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.
Showing posts with label Eddy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eddy. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2020
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Holbrook line: Zachariah Eddy 1638-1718
I've written earlier of Samuel Eddy, Zachariah's father, and of John Eddy, his uncle (although I now think that John Eddy was not an ancestor on the Allen side, pending further study). But Zachariah has been neglected until now, probably because he wasn't in the first generation of immigrants. But hey, we was born in Plymouth Colony and probably knew, or at least knew of, our Mayflower ancestors. So his history, to me, is interesting.
Zachariah (also seen as Zechariah and Zachary) was born March 7, 1639 to Samuel and (probably) Elizabeth Savory Eddy, in Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts. He was the second of seven children his parents are known to have had. Samuel was a tailor, but he apparently was not hugely successful because he asked the court to find an apprenticeship or other training opportunities for his children. Zachariah was just 7 years old when the court approved his placement with John Browne, to train to be a husbandman or whatever else Mr. Browne desired. John Browne was a man of considerable wealth and talent, so it was a good opportunity for Zachariah to learn much from him. We are not sure whether that happened. At any rate, 7 year old Zachariah said good-by to his parents and presumably moved to Rehoboth, where the Brownes lived. His term of service was for 14 years, until Zachariah was 21 years old.
Peter Browne was involved in the founding of Swansea, Massachusetts, and Zachariah and his brother, Caleb, are also considered among the first founders of the town. He married Alice Paddock, daughter of Robert and Mary Holmes Paddock, on May 7, 1663, in either Plymouth or Middleboro, Massachusetts. They may have settled immediately in the land that became Swansea, although the town itself wasn't founded until 1667. The town selected him to be one of three waywardens in 1671, roughly these men were superintendents of highways.
I didn't find any record that he was ever made a freeman, perhaps because he became a member of the Baptist Church in Swansea, which is one of the oldest Baptist churches in America. I wonder whether Peter Browne influenced his decision one way or the other, to join this church. Or his wife could have had some influence. Nevertheless, it may have been hard to leave the Puritan church that had been a part of his early life.
I didn't find an occupation for Zachariah, although it is likely to have been as a husbandman, as he was trained to do. He did own some marsh land, and probably other land, too, so it's easy to think he did at least some farming. He and Alice had at least eight children, apparently all born at Swansea.
Life in Swansea was probably good, but also probably not easy. It got even harder when King Philip's War broke out. Swansea was one of the first villages attacked, although apparently everyone made it to the local garrison safely. Some of the homes were burned, and there was fighting in the area for quite a while. The little village escaped back to Plymouth for the most part, and it is believed that our family was part of this group. I found no record that Zachariah was part of the militia but it's hard to believe that he would not have responded to protect his home and home town. He was of the right age and unless he had a physical infirmity, which I haven't seen mentioned, he would have had some role to play in either the defense or the offense.
The Eddy family was back in Swansea about 1678, rebuilding whatever had been lost to the native Americans. Alice Paddock Eddy died October 24, 1692 and Zachariah then married Abigail, the widow of Dermit or Jeremiah Smith. She brought children to the marriage, too, although they may have been close to grown, as Zachariah's own children were. (I'm not finding a date for the second marriage, so perhaps Zachariah married when some of his own children were preteens or teenagers.
When Zachariah died, his estate was very small, valued at close to 65 pounds. He mentions the lands that he had previously given to each of his sons, and adds that any money owed him by his sons should be forgiven. His wife Abigail is to live in the homestead granted son Caleb for the rest of her natural life, and he left her money, also. He left his great Bible to a grandson. His will specifically grants a carbine to one son, a musket to another, and a fowling piece to yet another. Zachariah died September 4, 1718 and is buried at the Eddy family burial grounds at Swansea, where his parents and many other family members are also buried.
Although we know quite a bit about Zachariah, there is also much we don't know, especially about his life in Swansea. But it is interesting to find another early Baptist in the family, and it's intriguing that our Pilgrim fathers would have known him. This was a time when much of what was to become America was being constructed, day by day and town by town. We are privileged to feel a little of this through reading about the lives of Zachariah Eddy and other of our ancestors.
The line of descent is
Zachariah Eddy-Alice Paddock
Zachariah Eddy-Amphillis Smith
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phetteplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
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
Zachariah (also seen as Zechariah and Zachary) was born March 7, 1639 to Samuel and (probably) Elizabeth Savory Eddy, in Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts. He was the second of seven children his parents are known to have had. Samuel was a tailor, but he apparently was not hugely successful because he asked the court to find an apprenticeship or other training opportunities for his children. Zachariah was just 7 years old when the court approved his placement with John Browne, to train to be a husbandman or whatever else Mr. Browne desired. John Browne was a man of considerable wealth and talent, so it was a good opportunity for Zachariah to learn much from him. We are not sure whether that happened. At any rate, 7 year old Zachariah said good-by to his parents and presumably moved to Rehoboth, where the Brownes lived. His term of service was for 14 years, until Zachariah was 21 years old.
Peter Browne was involved in the founding of Swansea, Massachusetts, and Zachariah and his brother, Caleb, are also considered among the first founders of the town. He married Alice Paddock, daughter of Robert and Mary Holmes Paddock, on May 7, 1663, in either Plymouth or Middleboro, Massachusetts. They may have settled immediately in the land that became Swansea, although the town itself wasn't founded until 1667. The town selected him to be one of three waywardens in 1671, roughly these men were superintendents of highways.
I didn't find any record that he was ever made a freeman, perhaps because he became a member of the Baptist Church in Swansea, which is one of the oldest Baptist churches in America. I wonder whether Peter Browne influenced his decision one way or the other, to join this church. Or his wife could have had some influence. Nevertheless, it may have been hard to leave the Puritan church that had been a part of his early life.
I didn't find an occupation for Zachariah, although it is likely to have been as a husbandman, as he was trained to do. He did own some marsh land, and probably other land, too, so it's easy to think he did at least some farming. He and Alice had at least eight children, apparently all born at Swansea.
Life in Swansea was probably good, but also probably not easy. It got even harder when King Philip's War broke out. Swansea was one of the first villages attacked, although apparently everyone made it to the local garrison safely. Some of the homes were burned, and there was fighting in the area for quite a while. The little village escaped back to Plymouth for the most part, and it is believed that our family was part of this group. I found no record that Zachariah was part of the militia but it's hard to believe that he would not have responded to protect his home and home town. He was of the right age and unless he had a physical infirmity, which I haven't seen mentioned, he would have had some role to play in either the defense or the offense.
The Eddy family was back in Swansea about 1678, rebuilding whatever had been lost to the native Americans. Alice Paddock Eddy died October 24, 1692 and Zachariah then married Abigail, the widow of Dermit or Jeremiah Smith. She brought children to the marriage, too, although they may have been close to grown, as Zachariah's own children were. (I'm not finding a date for the second marriage, so perhaps Zachariah married when some of his own children were preteens or teenagers.
When Zachariah died, his estate was very small, valued at close to 65 pounds. He mentions the lands that he had previously given to each of his sons, and adds that any money owed him by his sons should be forgiven. His wife Abigail is to live in the homestead granted son Caleb for the rest of her natural life, and he left her money, also. He left his great Bible to a grandson. His will specifically grants a carbine to one son, a musket to another, and a fowling piece to yet another. Zachariah died September 4, 1718 and is buried at the Eddy family burial grounds at Swansea, where his parents and many other family members are also buried.
Although we know quite a bit about Zachariah, there is also much we don't know, especially about his life in Swansea. But it is interesting to find another early Baptist in the family, and it's intriguing that our Pilgrim fathers would have known him. This was a time when much of what was to become America was being constructed, day by day and town by town. We are privileged to feel a little of this through reading about the lives of Zachariah Eddy and other of our ancestors.
The line of descent is
Zachariah Eddy-Alice Paddock
Zachariah Eddy-Amphillis Smith
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phetteplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
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
Friday, June 12, 2020
Holbrook line: Medad Pomeroy 1638-1716
My last blog post was about Thomas Noble, an ancestor on our Allen side. In it, I mentioned that his widow, Hannah Warriner, had married Medad Pomeroy. I recognized that name so looked for the blog post I must have written about him, but there was nothing to be found. So, here it is. Medad Pomeroy is an ancestor on our Holbrook side. He was first married to Experience Woodward, from whom we descend. He was later married to Abigail Strong, who would be a sibling of our ancestor Thomas Strong, also on the Holbrook side. And finally, he was married to Hannah Warriner Noble, the Allen connection. We have quite a connection to this man, and it's time that I wrote about him.
Medad Pomeroy was born August 19, 1638 in Windsor, Hartford Connecticut, to Eltweed and Mary Rockett/Rockwood Pomeroy. The elder Pomeroys were with the very first settlers in 1633, when the settlement was first called Dorchester. Eltweed had some prominence in the town, and is noted to be the founding father of the Pomeroy family in America. Medad was one of at least eight children born to the couple. Eltweed was a fuller, but perhaps he provided his children with an apprenticeship, for Medad was a blacksmith and a gunsmith. It's unclear why Medad left Windsor to go to Northampton, Massachusetts (north of Springfield), but once there, he may have been taught by John Webb, who was the first blacksmith in Northampton but not necessarily a businessman. (One source says he arrived in Northampton in 1659 and was welcomed because of his blacksmithing skills. I've used a history of Northampton for most of the information in this post.) Medad eventually took over Webb's shop location, perhaps with Webb's approval. Medad also must have been given a decent education for the time. Although he didn't attend college, the positions he held in the town would have required reading, writing, and arithmetic skills.
As mentioned, Medad married three times. He married Experience Woodward, daughter of Henry and Elizabeth Mather Woodward, on March 21, 1661 in Northampton, not long after his arrival in Northampton. (Henry was one of the first settlers of the town.) Medad and Experience had 11 children together, before she died, possibly in childbirth, at the age of 43. Medad next married Abigail Strong, and they had one son together. When Abigail died in 1704, he waited just a few months before marrying Hannah Warriner Noble. By this time, he was about 67 years old and Hannah was also in her 60's, so there were no children from this marriage.
Medad had one of the longest periods of public service to his town of any ancestor I've yet found. He was chosen selectman of the town 28 times, deputy to the general court seven times, treasurer from 1698 onward, and some years held as many as six elected offices at the same time. It was a small town, but he was still one of the prominent men in town. He was also clerk, responsible for keeping town records, for most of the period from 1665 until shortly before his death.
As if that was not enough honor, and work, he was also a deacon in the church, and a member of the militia who was involved in the Falls Fight, serving under Captain Turner. This fight involved the massacre of a native American village so is not necessarily something to be proud of, but it was part of his life and he would have lived with that knowledge for another 40 plus years. I wonder if he ever had nightmares, or whether he felt it was his duty to participate? His son Ebenezer was granted land in 1736 in reward for his father's service during this battle.
Medad wrote his will in 1708 but lived until December 30, 1716. There must have been some kind of prenuptial agreement because he left Hannah her choice of a cow, everything she had brought with her, and instructions that she was to draw from the estate anything that she needed. He left his sons and daughters anywhere from 20 to 80 pounds apiece, except that by the time he died, the estate was not worth nearly as much as he had expected. Perhaps in the interim, he had sold assets and given the proceeds to the children, but it's hard to know. His estate was valued at just 41 pounds, unless there were more pages to the inventory that didn't get filmed.
There is more to be told about Medad than I've included in this brief sketch. He was involved in at least one town controversy, and there were a couple of business ventures that don't seem to have gotten off the ground. But Medad seems to have been well-respected, an extremely hard worker, and an important part of the town he served so well. While recognizing that he had shortcomings, we can still respect this man, part of our past and part of our family.
