appear to be mention of Isaac having done the same. New Haven was a very strict Puritan area, so it's hard to imagine that Isaac wasn't a church member.
In 1667, Joanna was brought before the court and charged with "not attending public worship, and bringing her children hither" and was fined five shillings. We don't know what the reason was that she had missed several church services, but it is revealing that she was charged, and not Isaac.
Isaac may have had a temper, or he may have had some issues with the authorities. In 1649, he was charged with resisting a constable and with letting an Indian go that was in "their" charge. in 1671, he was charged over a land disupte for "attempts by violence to drive Mr. Griswold and Lt. Waller off their land, and resistance to authority, and assault." I've been unable to determine the results of either of those charges.
Isaac is reported to have died in 1682 in Haddam, Middlesex, Connecticut. Mary had died earlier and he had remarried to Hannah Brooks and it is possible that he had moved there when they married.
I'd love to know more about Isaac's origins and about his life in New England. Why did he go to Nameaug Plantation, and did he realize that he would be living with people of such stern beliefs? Was the promise of land enough to make him go? And why did he come to New England in the first place? How did he support himself? Was he involved in any of the Indian wars of the time?
This post is short and thin on information. Isaac is another ancestor that needs more research. In the meantime, we can honor him for being part of the formative period of New England and particularly New London.
The line of descent is:
Isaac Willey-Joanna Lutten
Mary Willey-Samuel Tubbs
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Eliabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook=Richard Allen
Their descendants
Unfortunately we don't know for sure where the teasing would have taken place. Isaac was born in or about 1614, in either Wiltshire or Yorkshire, England, depending on which sites you believe. It appears that there no documentation has yet been found for his birth.
We know that he was in Boston by 1637, when he married Joanna Lutten, who was aged 19 and is described as a "serving woman." The definition I found on Google would be that she was a servant or an attendant. I wonder who she worked for, and how she got that position. We don't have a formal occupation for Isaac, but we know he farmed later in life, so perhaps that is what he was doing about the time he was married.
By 1644 he was in Charlestown, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the next year he was one of five original settlers on the Nameaug "plantation" that eventually became New London, Connecticut. He was chosen a selectman in 1647, and possibly served other terms also. He acquired land and by 1658 was shown as owning 3 cows, 6 calves, a litter of swine and a share in 2 or 3 sheep.
It doesn't appear that Isaac was a supporter of the Puritan church, although I hesitate to state that as fact. Joanna had joined the church, but there doesn't appear to be mention of Isaac having done the same. New Haven was a very strict Puritan area, so it's hard to imagine that Isaac wasn't a church member.
In 1667, Joanna was brought before the court and charged with "not attending public worship, and bringing her children hither" and was fined five shillings. We don't know what the reason was that she had missed several church services, but it is revealing that she was charged, and not Isaac.
Isaac may have had a temper, or he may have had some issues with the authorities. In 1649, he was charged with resisting a constable and with letting an Indian go that was in "their" charge. in 1671, he was charged over a land disupte for "attempts by violence to drive Mr. Griswold and Lt. Waller off their land, and resistance to authority, and assault." I've been unable to determine the results of either of those charges.
Isaac is reported to have died in 1682 in Haddam, Middlesex, Connecticut. Mary had died earlier and he had remarried to Hannah Brooks and it is possible that he had moved there when they married.
I'd love to know more about Isaac's origins and about his life in New England. Why did he go to Nameaug Plantation, and did he realize that he would be living with people of such stern beliefs? Was the promise of land enough to make him go? And why did he come to New England in the first place? How did he support himself? Was he involved in any of the Indian wars of the time?
This post is short and thin on information. Isaac is another ancestor that needs more research. In the meantime, we can honor him for being part of the formative period of New England and particularly New London.
The line of descent is:
Isaac Willey-Joanna Lutten
Mary Willey-Samuel Tubbs
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Eliabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook=Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, September 11, 2015
Holbrook line: John Elderkin 1612-1687, Immigrant
Who wouldn't love a name like John Elderkin? It's just fun to say. As it turns out, it's also fun to read about his life, and as is often the case with our immigrants, his early life is pretty much a mystery.
John Elderkin's birth is a mystery although the one that I like best is January 1, 1612, at Fennes, Lincolnshire, England. (I haven't seen this record, but it's likely that it would be the baptism date and not the birth date.) The parents of this John Elderkin were John Elderkin and Palthiah, and they were married in 1592. The date of 1612 also matches one of the dates John gave in a statement later in life, although in other places the age he gave for himself would compute to 1616. No one was come up with a John Elderkin born in England in 1616 yet, as far as I know.