The line of descent is:
Medad Pomeroy-Hannah Warriner
Joseph Pomeroy-Hannah Seymour
Medad Pomeroy-Hannah Trumbull
Medad Pomeroy-Eunice Southwell
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Medad Pomeroy was born August 19, 1638 in Windsor, Hartford Connecticut, to Eltweed and Mary Rockett/Rockwood Pomeroy. The elder Pomeroys were with the very first settlers in 1633, when the settlement was first called Dorchester. Eltweed had some prominence in the town, and is noted to be the founding father of the Pomeroy family in America. Medad was one of at least eight children born to the couple. Eltweed was a fuller, but perhaps he provided his children with an apprenticeship, for Medad was a blacksmith and a gunsmith. It's unclear why Medad left Windsor to go to Northampton, Massachusetts (north of Springfield), but once there, he may have been taught by John Webb, who was the first blacksmith in Northampton but not necessarily a businessman. (One source says he arrived in Northampton in 1659 and was welcomed because of his blacksmithing skills. I've used a history of Northampton for most of the information in this post.) Medad eventually took over Webb's shop location, perhaps with Webb's approval. Medad also must have been given a decent education for the time. Although he didn't attend college, the positions he held in the town would have required reading, writing, and arithmetic skills.
As mentioned, Medad married three times. He married Experience Woodward, daughter of Henry and Elizabeth Mather Woodward, on March 21, 1661 in Northampton, not long after his arrival in Northampton. (Henry was one of the first settlers of the town.) Medad and Experience had 11 children together, before she died, possibly in childbirth, at the age of 43. Medad next married Abigail Strong, and they had one son together. When Abigail died in 1704, he waited just a few months before marrying Hannah Warriner Noble. By this time, he was about 67 years old and Hannah was also in her 60's, so there were no children from this marriage.
Medad had one of the longest periods of public service to his town of any ancestor I've yet found. He was chosen selectman of the town 28 times, deputy to the general court seven times, treasurer from 1698 onward, and some years held as many as six elected offices at the same time. It was a small town, but he was still one of the prominent men in town. He was also clerk, responsible for keeping town records, for most of the period from 1665 until shortly before his death.
As if that was not enough honor, and work, he was also a deacon in the church, and a member of the militia who was involved in the Falls Fight, serving under Captain Turner. This fight involved the massacre of a native American village so is not necessarily something to be proud of, but it was part of his life and he would have lived with that knowledge for another 40 plus years. I wonder if he ever had nightmares, or whether he felt it was his duty to participate? His son Ebenezer was granted land in 1736 in reward for his father's service during this battle.
Medad wrote his will in 1708 but lived until December 30, 1716. There must have been some kind of prenuptial agreement because he left Hannah her choice of a cow, everything she had brought with her, and instructions that she was to draw from the estate anything that she needed. He left his sons and daughters anywhere from 20 to 80 pounds apiece, except that by the time he died, the estate was not worth nearly as much as he had expected. Perhaps in the interim, he had sold assets and given the proceeds to the children, but it's hard to know. His estate was valued at just 41 pounds, unless there were more pages to the inventory that didn't get filmed.
There is more to be told about Medad than I've included in this brief sketch. He was involved in at least one town controversy, and there were a couple of business ventures that don't seem to have gotten off the ground. But Medad seems to have been well-respected, an extremely hard worker, and an important part of the town he served so well. While recognizing that he had shortcomings, we can still respect this man, part of our past and part of our family.
The line of descent is:
Medad Pomeroy-Hannah Warriner
Joseph Pomeroy-Hannah Seymour
Medad Pomeroy-Hannah Trumbull
Medad Pomeroy-Eunice Southwell
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
Holbrook line: Samuel Morris 1670-1745
Oh dear. I have been guilty of perpetuating an error in my blog posts, I fear. That of course is one reason I write these blog posts, to prove to my own satisfaction that I have the correct ancestry for each of the people I write about. Now I find that I must strike names from my tree, and go back to update a few of my earlier posts. At least through this line, we are not connected to the Mayo or the John Graves lines. So those posts are now "alternate facts", but I will leave the posts up, just adding an update, so that if someone else is researching those lines, they might be helped.
Now, let's turn to Samuel Morris. He was born in March, 1670, in Roxbury, Massachusetts to Edward and Grace Bett Morris. He lived there with his parents and seven siblings, until his father moved to Woodstock, Connecticut in 1685. His father was a man of considerable wealth and standing in both towns, so when his father died in 1689, Samuel inherited some lands, even though he was "only" a fourth son. The narrative gets a little confusing here, as Woodstock was originally known as "New Roxbury" and some of the records are not clear as to which Roxbury is being discussed.
It does appear that Samuel returned to Roxbury, or possibly had stayed there, and married Mehitable Mayo, daughter of John and Hannah Graves Mayo in 1694. Samuel inherited some of his father's land there and so it makes sense that he would have returned to the scene of his youth and lived there. He was made a freeman there in 1691. Samuel and Mehitable had at least seven children together, and she died February 8, 1703. That makes it impossible for her to be the mother of Abigail Morris, who was born April 2, 1707. Samuel had married Dorotha or Dorothy Martin, the widow Howe, in Marlboro of Middlesex County, Massachusetts on May 15, 1706. Dorothy had six children, Samuel had seven, and then had two children together, Abigail and Elizabeth, before disappearing from Marlboro records. All I know about Dorothy Martin Howe Morris right now is that her father was Thomas Martin, and he died in 1701. (Another ancestor to explore!)
We know that Samuel purchased lands in Marlboro before his second marriage, and we know that he purchased 1500 acres of land in 1714 from Governor Joseph Dudley, for 500 pounds English money. This was on the east line of the Town of Woodstock. On the same day, Samuel and Dorothy gave a deed of the old homestead in Roxbury to Colonel William Dudley for 500 pounds current money. This is when the Morris's finally removed to Connecticut. Samuel built a house with "fortifications". We're not told exactly what this meant, but generally it would mean one that had thick walls, and thin slits from which guns could be fired without exposing oneself to the "enemy". Situations with some of the native Americans were still tense, although the Nipmuck tribe which lived nearby seems to have been friendly. As far as we know, the fortifications were never needed.
Samuel was a highly respected man in Woodstock, but I must say he seems to have also been a grumpy old man in his later years. He felt that he was being double taxed as far as church rates go, being forced to pay for the meeting house, minister's salary, etc. in more than one town at a time, because he was assigned to a parish that was not of his liking. He claimed great difficulty in traveling the five miles to Thompson, citing swamps, mountains, and a river he had to cross to reach the meeting house he was forced to support financially. This complaint stayed in the court and on town records for several years, until eventually he was given half rates for the church he did not wish to attend. His grumbling may not have stopped, but the annual discussions did. It's believed he attended church at a location much closer to his home, in his later years, one that he could reach without difficulty.
Samuel built and maintained at least three bridges in the area, over a river and two streams on his 1500 acres. He also kept up a road on his property, and other than the church dispute, seems to have been a good neighbor.
Dorothy died July 28, 1742, and Samuel died January 9, 1745. Sadly, we are missing all probate records for Samuel, so we don't know whether he acquired additional land other than the 1500 acres, or what value his inventory showed. The records are thought to have been destroyed in a fire, but it's always possible that they will show up somewhere. We are left with records of a man who had enough wealth to build a fortified house, to build and maintain bridges, and to raise at least nine children. He was also a man who was willing to start over, in Roxbury and then Marlboro and then near Woodstock. His official death location is Thompson, Connecticut, because town limits expanded. As far as is known, he didn't leave those 1500 acres.
The line of descent is:
Samuel Morris-Dorothy Martin
Abigail Morris-John Perrin
Benjamin Perrin=Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
And now, if you'll excuse me, I have some corrections to make!
Now, let's turn to Samuel Morris. He was born in March, 1670, in Roxbury, Massachusetts to Edward and Grace Bett Morris. He lived there with his parents and seven siblings, until his father moved to Woodstock, Connecticut in 1685. His father was a man of considerable wealth and standing in both towns, so when his father died in 1689, Samuel inherited some lands, even though he was "only" a fourth son. The narrative gets a little confusing here, as Woodstock was originally known as "New Roxbury" and some of the records are not clear as to which Roxbury is being discussed.
It does appear that Samuel returned to Roxbury, or possibly had stayed there, and married Mehitable Mayo, daughter of John and Hannah Graves Mayo in 1694. Samuel inherited some of his father's land there and so it makes sense that he would have returned to the scene of his youth and lived there. He was made a freeman there in 1691. Samuel and Mehitable had at least seven children together, and she died February 8, 1703. That makes it impossible for her to be the mother of Abigail Morris, who was born April 2, 1707. Samuel had married Dorotha or Dorothy Martin, the widow Howe, in Marlboro of Middlesex County, Massachusetts on May 15, 1706. Dorothy had six children, Samuel had seven, and then had two children together, Abigail and Elizabeth, before disappearing from Marlboro records. All I know about Dorothy Martin Howe Morris right now is that her father was Thomas Martin, and he died in 1701. (Another ancestor to explore!)
We know that Samuel purchased lands in Marlboro before his second marriage, and we know that he purchased 1500 acres of land in 1714 from Governor Joseph Dudley, for 500 pounds English money. This was on the east line of the Town of Woodstock. On the same day, Samuel and Dorothy gave a deed of the old homestead in Roxbury to Colonel William Dudley for 500 pounds current money. This is when the Morris's finally removed to Connecticut. Samuel built a house with "fortifications". We're not told exactly what this meant, but generally it would mean one that had thick walls, and thin slits from which guns could be fired without exposing oneself to the "enemy". Situations with some of the native Americans were still tense, although the Nipmuck tribe which lived nearby seems to have been friendly. As far as we know, the fortifications were never needed.
Samuel was a highly respected man in Woodstock, but I must say he seems to have also been a grumpy old man in his later years. He felt that he was being double taxed as far as church rates go, being forced to pay for the meeting house, minister's salary, etc. in more than one town at a time, because he was assigned to a parish that was not of his liking. He claimed great difficulty in traveling the five miles to Thompson, citing swamps, mountains, and a river he had to cross to reach the meeting house he was forced to support financially. This complaint stayed in the court and on town records for several years, until eventually he was given half rates for the church he did not wish to attend. His grumbling may not have stopped, but the annual discussions did. It's believed he attended church at a location much closer to his home, in his later years, one that he could reach without difficulty.
Samuel built and maintained at least three bridges in the area, over a river and two streams on his 1500 acres. He also kept up a road on his property, and other than the church dispute, seems to have been a good neighbor.
Dorothy died July 28, 1742, and Samuel died January 9, 1745. Sadly, we are missing all probate records for Samuel, so we don't know whether he acquired additional land other than the 1500 acres, or what value his inventory showed. The records are thought to have been destroyed in a fire, but it's always possible that they will show up somewhere. We are left with records of a man who had enough wealth to build a fortified house, to build and maintain bridges, and to raise at least nine children. He was also a man who was willing to start over, in Roxbury and then Marlboro and then near Woodstock. His official death location is Thompson, Connecticut, because town limits expanded. As far as is known, he didn't leave those 1500 acres.
The line of descent is:
Samuel Morris-Dorothy Martin
Abigail Morris-John Perrin
Benjamin Perrin=Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
And now, if you'll excuse me, I have some corrections to make!
Friday, May 22, 2020
Holbrook line: Israel Joslin 1692-1740 Yes, this one!
These Joslin men! Honestly, if they had tried, they couldn't be any more confusing than they are. Did they live to play :hide and seek" and "Can you see me now? and "Will the real Israel Joslin please stand up"? Israel's father, Nathaniel, was hard to unravel because of several men in the same time and location with the same name. Israel follows that pattern, and many of the trees on line seem to have it wrong. We have to pay attention to time, location, and opportunity in order to sort the documentation and make sure we have this right. Of course, I could still be wrong and if someone can refute this, please contact me.
Our Israel Joslin was born April 2, 1692 in Marlboro, Worcester County, Massachusetts. He was the son of Nathaniel and Hester or Esther Morse Joslin. He may well have spent his entire life in the same location, although I haven't verified that yet. He died in Southboro rather than Marlboro, but Southboro split off from Marlboro so it's quite possible that Israel's land was originally in Marlboro.
As a boy, Israel was one of eleven children, and he must have enjoyed large families because it appears that he was the father of at least nine children. The lucky wife/mother was Sarah Cleveland (or Cleaveland), the daughter of Enoch and Elizabeth Counts Cleveland. They were married on April 29, 1719 in Marlboro.
Other than the birth of his children, Israel seems to have made little impact on the town he lived in, whether it was Marlboro or Southboro (the two towns are less than five miles apart, so Israel likely knew everyone in each of the two towns). I haven't yet checked the town records (they are in Salt Lake City but aren't available on line yet) but I would assume that he paid taxes, went to church, and served in some sort of militia or training band. That's what we know so far.
However, his will and inventory tell us a little bit more. He described himself as a yeoman in the will written August 29, 1740, less than two months before he died on October 23 of that same year. He was only 48 years old. What illness would have caused him to write a will at that age? Or maybe it wasn't an illness. He could have been hurt in an accident, or while serving in a military raid, or any number of other ways. But we can think that maybe it wasn't a sudden accident, like getting hit by lightning or drowning. Israel must have known or suspected it was coming.
By his description of "yeoman", we know he owned land, which is confirmed in his inventory, and we know he was not a servant. I haven't been able to verify yet that he was a "free man" and had the right to vote, because those records are also at Salt Lake City. But it's likely that he was in that category. His will is a little bit surprising, because he leaves everything to his wife Sarah. Typically husbands would leave the widow one third of the estate, as required by law, and then give instructions for how the rest was to be divided. This will, however, only says that after Sarah is deceased, this assets are to be divided among his children. Sarah was only about 38 and could reasonably be expected to re-marry, but that didn't matter to Israel. He must have trusted and loved her very much!
It is only when we look at Israel's inventory that we are able to start drawing a picture of him, and it seems that whatever else he was, he was a good steward of his land. He had considerably more clothes than did many of his fellow yeomen, and he had two Bibles and books that were by themselves valued at three pounds. He also had a pair of spectacles, bt we don't know whether he was near or far sighted. There were at least four beds with bedding, which is more than many households had, and
His inventory included just three pieces of land, and they are not very description. However, the appraisers assigned a value of 1200 pounds to his homestead, including all the lands attached to it, so this is where much of his wealth lay. The inventory was taken just a few days after his death. It totaled a little over 1678 pounds, which even after we take the new currency into account, wasn't a small estate. Sarah was set for life and could run the farm and raise their children.
Except, it's possible that our Sarah Joslin is the one who married David Bellows in 1745. He lived only until 1754, but was born in 1702 so was about her age, and was a husbandman when he died. Sarah declined to be the executor of his estate and I can find no further reference to her. I suppose it's possible that she married again and we just haven't traced her yet. It's also possible this is a different Sarah Joslin, but our Sarah seems to be the only one in the area and of the right age to marry David. I'd love to find the rest of her records, too!
The line of descent is
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Our Israel Joslin was born April 2, 1692 in Marlboro, Worcester County, Massachusetts. He was the son of Nathaniel and Hester or Esther Morse Joslin. He may well have spent his entire life in the same location, although I haven't verified that yet. He died in Southboro rather than Marlboro, but Southboro split off from Marlboro so it's quite possible that Israel's land was originally in Marlboro.
As a boy, Israel was one of eleven children, and he must have enjoyed large families because it appears that he was the father of at least nine children. The lucky wife/mother was Sarah Cleveland (or Cleaveland), the daughter of Enoch and Elizabeth Counts Cleveland. They were married on April 29, 1719 in Marlboro.
Other than the birth of his children, Israel seems to have made little impact on the town he lived in, whether it was Marlboro or Southboro (the two towns are less than five miles apart, so Israel likely knew everyone in each of the two towns). I haven't yet checked the town records (they are in Salt Lake City but aren't available on line yet) but I would assume that he paid taxes, went to church, and served in some sort of militia or training band. That's what we know so far.
However, his will and inventory tell us a little bit more. He described himself as a yeoman in the will written August 29, 1740, less than two months before he died on October 23 of that same year. He was only 48 years old. What illness would have caused him to write a will at that age? Or maybe it wasn't an illness. He could have been hurt in an accident, or while serving in a military raid, or any number of other ways. But we can think that maybe it wasn't a sudden accident, like getting hit by lightning or drowning. Israel must have known or suspected it was coming.
By his description of "yeoman", we know he owned land, which is confirmed in his inventory, and we know he was not a servant. I haven't been able to verify yet that he was a "free man" and had the right to vote, because those records are also at Salt Lake City. But it's likely that he was in that category. His will is a little bit surprising, because he leaves everything to his wife Sarah. Typically husbands would leave the widow one third of the estate, as required by law, and then give instructions for how the rest was to be divided. This will, however, only says that after Sarah is deceased, this assets are to be divided among his children. Sarah was only about 38 and could reasonably be expected to re-marry, but that didn't matter to Israel. He must have trusted and loved her very much!
It is only when we look at Israel's inventory that we are able to start drawing a picture of him, and it seems that whatever else he was, he was a good steward of his land. He had considerably more clothes than did many of his fellow yeomen, and he had two Bibles and books that were by themselves valued at three pounds. He also had a pair of spectacles, bt we don't know whether he was near or far sighted. There were at least four beds with bedding, which is more than many households had, and
His inventory included just three pieces of land, and they are not very description. However, the appraisers assigned a value of 1200 pounds to his homestead, including all the lands attached to it, so this is where much of his wealth lay. The inventory was taken just a few days after his death. It totaled a little over 1678 pounds, which even after we take the new currency into account, wasn't a small estate. Sarah was set for life and could run the farm and raise their children.
Except, it's possible that our Sarah Joslin is the one who married David Bellows in 1745. He lived only until 1754, but was born in 1702 so was about her age, and was a husbandman when he died. Sarah declined to be the executor of his estate and I can find no further reference to her. I suppose it's possible that she married again and we just haven't traced her yet. It's also possible this is a different Sarah Joslin, but our Sarah seems to be the only one in the area and of the right age to marry David. I'd love to find the rest of her records, too!
The line of descent is
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Euzebia/Luceba Fay-Libbeus StanardHiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Holbrook line: Another John Lamb, quite mysterious
I can tell you a lot of things John isn't. He isn't the son of Thomas and Dorothy Harbottle Lamb. He isn't the son of Thomas (see above) and Elizabeth Lamb. He isn't the John who died in Springfield, Massachusetts in 16*90. He isn't the John who died January 9, 1677 in a saw mill accident in New London or perhaps Stonington, Connecticut, although there are indications this may have been John's son, John. We know several things about who he wasn't, but there's not much to show who he was.
I was surprised when I started researching John Lamb to find him first in Kittery, Maine. I had to pull up a map of Kittery, which is in York County (a new county for me to research in, perhaps making this number 238!!) to realize this was not at all far from the northern shores of Massachusetts. At the time, of course, it was part of Massachusetts Bay Colony, so John can be forgiven for being in "new" parts. However, we don't know when or where he was born, or how he arrived in Kittery, or even when he arrived in Kittery.
Most guesses put his birthdate at about 1623, with two or three different locations being put forth for his home at birth, and several guesses as to his parents. If we accept that the John killed near Stonington was his son, and assume that he was probably not more than 24 (since he would likely have been married by then) and assume that he was the first or second son of John's, then our John could have been born as late as 1630. John himself tells us that he was 45 years old in 1670, when he testified in court, so even though these dates are not always accurate, it is as close as we are likely to get.
We know he was in Kittery, Maine in 1651, because then and again in 1653 he was called a liar in court (a thief also, in 1651) although I don't know the disposition of those cases. I also don't know whether he was single or married at this time, although it must have been around this time that he married. His son Thomas sold part of his inheritance to brother Samuel in 1695. The best guess is that John died sometime around 1681, and likely some of his seven children were minors at this time, which could explain why there is no discussion of an inheritance until 1695. But that is supposition.
It's believed that his wife's name was Ann. She may have been Ann Skelton, or she may have been Ann Plaistead. The Plaistead guess seems to be based on that 1670 court case, when John testified on behalf of Roger Plaistead about lands in dispute between Connecticut and Rhode Island. In 1674, John made inquiries on behalf of this same Roger Plaistead about building a fulling mill near Stonington. There was some sort of connection here, but whether this is enough to establish a family relationship appears doubtful. There seems to be even less support for the Skelton idea. So for now and perhaps forever, the name of John's wife is not known.
He was a charcoal burner in Kittery, which was a lonely, demanding job, since the charcoal had to be tended to almost constantly. Charcoal was needed for the iron smelting process. He received grants of land in Kittery in 1655 and 1666, but by 1663 was in New London, or possibly near Stonington, Connecticut. We don't know why he changed locations. At his new home, he seems to have been a farrier and a blacksmith as well as a farmer and a miller. Again, the records are scanty.
He may be the John Lamb who became a freeman at New London in 1670, but that isn't clear.
The implication is that John died about 1681, when there was testimony about what John told John Packer about problems in a mill wash. Since John himself didn't testify, he was likely either too sick to testify or had already died.
So he don't know his parents, his origins, when he arrived in New England (I'm thinking he was possibly an indentured servant), who he married or when, or much about his life near Stonington. We don't know what he thought of King Philip's War, or whether he might have served in earlier militias. We don't know why he was only about 55 when he (most likely) died. We assume that he attended church but there don't seem to be records to confirm this. He apparently prepared a will in 1673 but it's been lost. "Johnny, we hardly knew ye."
Please, if someone knows more or has insights into this family, please contact me!
The line of descent is
John Lamb-Ann
Elizabeth Lamb-Daniel Longbottom
James Longbottom-Elizabeth Jackson
Elizabeth Longbottom-John Eames
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
I was surprised when I started researching John Lamb to find him first in Kittery, Maine. I had to pull up a map of Kittery, which is in York County (a new county for me to research in, perhaps making this number 238!!) to realize this was not at all far from the northern shores of Massachusetts. At the time, of course, it was part of Massachusetts Bay Colony, so John can be forgiven for being in "new" parts. However, we don't know when or where he was born, or how he arrived in Kittery, or even when he arrived in Kittery.
Most guesses put his birthdate at about 1623, with two or three different locations being put forth for his home at birth, and several guesses as to his parents. If we accept that the John killed near Stonington was his son, and assume that he was probably not more than 24 (since he would likely have been married by then) and assume that he was the first or second son of John's, then our John could have been born as late as 1630. John himself tells us that he was 45 years old in 1670, when he testified in court, so even though these dates are not always accurate, it is as close as we are likely to get.
We know he was in Kittery, Maine in 1651, because then and again in 1653 he was called a liar in court (a thief also, in 1651) although I don't know the disposition of those cases. I also don't know whether he was single or married at this time, although it must have been around this time that he married. His son Thomas sold part of his inheritance to brother Samuel in 1695. The best guess is that John died sometime around 1681, and likely some of his seven children were minors at this time, which could explain why there is no discussion of an inheritance until 1695. But that is supposition.