The first we really know about John is that he was in Lynn, Massachusetts by 1637. He was married to Abigail Kingland (also shown as Kingslane) probably in England, and the couple had probably three daughters, Pelatiah, Abigail, and Hannah. Abigail died possibly as early as 1646 but definitely before 1660, when John married Elizabeth Drake. She had children, he had children, and they had children together, making a total of 16 but of course the oldest children were likely out of the house by the time the youngest ones arrived.
The neat thing about John is that we know quite a bit about his life in New England. He was a master builder, or a general contractor, or whatever term you want to use to describe a man who didn't stay in one place very long. We know that he was in Lynn, Massachusetts in 1637, Dedham, Massachusetts in 1641, Reading, Massachusetts in 1646, possible Providence, R.I. or possibly just making a short stop there, then New London, Connecticut in 1651 and finally Norwich, Connecticut in 1660.
At each location, he was a miller, a millwright, and a carpenter, using his skills to build and operate mills and also to build churches, bridges, and at least one ship. He seems to have stayed in each location until he had built what the town needed to function. By the time he got to Norwich, he was in his 50's and perhaps not so willing to move on. (Also, he had just re-married and may have stayed more in one place for family reasons.)
In 1661 he was an ordinary keeper in New London, which doesn't conform to the Norwich date of 1660. I have no explanation for this, unless the ordinary keeper was his son John. Perhaps he was a long distance owner, but that doesn't make much sense, either. However, this is what the records seem to say.
John Elderkin died at Norwich June 22, 1687, and Elizabeth lived for another 29 years, dying in 1716. I haven't found his will yet but I would guess that he was a man with some means, as he had been given land in several different locations, either as an early settler or in recognition of the services he'd provided.
I like knowing more than I can include in a post about an ancestor, and I particularly like thinking about this ancestor, who must have been incredibly talented, to build churches, bridges, and ships, and to build and run mills. When I look at very old carpenter tools now, I'll think of John Elderkin and imagine his hands holding and using something similar, and I'll feel a connection. I hope you do, too!
The line of descent is:
John Elderkin-Abigail Kingsland
Pelatiah (Palthiah) Elderkin-Daniel Comstock
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
John Elderkin's birth is a mystery although the one that I like best is January 1, 1612, at Fennes, Lincolnshire, England. (I haven't seen this record, but it's likely that it would be the baptism date and not the birth date.) The parents of this John Elderkin were John Elderkin and Palthiah, and they were married in 1592. The date of 1612 also matches one of the dates John gave in a statement later in life, although in other places the age he gave for himself would compute to 1616. No one was come up with a John Elderkin born in England in 1616 yet, as far as I know.
The first we really know about John is that he was in Lynn, Massachusetts by 1637. He was married to Abigail Kingland (also shown as Kingslane) probably in England, and the couple had probably three daughters, Pelatiah, Abigail, and Hannah. Abigail died possibly as early as 1646 but definitely before 1660, when John married Elizabeth Drake. She had children, he had children, and they had children together, making a total of 16 but of course the oldest children were likely out of the house by the time the youngest ones arrived.
The neat thing about John is that we know quite a bit about his life in New England. He was a master builder, or a general contractor, or whatever term you want to use to describe a man who didn't stay in one place very long. We know that he was in Lynn, Massachusetts in 1637, Dedham, Massachusetts in 1641, Reading, Massachusetts in 1646, possible Providence, R.I. or possibly just making a short stop there, then New London, Connecticut in 1651 and finally Norwich, Connecticut in 1660.
At each location, he was a miller, a millwright, and a carpenter, using his skills to build and operate mills and also to build churches, bridges, and at least one ship. He seems to have stayed in each location until he had built what the town needed to function. By the time he got to Norwich, he was in his 50's and perhaps not so willing to move on. (Also, he had just re-married and may have stayed more in one place for family reasons.)
In 1661 he was an ordinary keeper in New London, which doesn't conform to the Norwich date of 1660. I have no explanation for this, unless the ordinary keeper was his son John. Perhaps he was a long distance owner, but that doesn't make much sense, either. However, this is what the records seem to say.
John Elderkin died at Norwich June 22, 1687, and Elizabeth lived for another 29 years, dying in 1716. I haven't found his will yet but I would guess that he was a man with some means, as he had been given land in several different locations, either as an early settler or in recognition of the services he'd provided.
I like knowing more than I can include in a post about an ancestor, and I particularly like thinking about this ancestor, who must have been incredibly talented, to build churches, bridges, and ships, and to build and run mills. When I look at very old carpenter tools now, I'll think of John Elderkin and imagine his hands holding and using something similar, and I'll feel a connection. I hope you do, too!
The line of descent is:
John Elderkin-Abigail Kingsland
Pelatiah (Palthiah) Elderkin-Daniel Comstock
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)