It's believed that his wife's name was Ann. She may have been Ann Skelton, or she may have been Ann Plaistead. The Plaistead guess seems to be based on that 1670 court case, when John testified on behalf of Roger Plaistead about lands in dispute between Connecticut and Rhode Island. In 1674, John made inquiries on behalf of this same Roger Plaistead about building a fulling mill near Stonington. There was some sort of connection here, but whether this is enough to establish a family relationship appears doubtful. There seems to be even less support for the Skelton idea. So for now and perhaps forever, the name of John's wife is not known.
He was a charcoal burner in Kittery, which was a lonely, demanding job, since the charcoal had to be tended to almost constantly. Charcoal was needed for the iron smelting process. He received grants of land in Kittery in 1655 and 1666, but by 1663 was in New London, or possibly near Stonington, Connecticut. We don't know why he changed locations. At his new home, he seems to have been a farrier and a blacksmith as well as a farmer and a miller. Again, the records are scanty.
He may be the John Lamb who became a freeman at New London in 1670, but that isn't clear.
The implication is that John died about 1681, when there was testimony about what John told John Packer about problems in a mill wash. Since John himself didn't testify, he was likely either too sick to testify or had already died.
So he don't know his parents, his origins, when he arrived in New England (I'm thinking he was possibly an indentured servant), who he married or when, or much about his life near Stonington. We don't know what he thought of King Philip's War, or whether he might have served in earlier militias. We don't know why he was only about 55 when he (most likely) died. We assume that he attended church but there don't seem to be records to confirm this. He apparently prepared a will in 1673 but it's been lost. "Johnny, we hardly knew ye."
Please, if someone knows more or has insights into this family, please contact me!
The line of descent is
John Lamb-Ann
Elizabeth Lamb-Daniel Longbottom
James Longbottom-Elizabeth Jackson
Elizabeth Longbottom-John Eames
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 10, 2020
Holbrook line: Josiah Belcher 1631-1683
I recently wrote about an ancestor from early Boston, and now here is another one, even earlier. And wonder of wonders, there is quite a bit of information about him. It's always fun when that happens. I want to acknowledge that a good bit of this seems to have originated with a wonderful source called The Thweng Collection, which is available on the site American Ancestors (this is a subscription site, but with as many New England families as we have, I can't do without it).
So...Josiah Belcher was the son of Gregory and (probably) Catherine Alcock Belcher and was born in 1631 (based on a gravestone inscription) in a small settlement, not yet an organized town, called Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was one of at least seven children, and would have grown up basically as a farmer. Or perhaps not, because he had a trade as an adult, that of a wheelwright. He is still described as a yeoman, so there was farming involved, also.
Josiah (also known as Josias) married Uranis (Ranis) Rainsford, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth Dilloe Rainsford, on March 3, 1655 in Boston, where her parents lived. Braintree wasn't far from Boston, but it seems likely that Josiah had already settled in Boston, in order for them to have met. Edward Rainsford is a gateway ancestor, connecting this family to European royalty (whether they knew it or not). Rainsford was sometimes called "Mr." or "Gent" so this may be a case of Josiah being upwardly mobile. One wonders what her parents thought of the match.
His property is described as being on the southwesterly corner of what is now Essex Street and Harrison Streets (this from a 1906 articles about the Belchers in the Register. It fronted 126 feet on Essex Street and ran back 285 feet to the water. I think this is very near what is identified as "Rainsford Lane" on the 1722 Boston map. This was what was then the south part of Boston. In fact, Josiah was one of about two dozen men given the task of founding the South church in Boston (this was the one that in later years would become a meeting place for Patriots, but that's part of someone else's story).
Josiah doesn't appear to have been much involved with politics or civic service, but he did serve as one of the "officers about swine" three times during the 1670s. Typically this would involve making sure that the animals were ringed or yoked during certain times of the year, so they wouldn't destroy crops. The Massachusetts towns I've read about during this time period all allowed swine to roam the town streets, and perhaps Boston did, too.
Josiah and Uranis had thirteen children together. Several died young, never married, or married but had no children. The last years of Josiah and Uranis were probably sad, but they did have two sons who survived them and several daughters. The land was not partitioned until after the death of Uranis, and then each surviving child received part of the land, which appears to have been then sold. The inventory for Josiah includes land in Braintree but the land in Boston doesn't appear to be included. As part of it may have been Uranis's land, perhaps it was not included in the inventory. The inventory was valued at a little over 195 pounds. Josiah is buried at the Granary Burying Ground in downtown Boston. (I was on a trolley tour of Boston 21 years ago, and we stopped at this site, but I had no knowledge that I had ancestors there and did not get off the trolley to go exploring).
Of course I'd like to know more about Josiah, including how it was that he became a wheelwright and how he met and courted his wife. What made him (or his father) decide that Boston would be a better place for him than Braintree? I'd also like to know if he was ever involved in military service. and was perhaps a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. That discovery, however, will have to wait for another day.
The line of descent is:
Josiah Belcher-Uranis Rainsford
Elizabeth Belcher-John Paine
Stephen Paine-Sarah Vallet
Stephen Paine-Sarah Thornton
Stephen Paine-Lillis Winsor
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis E Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
So...Josiah Belcher was the son of Gregory and (probably) Catherine Alcock Belcher and was born in 1631 (based on a gravestone inscription) in a small settlement, not yet an organized town, called Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was one of at least seven children, and would have grown up basically as a farmer. Or perhaps not, because he had a trade as an adult, that of a wheelwright. He is still described as a yeoman, so there was farming involved, also.
Josiah (also known as Josias) married Uranis (Ranis) Rainsford, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth Dilloe Rainsford, on March 3, 1655 in Boston, where her parents lived. Braintree wasn't far from Boston, but it seems likely that Josiah had already settled in Boston, in order for them to have met. Edward Rainsford is a gateway ancestor, connecting this family to European royalty (whether they knew it or not). Rainsford was sometimes called "Mr." or "Gent" so this may be a case of Josiah being upwardly mobile. One wonders what her parents thought of the match.
His property is described as being on the southwesterly corner of what is now Essex Street and Harrison Streets (this from a 1906 articles about the Belchers in the Register. It fronted 126 feet on Essex Street and ran back 285 feet to the water. I think this is very near what is identified as "Rainsford Lane" on the 1722 Boston map. This was what was then the south part of Boston. In fact, Josiah was one of about two dozen men given the task of founding the South church in Boston (this was the one that in later years would become a meeting place for Patriots, but that's part of someone else's story).
Josiah doesn't appear to have been much involved with politics or civic service, but he did serve as one of the "officers about swine" three times during the 1670s. Typically this would involve making sure that the animals were ringed or yoked during certain times of the year, so they wouldn't destroy crops. The Massachusetts towns I've read about during this time period all allowed swine to roam the town streets, and perhaps Boston did, too.
Josiah and Uranis had thirteen children together. Several died young, never married, or married but had no children. The last years of Josiah and Uranis were probably sad, but they did have two sons who survived them and several daughters. The land was not partitioned until after the death of Uranis, and then each surviving child received part of the land, which appears to have been then sold. The inventory for Josiah includes land in Braintree but the land in Boston doesn't appear to be included. As part of it may have been Uranis's land, perhaps it was not included in the inventory. The inventory was valued at a little over 195 pounds. Josiah is buried at the Granary Burying Ground in downtown Boston. (I was on a trolley tour of Boston 21 years ago, and we stopped at this site, but I had no knowledge that I had ancestors there and did not get off the trolley to go exploring).
Of course I'd like to know more about Josiah, including how it was that he became a wheelwright and how he met and courted his wife. What made him (or his father) decide that Boston would be a better place for him than Braintree? I'd also like to know if he was ever involved in military service. and was perhaps a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. That discovery, however, will have to wait for another day.
The line of descent is:
Josiah Belcher-Uranis Rainsford
Elizabeth Belcher-John Paine
Stephen Paine-Sarah Vallet
Stephen Paine-Sarah Thornton
Stephen Paine-Lillis Winsor
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis E Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, April 7, 2020
Holbrook line: Sergeant Samuel Judd 1653-1720
Well, OK, maybe he wasn't born in 1651. Maybe it was 1653. Records seem to be lacking. However, his father was Deacon Thomas Judd and his mother was Elizabeth, maiden name unknown. He was born in Farmington, Connecticut, which is just west of Hartford, and he was one of nine children. Since his father was the church deacon, it is probably safe to assume that this was a Puritan family. About 1670, the Puritan churches started having difficulties and we don't know how seriously Samuel took his religion, but presumably he would still have attended church even if he wasn't an official member of the congregation. There are church records but one has to be on site in Connecticut to view them, it appears.
Samuel appears to have been in Northampton, Massachusetts at the time of his marriage in 1681 to Mariah Strong, daughter of Thomas and Mary Hewett Strong, who were also of Northampton. He may have gone there with his father and step mother, because they also were of Northampton by the time they died. However it happened, Samuel became a resident of Northampton and stayed there for the rest of his life. I show that Samuel and Mariah had 10 children, He seems not to have been much involved in town service, other than as a juror on several cases. He was made a freeman on 684, so at least he had voting rights and responsibilities.
In his death record, Samuel is referred to as "Sergeant" Samuel Judd. I have tried to locate (on line) records that would tell us how he acquired that rank (generally, elected by the men) and where he might have served, but the only reference I found showed a Samuel Judd serving in 1709, This may or may not be our Samuel; he would have been 56 years old at the time. If Samuel was in Northampton in 1675, then he would surely have been involved in King Philip's War, because the town was attacked and some homes destroyed during that time. However, the town was heavily garrisoned and defended, so the whole town was not lost, and it doesn't seem that the townspeople fled. The colony was also involved in Queen Anne's War and King William's War, so Samuel may have taken part in battles there. He may also have responded to the native American attacks on Harfield and Deerfield later in the 1700s. It's frustrating to have all these possibilities and no answers! Maybe when the Allen County Public Library is able to re-open...
I did locate Samuel's will. It's a little unusual because he gives half of everything to his wife, Mariah, but if she re-marries she is to get only one third and then only for as long as she lives. Samuel did sign the will but it is printed rather than cursive writing. I don't know if that means anything; perhaps it only means that he was ill and uncomfortable when he signed it. I've not located an inventory but he also left each of his six daughters fifty pounds, besides what he left his wife and each of his three sons. It appears that he was doing OK financially, perhaps greatly helped by that bequest from his step mother. Mariah lived until 1751, so his sons waited a while for their bequests.
I would love to know more about Samuel, especially about his military service. I'd love to find his inventory, as well as church records that might tell us something of not only his religious character, but also where he was seated in the meeting house. That would give us an indication of his status in the town. This is a start, but only a start, to Samuel's story.
The line of descent is:
Samuel Judd-Mariah Strong
Elizabeth Judd-Ebenezer Southwell
Eunice Southwell-Medad Pomeroy
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Samuel appears to have been in Northampton, Massachusetts at the time of his marriage in 1681 to Mariah Strong, daughter of Thomas and Mary Hewett Strong, who were also of Northampton. He may have gone there with his father and step mother, because they also were of Northampton by the time they died. However it happened, Samuel became a resident of Northampton and stayed there for the rest of his life. I show that Samuel and Mariah had 10 children, He seems not to have been much involved in town service, other than as a juror on several cases. He was made a freeman on 684, so at least he had voting rights and responsibilities.
In his death record, Samuel is referred to as "Sergeant" Samuel Judd. I have tried to locate (on line) records that would tell us how he acquired that rank (generally, elected by the men) and where he might have served, but the only reference I found showed a Samuel Judd serving in 1709, This may or may not be our Samuel; he would have been 56 years old at the time. If Samuel was in Northampton in 1675, then he would surely have been involved in King Philip's War, because the town was attacked and some homes destroyed during that time. However, the town was heavily garrisoned and defended, so the whole town was not lost, and it doesn't seem that the townspeople fled. The colony was also involved in Queen Anne's War and King William's War, so Samuel may have taken part in battles there. He may also have responded to the native American attacks on Harfield and Deerfield later in the 1700s. It's frustrating to have all these possibilities and no answers! Maybe when the Allen County Public Library is able to re-open...
I did locate Samuel's will. It's a little unusual because he gives half of everything to his wife, Mariah, but if she re-marries she is to get only one third and then only for as long as she lives. Samuel did sign the will but it is printed rather than cursive writing. I don't know if that means anything; perhaps it only means that he was ill and uncomfortable when he signed it. I've not located an inventory but he also left each of his six daughters fifty pounds, besides what he left his wife and each of his three sons. It appears that he was doing OK financially, perhaps greatly helped by that bequest from his step mother. Mariah lived until 1751, so his sons waited a while for their bequests.
I would love to know more about Samuel, especially about his military service. I'd love to find his inventory, as well as church records that might tell us something of not only his religious character, but also where he was seated in the meeting house. That would give us an indication of his status in the town. This is a start, but only a start, to Samuel's story.
The line of descent is:
Samuel Judd-Mariah Strong
Elizabeth Judd-Ebenezer Southwell
Eunice Southwell-Medad Pomeroy
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, March 13, 2020
Holbrook line: Elisha Eddy 1710-1764
We come from a long line in the Eddy family. Starting with Susan Eddy, we can trace back all the way to a John Eddy born in 1435, if printed information is correct. However, for this post, we are interested in Elisha Eddy, who lived from 1710-1764 in Rhode Island.
Elisha was the son of Zechariah (or Zachariah, or Zachary) and Anphillis Smith Eddy. He was born in what was then Providence Plantation, Rhode Island. Later Gloucester broke off from Providence, a peaceful event, and later still the town changed its name to Glocester, to avoid confusion with Gloucester, Massachusetts. Elisha was born November 10, 1710 and he was one of at least four children. Zechariah must have had some influence in the town because he was appointed town sergeant at its formation in 1731.
Elisha, however, stayed pretty much under the radar. We know he married Sarah Phetteplace, daughter of Walter and Joanna Mowry Phetteplace, on December 2, 1734 in Gloucester. His father gave him 100 acres of land shortly before his death in 1737, and Elisha stayed there for several years, until he sold the land to his brother, Joseph, and purchased 200 acres from Richard Sayles. (He left half of this land to his oldest son Enos in his will in 1764.)
Elisha and Sarah had at least four children, which was not a large family for the period, and for having been married nearly 27 years when Elisha died. He describes himself in his will as a yeoman, and Enos as a husbandman, meaning both farmed land, but Elisha owned land and Enos was a tenant farmer at the time.
His name is found on one Inman will as an executor, and as a witness on several deeds, but other than that he is not noted in town records that I'm aware of. He would have served in the militia but we don't know whether, for instance, he was part of the French and Indian War, or any of the earlier wars that preceded it. We don't know his religion, although based on the religion of others in the area he was likely "some kind" of Baptist.
In his will, he set out an area 6 poles square (about 300 feet by 300 feet) for a burial location, where his father was already buried. It seems to be listed as a historical cemetery, GL149, which has not been recorded but seems to be at or near the location of Elisha's home.
Elisha died January 27, 1764. Sarah was an executor of his will, and she lived until December 2, 1794. (She saw the American Revolution. Did she participate in some way, as in providing goods or services?) Whether or not Elisha served in some capacity in the town, whether or not he served in the militia, and whether or not he was a Baptist or other religious persuasion, are really immaterial to this one fact: He was our ancestor, and he helped give life to the next generation.
The line of descent is:
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phettiplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
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
Elisha was the son of Zechariah (or Zachariah, or Zachary) and Anphillis Smith Eddy. He was born in what was then Providence Plantation, Rhode Island. Later Gloucester broke off from Providence, a peaceful event, and later still the town changed its name to Glocester, to avoid confusion with Gloucester, Massachusetts. Elisha was born November 10, 1710 and he was one of at least four children. Zechariah must have had some influence in the town because he was appointed town sergeant at its formation in 1731.
Elisha, however, stayed pretty much under the radar. We know he married Sarah Phetteplace, daughter of Walter and Joanna Mowry Phetteplace, on December 2, 1734 in Gloucester. His father gave him 100 acres of land shortly before his death in 1737, and Elisha stayed there for several years, until he sold the land to his brother, Joseph, and purchased 200 acres from Richard Sayles. (He left half of this land to his oldest son Enos in his will in 1764.)
Elisha and Sarah had at least four children, which was not a large family for the period, and for having been married nearly 27 years when Elisha died. He describes himself in his will as a yeoman, and Enos as a husbandman, meaning both farmed land, but Elisha owned land and Enos was a tenant farmer at the time.
His name is found on one Inman will as an executor, and as a witness on several deeds, but other than that he is not noted in town records that I'm aware of. He would have served in the militia but we don't know whether, for instance, he was part of the French and Indian War, or any of the earlier wars that preceded it. We don't know his religion, although based on the religion of others in the area he was likely "some kind" of Baptist.
In his will, he set out an area 6 poles square (about 300 feet by 300 feet) for a burial location, where his father was already buried. It seems to be listed as a historical cemetery, GL149, which has not been recorded but seems to be at or near the location of Elisha's home.
Elisha died January 27, 1764. Sarah was an executor of his will, and she lived until December 2, 1794. (She saw the American Revolution. Did she participate in some way, as in providing goods or services?) Whether or not Elisha served in some capacity in the town, whether or not he served in the militia, and whether or not he was a Baptist or other religious persuasion, are really immaterial to this one fact: He was our ancestor, and he helped give life to the next generation.
The line of descent is:
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phettiplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
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
Friday, February 28, 2020
Holbrook line: Samuel Winsor 1644-1705
Samuel Winsor was the son of Joshua and Mary (maiden name unknown) Winsor. He was born at Providence Plantation on November 18, 1644, very early in the life of that colony. His father, Joshua was a free thinker, perhaps having similar thoughts to those of Roger Williams. He was encouraged to come to Providence by Roger Williams, and the Winsors would have known the Williams family well for many years.
We don't know a lot about Samuel, and some of what is on the internet is not accurate, as far as I can tell. This Samuel Winsor was not a pastor or a "Reverend", unless I have missed some documentation, although his son and grandson were Baptist pastors. Our Samuel may or may not have worshiped as a Baptist, but since the Baptist church was the first one in Providence it is likely that he did attend services there. It's also likely that he was a seeker, always looking for God in his life.
His occupation was that of a farmer, but I haven't seen whether he was considered a yeoman or a husbandman. Perhaps in Rhode Island they didn't pay much attention to titles.
He was one of those who stayed in Providence during King Philip's war. Since only two homes were not burned by the natives during that struggle, it is probable that if he had his own home by that time, it was destroyed. Roger Williams was captain of the militia during this time, and there were 30 men left in his unit. All the others had fled. I would like to say that Samuel, being about 32 years old at this time, would have stayed to guard and if necessary, fight to protect the small village.
Samuel married on January 2, 1677 to the youngest daughter of Roger and Mary Barnard Williams, Mercy. She was the widow of Resolved Waterman. The Winsors had four children together, which, with the five children she had with Resolved, would have made for quite a large family.
We don't have Samuel's will or administration papers, although the administration papers apparently exist. But we do have his statement of taxable items the all residents were required to provide during the rule of Edmund Andros, in 1686-1687. At that time, he reported two oxen, three cows, one three year old "hifer", Four two year old cattle, three yearlings, one horse, one mare, one two year old horse, five small siwne, eighteen sheep a year old, one house lott, one house lott more, eighty seven acres of land in the wilderness, a share beyond the seven mile line unlaid out, a swamp called Joshua's swamp, five or six acres, half a share of meadow called Shepherd's meadow about thirty acres, at my house three (acres) plowed, about 5 or six rough pasture of the said thirty. This is the best account that I can give. He made an addendum to report one horse more belonging to Resolved Waterman "who is with me upon wages" more eleven acres of land in the neck that was forgot that was Shepard's (spelling and punctuation mostly cleaned up by this writer). This was dated September 1, 1687.
So in ten years after the destruction of his home, Samuel had largely recovered what he lost and perhaps was even prospering. This is the only information I've found that give us an indication of his economic standing. We don't know his religion for sure, we don't know that he served in the militia for sure, but we do know that he must have been a hardworking man, and we can honor him for that work ethic. We can also honor him for the children he raised, his and his wife's, and for the service he gave to his country. On line records show that Samuel and Mercy died on the same day, September 19, 1705, but I can only verify Samuel's death date. Mercy may well have died about the same time. If they did die on the same date, it would be interesting to know their cause(s) of death. Was there a contagious disease, or was it pure coincidence, or was it love?
The line of descent is
Samuel Winsor-Mercy Williams
Samuel Winsor-Mercy Harding
Joseph Winsor-Deborah Mathewson
Lillis Winsor-Nathan Paine
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph Eddy-Susan Hamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
We don't know a lot about Samuel, and some of what is on the internet is not accurate, as far as I can tell. This Samuel Winsor was not a pastor or a "Reverend", unless I have missed some documentation, although his son and grandson were Baptist pastors. Our Samuel may or may not have worshiped as a Baptist, but since the Baptist church was the first one in Providence it is likely that he did attend services there. It's also likely that he was a seeker, always looking for God in his life.
His occupation was that of a farmer, but I haven't seen whether he was considered a yeoman or a husbandman. Perhaps in Rhode Island they didn't pay much attention to titles.
He was one of those who stayed in Providence during King Philip's war. Since only two homes were not burned by the natives during that struggle, it is probable that if he had his own home by that time, it was destroyed. Roger Williams was captain of the militia during this time, and there were 30 men left in his unit. All the others had fled. I would like to say that Samuel, being about 32 years old at this time, would have stayed to guard and if necessary, fight to protect the small village.
Samuel married on January 2, 1677 to the youngest daughter of Roger and Mary Barnard Williams, Mercy. She was the widow of Resolved Waterman. The Winsors had four children together, which, with the five children she had with Resolved, would have made for quite a large family.
We don't have Samuel's will or administration papers, although the administration papers apparently exist. But we do have his statement of taxable items the all residents were required to provide during the rule of Edmund Andros, in 1686-1687. At that time, he reported two oxen, three cows, one three year old "hifer", Four two year old cattle, three yearlings, one horse, one mare, one two year old horse, five small siwne, eighteen sheep a year old, one house lott, one house lott more, eighty seven acres of land in the wilderness, a share beyond the seven mile line unlaid out, a swamp called Joshua's swamp, five or six acres, half a share of meadow called Shepherd's meadow about thirty acres, at my house three (acres) plowed, about 5 or six rough pasture of the said thirty. This is the best account that I can give. He made an addendum to report one horse more belonging to Resolved Waterman "who is with me upon wages" more eleven acres of land in the neck that was forgot that was Shepard's (spelling and punctuation mostly cleaned up by this writer). This was dated September 1, 1687.
So in ten years after the destruction of his home, Samuel had largely recovered what he lost and perhaps was even prospering. This is the only information I've found that give us an indication of his economic standing. We don't know his religion for sure, we don't know that he served in the militia for sure, but we do know that he must have been a hardworking man, and we can honor him for that work ethic. We can also honor him for the children he raised, his and his wife's, and for the service he gave to his country. On line records show that Samuel and Mercy died on the same day, September 19, 1705, but I can only verify Samuel's death date. Mercy may well have died about the same time. If they did die on the same date, it would be interesting to know their cause(s) of death. Was there a contagious disease, or was it pure coincidence, or was it love?
The line of descent is
Samuel Winsor-Mercy Williams
Samuel Winsor-Mercy Harding
Joseph Winsor-Deborah Mathewson
Lillis Winsor-Nathan Paine
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph Eddy-Susan Hamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, February 14, 2020
Holbrook line: John Paine 1658-1718
We have a lot of men named Stephen Paine in our line and I've written about the immigrant earlier. I'll try to write about at least some of the succeeding generations later, if I'm able to find some information about them. But first, we have John Paine. I didn't find a lot of information about him, but he lived in interesting times and left us clues about his life, even if we don't have answers to all the questions we have about him.
John was born April 3, 1658 in Rehoboth, Massachusetts, the son of Stephen and Anne Chickering Paine. He was their second son, one of a total of at least nine children. John's grandfather had been a linen weaver and John's trade is listed as weaver. although we don't know what in particular he wove, or how much this was a livelihood and how much just added income to see his family over the tight spots.
John married, at the age of 22, Elizabeth Belcher, who was 20 and was the daughter of Josiah and Uranis Rainsford Belcher. Elizabeth likely grew up hearing stories a little different than the Paine's did, for the Rainsford family was connected, far back, to royalty. He inherited land from his grandfather as well as his father, and that may be why he moved to Swansea, Massachusetts Bay by 1683. Rehoboth and Swansea are roughly 9 miles apart, so John didn't move far when he moved. Both towns were burned during King Philip's War in 1675-76. John would have been old enough to serve but I've not found his name listed a a soldier anywhere. We can assume that he was either serving or staying at home to protect his younger siblings, during the war, or leading them to a "safer" town. Surely a 17 or 18 year old young man would not have been doing nothing during this time period!
At this point it is interesting to speculate about the religion of John Paine. I have seen on some trees that he was a Quaker, but after looking for evidence, I think it is more likely that his son or grandson of the same name was the Quaker. The question for me is" was he a Baptist? Both Rehoboth and Swansea had healthy Baptist populations and it seems possible that he was a Baptist also. So far I've not found anything that leads me to be able to make a judgement one way or the other on that question. Let's just say, for now, that it wouldn't surprise me.
John and Elizabeth had at least ten children together, before Elizabeth died prior to 1711. John remarried soon after,, to Martha (last name not known) and this couple had four children. About the time of the second marriage John moved his family to Providence, Rhode Island, which was about 11 miles. John was a surveyor of highways and a representative in Swansea, so he was a respected man, whether or not he was Baptist, Quaker, or Congregationalist.
There is supposedly a will or administration for John but I've not found it on line. He died September 26, 1718, at Providence. His widow, Martha, was younger than he was and soon remarried, as she had four children of her own plus two or three of the younger children of Elizabeth to care for.
So John is a bit of a mystery in terms of religion, military service, and even the value of his estate. We also don't know what kind of education he had. However, like all of our ancestors, he contributed to the story of us, and that makes him important in my eyes.
The line of descent is
John Paine-Elizabeth Belcher
Stephen Paine-Sarah Vallett
Stephen Paine-Sarah Thornton
Nathan Paine-Lillis Winsor
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
John was born April 3, 1658 in Rehoboth, Massachusetts, the son of Stephen and Anne Chickering Paine. He was their second son, one of a total of at least nine children. John's grandfather had been a linen weaver and John's trade is listed as weaver. although we don't know what in particular he wove, or how much this was a livelihood and how much just added income to see his family over the tight spots.
John married, at the age of 22, Elizabeth Belcher, who was 20 and was the daughter of Josiah and Uranis Rainsford Belcher. Elizabeth likely grew up hearing stories a little different than the Paine's did, for the Rainsford family was connected, far back, to royalty. He inherited land from his grandfather as well as his father, and that may be why he moved to Swansea, Massachusetts Bay by 1683. Rehoboth and Swansea are roughly 9 miles apart, so John didn't move far when he moved. Both towns were burned during King Philip's War in 1675-76. John would have been old enough to serve but I've not found his name listed a a soldier anywhere. We can assume that he was either serving or staying at home to protect his younger siblings, during the war, or leading them to a "safer" town. Surely a 17 or 18 year old young man would not have been doing nothing during this time period!
At this point it is interesting to speculate about the religion of John Paine. I have seen on some trees that he was a Quaker, but after looking for evidence, I think it is more likely that his son or grandson of the same name was the Quaker. The question for me is" was he a Baptist? Both Rehoboth and Swansea had healthy Baptist populations and it seems possible that he was a Baptist also. So far I've not found anything that leads me to be able to make a judgement one way or the other on that question. Let's just say, for now, that it wouldn't surprise me.
John and Elizabeth had at least ten children together, before Elizabeth died prior to 1711. John remarried soon after,, to Martha (last name not known) and this couple had four children. About the time of the second marriage John moved his family to Providence, Rhode Island, which was about 11 miles. John was a surveyor of highways and a representative in Swansea, so he was a respected man, whether or not he was Baptist, Quaker, or Congregationalist.
There is supposedly a will or administration for John but I've not found it on line. He died September 26, 1718, at Providence. His widow, Martha, was younger than he was and soon remarried, as she had four children of her own plus two or three of the younger children of Elizabeth to care for.
So John is a bit of a mystery in terms of religion, military service, and even the value of his estate. We also don't know what kind of education he had. However, like all of our ancestors, he contributed to the story of us, and that makes him important in my eyes.
The line of descent is
John Paine-Elizabeth Belcher
Stephen Paine-Sarah Vallett
Stephen Paine-Sarah Thornton
Nathan Paine-Lillis Winsor
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Holbrook line: John Brackett 1637-1686
As I first researched this ancestor of ours, I could find only enough information to perhaps fill out three sentences. I knew his parents, his birth and death dates (incorrect death date, as it turns out), his siblings and his wife and children. I knew the town where he lived and died. I knew that his father was a deacon and a jailer, and I thought maybe our John had gone undercover, so to speak, to escape his father's reputation.
But as I did a little more research, I found a few more facts, ones that show John standing on his own two feet and becoming his own man. It's not much, yet, but still, it's more than I knew at the beginning.
John's parents were Richard and Alice Blower Brackett. His father had come to Massachusetts in 1632, returned to England to marry in 1633 and then returned to New England in 1634 with his bride. John had one older sister, Hannah. He and his brother were baptized the same day, May 7, 1637 in Boston. It's not clear whether the two were twins, but if not, they were certainly close all their days. Five more siblings were born after John. Remarkably, all of the children of Richard and Alice lived to adulthood.
It's not clear how much John would have remembered of his earliest childhood days in Boston, because his parents moved to Braintree about 1641. John would have been only about 4 years old at the time of the move, and Braintree was probably the equivalent of the old home place, although of course both Richard and Alice could have talked about their own childhoods, in England.
John, however, looked to the future. He married Hannah French, daughter of William and Elizabeth French, on September 6, 1661 in Braintree. Sometime during the next few years, he moved his family 45 miles north, to Billerica. Billerica had been founded in 1655 on the side of a former native village, and although John didn't get in on the ground floor, he must have had good reason for going there. Four of his brothers and sisters moved to Billerica, and Hannah's father may have already been there. These moves took place for the most part in the early 1660's, although exact dates are hard to pin down.
We do know that John was "rated" in 1669 for 15 shillings to go to the maintenance of Mr. Whiting, the church pastor. This was a fairly low amount based on the list I found in an 1883 History of Billerica, but at the time John had been married for only about 8 years so is not likely to have had a large estate. I also found that he was a soldier, at least in the militia, during King Philip's War. His family, along with those of Daniel Shed Jr, Samuel Trull, and James Kidder Jr. were assigned to Sergeant Kidder's home when the town felt threatened. Two soldiers were also assigned there, for a total of 7 soldiers, so the implication is that each of the men mentioned were also soldiers. I also found note that Billerica had been abandoned after an attack, but I am not sure of the chronology of this, whether it was before or after the assignment of the various families to the garrison and strong houses. John was rated at three shillings in 1679, but again, this is soon after the war ended so it is hard to draw conclusions from this list.
Hannah died on May 9, 1674, the same day that her last daughter was born. Her father named the last daughter "Marah", which meant "bitter" in the Old Testament. However, with seven children to raise he needed a new wife, and he married Ruth Morse Ellis, widow, on March 31, 1674. She had three children of her own and then she and John had four children, three of whom survived. That was one large family. And Ruth would have been the one to take her four children, John's seven, and possibly the first of their children together, into Sergeant Kidder's house for what may have been a lengthy period of time during King Philip's War!
John died March 18, 1686 in Billerica, still less than 50 years old. He apparently didn't leave a will, and his inventory is confusing. It looks like it says that the first accounting was not complete and the marshal seized some of Ruth's holdings until it was completed to the court's satisfaction, but the final total was a little over 118 pounds. Ruth would have received 1/3 of that, and the rest divided up among John's children as they reached the age of majority. So there wasn't much to go around, but something is better than nothing.
I found nothing about John's religious beliefs but as this was still early in colonial history, and as his father had been a deacon, it's probably safe to say he was a Puritan and raised his children in the same beliefs. His inventory appears to show the tools, animals, and equipment of a farmer, although he may also have had a trade. I'd like to know more about him, of course. He was another of the salt of the earth type people who built New England and influenced America down to this day.
The line of descent is
John Brackett-Hannah French
Hannah Brackett-Joseph Stannard
John Stannard-Hannah Jordan
John Stannard-Hannah Hanchett
Libbeus Stanard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
But as I did a little more research, I found a few more facts, ones that show John standing on his own two feet and becoming his own man. It's not much, yet, but still, it's more than I knew at the beginning.
John's parents were Richard and Alice Blower Brackett. His father had come to Massachusetts in 1632, returned to England to marry in 1633 and then returned to New England in 1634 with his bride. John had one older sister, Hannah. He and his brother were baptized the same day, May 7, 1637 in Boston. It's not clear whether the two were twins, but if not, they were certainly close all their days. Five more siblings were born after John. Remarkably, all of the children of Richard and Alice lived to adulthood.
It's not clear how much John would have remembered of his earliest childhood days in Boston, because his parents moved to Braintree about 1641. John would have been only about 4 years old at the time of the move, and Braintree was probably the equivalent of the old home place, although of course both Richard and Alice could have talked about their own childhoods, in England.
John, however, looked to the future. He married Hannah French, daughter of William and Elizabeth French, on September 6, 1661 in Braintree. Sometime during the next few years, he moved his family 45 miles north, to Billerica. Billerica had been founded in 1655 on the side of a former native village, and although John didn't get in on the ground floor, he must have had good reason for going there. Four of his brothers and sisters moved to Billerica, and Hannah's father may have already been there. These moves took place for the most part in the early 1660's, although exact dates are hard to pin down.
We do know that John was "rated" in 1669 for 15 shillings to go to the maintenance of Mr. Whiting, the church pastor. This was a fairly low amount based on the list I found in an 1883 History of Billerica, but at the time John had been married for only about 8 years so is not likely to have had a large estate. I also found that he was a soldier, at least in the militia, during King Philip's War. His family, along with those of Daniel Shed Jr, Samuel Trull, and James Kidder Jr. were assigned to Sergeant Kidder's home when the town felt threatened. Two soldiers were also assigned there, for a total of 7 soldiers, so the implication is that each of the men mentioned were also soldiers. I also found note that Billerica had been abandoned after an attack, but I am not sure of the chronology of this, whether it was before or after the assignment of the various families to the garrison and strong houses. John was rated at three shillings in 1679, but again, this is soon after the war ended so it is hard to draw conclusions from this list.
Hannah died on May 9, 1674, the same day that her last daughter was born. Her father named the last daughter "Marah", which meant "bitter" in the Old Testament. However, with seven children to raise he needed a new wife, and he married Ruth Morse Ellis, widow, on March 31, 1674. She had three children of her own and then she and John had four children, three of whom survived. That was one large family. And Ruth would have been the one to take her four children, John's seven, and possibly the first of their children together, into Sergeant Kidder's house for what may have been a lengthy period of time during King Philip's War!
John died March 18, 1686 in Billerica, still less than 50 years old. He apparently didn't leave a will, and his inventory is confusing. It looks like it says that the first accounting was not complete and the marshal seized some of Ruth's holdings until it was completed to the court's satisfaction, but the final total was a little over 118 pounds. Ruth would have received 1/3 of that, and the rest divided up among John's children as they reached the age of majority. So there wasn't much to go around, but something is better than nothing.
I found nothing about John's religious beliefs but as this was still early in colonial history, and as his father had been a deacon, it's probably safe to say he was a Puritan and raised his children in the same beliefs. His inventory appears to show the tools, animals, and equipment of a farmer, although he may also have had a trade. I'd like to know more about him, of course. He was another of the salt of the earth type people who built New England and influenced America down to this day.
The line of descent is
John Brackett-Hannah French
Hannah Brackett-Joseph Stannard
John Stannard-Hannah Jordan
John Stannard-Hannah Hanchett
Libbeus Stanard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, January 31, 2020
Holbrook line: Samuel Tubbs 1638-1696
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
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
Friday, January 24, 2020
Holbrook line: David Fay, 1679-1738
We're always glad for a little bit of information about an ancestor and always hoping for more. I have to admit that there is not one new piece of information in this blog post about David Fay, but perhaps something new will come on line tomorrow, or the day after. It's always a disappointment when all I can find is information that is already in print, but I'm happy to at least get this much written down for our family.
David Fay came from a family who may or may not have been French Huguenots. David's father, John Fay, came to America as an eight year old orphan boy boy, but his mother, Susanna Shattuck, had grandparents and even great grandparents who had come early to Massachusetts Bay Colony.
David was part of a large family. His father and mother had four children, but Susannah had previously been married to Joseph Morse and had ten children with him. Somehow, Susannah survived 14 or more childbirths, and three husbands, for she married Thomas Brigham after John's death. John was a brave man, too, to accept responsibility for the ten children of his new wife.
David was born August grew up in Marlboro or Marlborough Massachusetts, He wasn't born until 1679, but he would have grown up hearing stories of King Philip's War, and of how the family had fled to Watertown until peace was restored. He may have heard about the Praying Indians that lived within the town limits, and he may have learned about the treatment the natives received from the colonists.
On May 1, 1699, David married Sarah Larkin, daughter of John and Joanna Hale Larkin, in Watertown, Massachusetts. This was the town his family had gone to during King Philip's War, and it was here that he found the young lady he married. David was just about 20 and Sarah was just two years older, so this was couple was a little bit young for the time, but they made their marriage work.
David inherited land from his father after John Fay's death in 1690. This would have been held in trust for him until he reached the age of majority, which happened right around the time of his marriage. In 1695, he was still considered a minor at 16 years of age, and asked the court to appoint Joseph Morse, probably his half brother, as his guardian. The court approved.
After their marriage, David and Sarah went to Marlboro, where they lived all their married life. David was starting to accept responsibilities in town. In 1710, he joined the church, which was still quite a lengthy process, as the whole church had to listen to his testimony and then decide whether he was living a plain, Christian life. By no means was this an easy task, so David must have been respected in the town. (Possibly he joined the church so his children could be baptized, but he still would have needed the approval of the congregation,) He was on a committee to seat the church after that. This was a delicate job because seating was assigned based on how long one had been a member of the church, general reputation, and how much money one was giving, The town fathers generally sat at the front and the tenant farmers at the back, for instance.
David supported his family as a weaver, in addition to the farming that he did. He was given a grant of land by the town in 1710. David and Sarah had 12 children together. It was probably fortunate that David had grown up in a large family and had learned to roll with the punches. Sarah was one of five children, so this may have been an adjustment for her, but most women think "We can do just one more" so this may have been her attitude.
Starting in 1727, plans were made for a peaceful division of the town of Marlborough. David and Sarah lived in what became Southborough, so it's not correct to say they moved to Southborough. They lived on the same farm they had always lived on. In Southborough, David was a constable, and a selectman in 1730, 1733, and 1735. We also know that his family was assigned to Isaac Howe's garrison, for protection from the native Americans. This implies that David was probably in the militia, but we don't know whether they ever had to go to the garrison or not, or what alarms and skirmishes he might have been involved in.
David died April 10, 1738, before his fiftieth birthday. I have not found any record of probate or estate records for him, There could be guardian records for some of the younger children, too, but I haven't located them. Sarah died in 1755 at Southborough, without remarrying. She must have been busy, raising that family, and we can hope that the children, as well as her husband's siblings, helped take care of her as she aged.
That's what I know about David Fay. Since he was a Puritan, it's likely that he was literate and could read the Bible to his children, and write as needed. As a weaver, he may have needed to have computational skills also, to keep track of his sales and his inventory. We don't know about his military service and his grandparents haven't been satisfactorily identified. But we do know that he cared for his family, stayed out of trouble, and was elected to public office several times. He was another solid New England ancestor.
The line of descent is:
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
David Fay came from a family who may or may not have been French Huguenots. David's father, John Fay, came to America as an eight year old orphan boy boy, but his mother, Susanna Shattuck, had grandparents and even great grandparents who had come early to Massachusetts Bay Colony.
David was part of a large family. His father and mother had four children, but Susannah had previously been married to Joseph Morse and had ten children with him. Somehow, Susannah survived 14 or more childbirths, and three husbands, for she married Thomas Brigham after John's death. John was a brave man, too, to accept responsibility for the ten children of his new wife.
David was born August grew up in Marlboro or Marlborough Massachusetts, He wasn't born until 1679, but he would have grown up hearing stories of King Philip's War, and of how the family had fled to Watertown until peace was restored. He may have heard about the Praying Indians that lived within the town limits, and he may have learned about the treatment the natives received from the colonists.
On May 1, 1699, David married Sarah Larkin, daughter of John and Joanna Hale Larkin, in Watertown, Massachusetts. This was the town his family had gone to during King Philip's War, and it was here that he found the young lady he married. David was just about 20 and Sarah was just two years older, so this was couple was a little bit young for the time, but they made their marriage work.
David inherited land from his father after John Fay's death in 1690. This would have been held in trust for him until he reached the age of majority, which happened right around the time of his marriage. In 1695, he was still considered a minor at 16 years of age, and asked the court to appoint Joseph Morse, probably his half brother, as his guardian. The court approved.
After their marriage, David and Sarah went to Marlboro, where they lived all their married life. David was starting to accept responsibilities in town. In 1710, he joined the church, which was still quite a lengthy process, as the whole church had to listen to his testimony and then decide whether he was living a plain, Christian life. By no means was this an easy task, so David must have been respected in the town. (Possibly he joined the church so his children could be baptized, but he still would have needed the approval of the congregation,) He was on a committee to seat the church after that. This was a delicate job because seating was assigned based on how long one had been a member of the church, general reputation, and how much money one was giving, The town fathers generally sat at the front and the tenant farmers at the back, for instance.
David supported his family as a weaver, in addition to the farming that he did. He was given a grant of land by the town in 1710. David and Sarah had 12 children together. It was probably fortunate that David had grown up in a large family and had learned to roll with the punches. Sarah was one of five children, so this may have been an adjustment for her, but most women think "We can do just one more" so this may have been her attitude.
Starting in 1727, plans were made for a peaceful division of the town of Marlborough. David and Sarah lived in what became Southborough, so it's not correct to say they moved to Southborough. They lived on the same farm they had always lived on. In Southborough, David was a constable, and a selectman in 1730, 1733, and 1735. We also know that his family was assigned to Isaac Howe's garrison, for protection from the native Americans. This implies that David was probably in the militia, but we don't know whether they ever had to go to the garrison or not, or what alarms and skirmishes he might have been involved in.
David died April 10, 1738, before his fiftieth birthday. I have not found any record of probate or estate records for him, There could be guardian records for some of the younger children, too, but I haven't located them. Sarah died in 1755 at Southborough, without remarrying. She must have been busy, raising that family, and we can hope that the children, as well as her husband's siblings, helped take care of her as she aged.
That's what I know about David Fay. Since he was a Puritan, it's likely that he was literate and could read the Bible to his children, and write as needed. As a weaver, he may have needed to have computational skills also, to keep track of his sales and his inventory. We don't know about his military service and his grandparents haven't been satisfactorily identified. But we do know that he cared for his family, stayed out of trouble, and was elected to public office several times. He was another solid New England ancestor.
The line of descent is:
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Friday, December 20, 2019
Holbrook line: John Trumbull 1670-1751
This is another case of the glass being half full. We have some information about John, but not enough to really let us think we know him, or even much about him. Like many in his generation, he is more shadow than substance. But still...there is this information.
John was born November 27, 1670 in Rowley, Massachusetts to Joseph and Hannah Smith Trumbull. Joseph and Hannah soon moved to Suffield in what would finally be determined to be Connecticut, in time for Joseph to be considered a proprietor there. John would have been only five years old when King Philip's War broke out, and the family is believed to have left Suffield for a time. Joseph would have served at least in the militia, but I've not yet found record of it. John would have been the "little man" of the family during this crisis.
I don't know whether John ever served in the military, except I do know training bands were required so he was at least theoretically able to serve in any of the military expeditions and native American scares of the late 1600's and early 1700's. He married Elizabeth Winchell, daughter of David and Elizabeth Filley Winchell, in Suffield on September 3, 1696. He was a little older than normal for a first marriage, but he likely had been helping care for his younger brothers and sisters.
John, whose name is spelled Trumble in the town records, was probably low on the social status scale. Most of the town offices that he held were relatively low level-fence viewer, surveyor of highways (indicating at least a basic education), and on a committee to make sure all hogs were "yoak'd and ring'd". He cast several dissenting votes in town meetings, some having to do with land grants and at least one having to do with paying a "rate" (tax) to pay a "writing scoller" in addition to the usual schoolmaster. By 1722 he was appointed to a committee to see to it that the pews were made, and in 1725 was trusted with the office of constable. This was a civic responsibility that many tried to avoid, as in involved collection of rates, and if he were unable for any reason to collect, that he could be held to account. Sure enough, in 1728 there was discussion about his failure to collect rates from two men, one of whom was by then deceased.
We're not told the assignment of the pews in the meeting house, but later John was given permission to change pews with a man who had been assigned the second pew. Usually these front pews were based on wealth, but sometimes exceptions were made for people who were elderly, or/and hard of hearing, and that may be the case here.
Some of his land was appropriated for a highway, and typically he would have received land elsewhere in compensation, although I haven't found record of that. His land was on Feather Street, which may have been land inherited from his father, and also noted (I'm not sure whether this was separate land, or a different description) as being the Allyn Land at the Ferry. His son was a ferryman, so John may or may not have also held that occupation.
Find a Grave states that this couple had eight children. I am unable to verify that but it could well be true. If his estate records could be located, that would be most helpful, both as to heirs and to the size of his estate, perhaps as to the land he owned and an occupation. Was he an employee of the iron works, or was he a farmer? We simply don't know at this point. We do know that he died January 3, 1751/52, when he would have been in his early eighties. So he was part of the "hardy pioneer stock" from whom we descend.
Oh, one other descendant is John Wayne, the actor. He is John Trumbull's sixth great grandson, making him, I believe, a seventh cousin once removed to my generation.
The line of descent is:
John Trumbull-Elizabeth Winchell
Hannah Trumbull-Medad Pomeroy
Medad Pomeroy-Eunice Southwell
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba or Euzebia Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
John was born November 27, 1670 in Rowley, Massachusetts to Joseph and Hannah Smith Trumbull. Joseph and Hannah soon moved to Suffield in what would finally be determined to be Connecticut, in time for Joseph to be considered a proprietor there. John would have been only five years old when King Philip's War broke out, and the family is believed to have left Suffield for a time. Joseph would have served at least in the militia, but I've not yet found record of it. John would have been the "little man" of the family during this crisis.
I don't know whether John ever served in the military, except I do know training bands were required so he was at least theoretically able to serve in any of the military expeditions and native American scares of the late 1600's and early 1700's. He married Elizabeth Winchell, daughter of David and Elizabeth Filley Winchell, in Suffield on September 3, 1696. He was a little older than normal for a first marriage, but he likely had been helping care for his younger brothers and sisters.
John, whose name is spelled Trumble in the town records, was probably low on the social status scale. Most of the town offices that he held were relatively low level-fence viewer, surveyor of highways (indicating at least a basic education), and on a committee to make sure all hogs were "yoak'd and ring'd". He cast several dissenting votes in town meetings, some having to do with land grants and at least one having to do with paying a "rate" (tax) to pay a "writing scoller" in addition to the usual schoolmaster. By 1722 he was appointed to a committee to see to it that the pews were made, and in 1725 was trusted with the office of constable. This was a civic responsibility that many tried to avoid, as in involved collection of rates, and if he were unable for any reason to collect, that he could be held to account. Sure enough, in 1728 there was discussion about his failure to collect rates from two men, one of whom was by then deceased.
We're not told the assignment of the pews in the meeting house, but later John was given permission to change pews with a man who had been assigned the second pew. Usually these front pews were based on wealth, but sometimes exceptions were made for people who were elderly, or/and hard of hearing, and that may be the case here.
Some of his land was appropriated for a highway, and typically he would have received land elsewhere in compensation, although I haven't found record of that. His land was on Feather Street, which may have been land inherited from his father, and also noted (I'm not sure whether this was separate land, or a different description) as being the Allyn Land at the Ferry. His son was a ferryman, so John may or may not have also held that occupation.
Find a Grave states that this couple had eight children. I am unable to verify that but it could well be true. If his estate records could be located, that would be most helpful, both as to heirs and to the size of his estate, perhaps as to the land he owned and an occupation. Was he an employee of the iron works, or was he a farmer? We simply don't know at this point. We do know that he died January 3, 1751/52, when he would have been in his early eighties. So he was part of the "hardy pioneer stock" from whom we descend.
Oh, one other descendant is John Wayne, the actor. He is John Trumbull's sixth great grandson, making him, I believe, a seventh cousin once removed to my generation.
The line of descent is:
John Trumbull-Elizabeth Winchell
Hannah Trumbull-Medad Pomeroy
Medad Pomeroy-Eunice Southwell
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba or Euzebia Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
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, October 25, 2019
Holbrook line: Nathaniel Joslin, of Marlsboro
There is so much erroneous information about our ancestor Nathaniel Joslin, on so many trees and websites, that I hesitate to write this post. I hope I have weeded out most of the false information and I think I can add a few details to his story. I would absolutely love to hear from anywone who knows more about this Nathaniel, the son of Nathaniel and Sarah King Joslin.
The first thing we don't know is when he was born. It was not Aril 21, 1658, as is often stated. That son Nathaniel died in 1667. We know our Nathaniel was the son of the above couple because he is mentioned several times in his father's will. But we don't know his birthdate, or location, or why it would have been omitted from town records that seem complete otherwise. Perhaps his name was on a scrap of paper that was stuck in the records, intending that it be recorded later, and the scrap of paper was mislaid. Another possibility is that Nathaniel was not Sarah's child, and so was not recorded, but there is no indication of that and surely it would have been noted somewhere.
Nathaniel married Hester Morse, daughter of Joseph and Susannah Shattuck Morse, on July 20,1682, and that is the first record we have of him. Presumably this would give him a birth date in the early 1660's. He was next named on a list of inhabitants in Marlboro in 1686, and would likely have been at least 21 years old to have made that list. So again, we point to the early 1660's. Nathaniel and Hester (also seen as Esther, same lady) were the parents of perhaps as many as eleven children, although that would mean Hester had children into her 40's, which is surely not impossible.
The list of inhabitants from 1686 that includes the names of both father and son, the two Nathaniels, is not one to be particularly proud of. The men of Marlboro wanted more land and not long after King Philip's War they began settling on land that was owned by the native Americans. The General Court told them their deed was invalid and declared null and void, but the men of the settlement connived, basically, to continue settling on those lands and tried to make it look legal. It wasn't. The land was in dispute for at least 23 years after the 1686 list, but I didn't find a final resolution, except the results were that the colonists kept the land.
Many of the settlers of Marlboro had ties to Lancaster, Massachusetts, which was burned by the natives in King Philip's War. Nathaniel Senior lost a brother, sister in law, and nephew during the massacre, and other townspeople lost family members, too. It was a raw wound. That doesn't excuse their later actions but it helps put it in a bit of perspective.
King Philip's War didn't end the difficulties with some of the native tribes, and in 1711 our Nathaniel was appointed to a committee to assigned families to garrisons. If the natives threatened the town, each family was to go to one of the stronger fortified homes in the area, where soldiers were also assigned. Nathaniel's family was assigned to Captain Kerley's garrison. We don't know if there was ever a time when the family was forced to go there or not.
Nathaniel must have had a good reputation, because he was chosen selectman in 1701, and also a good education, because he was town clerk from 1714 until 1725.
I've not found a mention of Nathaniel's occupation, nor have I found his will. (The will frequently attached to his name on websites is from Scituate, Plymouth, Massachusetts. That Nathaniel was a cousin of some sort to ours, and the similar death dates are a coincidence). If his will and inventory could be found, we could possibly answer the question of his occupation, find out if he had books, get a clue as to how he did financially, and perhaps get a clue as to his religion. It would be wonderful to find those estate records, just as it would be wonderful to find his birth record!
The line of descent is
Nathaniel Joslin-Hester or Esther Morse
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first thing we don't know is when he was born. It was not Aril 21, 1658, as is often stated. That son Nathaniel died in 1667. We know our Nathaniel was the son of the above couple because he is mentioned several times in his father's will. But we don't know his birthdate, or location, or why it would have been omitted from town records that seem complete otherwise. Perhaps his name was on a scrap of paper that was stuck in the records, intending that it be recorded later, and the scrap of paper was mislaid. Another possibility is that Nathaniel was not Sarah's child, and so was not recorded, but there is no indication of that and surely it would have been noted somewhere.
Nathaniel married Hester Morse, daughter of Joseph and Susannah Shattuck Morse, on July 20,1682, and that is the first record we have of him. Presumably this would give him a birth date in the early 1660's. He was next named on a list of inhabitants in Marlboro in 1686, and would likely have been at least 21 years old to have made that list. So again, we point to the early 1660's. Nathaniel and Hester (also seen as Esther, same lady) were the parents of perhaps as many as eleven children, although that would mean Hester had children into her 40's, which is surely not impossible.
The list of inhabitants from 1686 that includes the names of both father and son, the two Nathaniels, is not one to be particularly proud of. The men of Marlboro wanted more land and not long after King Philip's War they began settling on land that was owned by the native Americans. The General Court told them their deed was invalid and declared null and void, but the men of the settlement connived, basically, to continue settling on those lands and tried to make it look legal. It wasn't. The land was in dispute for at least 23 years after the 1686 list, but I didn't find a final resolution, except the results were that the colonists kept the land.
Many of the settlers of Marlboro had ties to Lancaster, Massachusetts, which was burned by the natives in King Philip's War. Nathaniel Senior lost a brother, sister in law, and nephew during the massacre, and other townspeople lost family members, too. It was a raw wound. That doesn't excuse their later actions but it helps put it in a bit of perspective.
King Philip's War didn't end the difficulties with some of the native tribes, and in 1711 our Nathaniel was appointed to a committee to assigned families to garrisons. If the natives threatened the town, each family was to go to one of the stronger fortified homes in the area, where soldiers were also assigned. Nathaniel's family was assigned to Captain Kerley's garrison. We don't know if there was ever a time when the family was forced to go there or not.
Nathaniel must have had a good reputation, because he was chosen selectman in 1701, and also a good education, because he was town clerk from 1714 until 1725.
I've not found a mention of Nathaniel's occupation, nor have I found his will. (The will frequently attached to his name on websites is from Scituate, Plymouth, Massachusetts. That Nathaniel was a cousin of some sort to ours, and the similar death dates are a coincidence). If his will and inventory could be found, we could possibly answer the question of his occupation, find out if he had books, get a clue as to how he did financially, and perhaps get a clue as to his religion. It would be wonderful to find those estate records, just as it would be wonderful to find his birth record!
The line of descent is
Nathaniel Joslin-Hester or Esther Morse
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Holbrook line: Edward Smith of Rhode Island, Immigrant 1633-1693
Edward Smith was one of the younger children of Christopher and Alice Gibbs Smith. He was christened on March 17, 1633 at Holy Trinity Church, Stratford on Avon, Warwickshire, England. He was one of at least 9 children. Some of the siblings settled in Rhode Island and others settled in Hartford, Connecticut, for reasons that are not yet evident.
Christopher was in Providence, Rhode Island by 1649, and possibly sooner. He was a Quaker according to John Osborne Astin's Genealogical Record of Rhode Island, because during King Philips War he and the family went to Newport, which was not attacked. At that time Quakeer records call him "an ancient Friend of Providence". But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Edward came to Providence with his parents and some siblings, and on August 26, 1656 he was granted common equal to other townsmen, and was to have a vote with inhabitants. He was a hayward (kept stray animals out of fields) in 1656, a freeman on May 12, 1638, and a juryman in 1639. He must have handled his early responsibilities well, because he was a town sergeant (not sure about this-watchman, maybe?- in 1662 and was to be paid 20 shillings in "peage". "Peage" was also known as wampum, and was treated as legal tender in the colonies, as cash was in short supply.
His marriage intention, to Amphillis Angell, was recorded on May 9, 1663 but there doesn't seem to be a record of the marriage. Nevertheless, the marriage is accepted by genealogists. He participated in a division of lands in 1665, and ten years later, just before King Philip's War broke out, he asked for an accommodation of difficulties-basically an arbitration. It had to do with the division of lands with his neighbors.
He was 7 times a deputy and 9 times a town council member. In 1688. about 25 years after he was married, he was taxed on 5 cows, 4 three year olds, 2 two year olds, 4 yearlings, 2 oxen, 2 horses, 1 1/2 shares of meadow, 5 acres tilage, 4 acres pasture, 5 acres wild pasture, and 140 acres of woods. The number of cattle is a bit surprising, as it is a larger herd than many in that location had.
Edward and Amphillis had at least seven children together, and some stayed in Providence. I would like to know whether his children stayed in the Quaker meeting, or whether they changed religion at some point.
It isn't know what kind of relationship Edward had with his Connecticut siblings. I wonder whether perhaps there was a religious difference, and the Connecticut siblings were Puritans whereas Edward and his father remained Quaker. That is just my speculation.
Edward died shortly before January 2, 1694, when administration of the estate was granted to Amphillis and his son Edward. I have as yet not found the estate papers, inventory, or will, but I do have a case number which may help me track it down.
Edward's record shows him to be a well respected man of principle, a good provider and a good citizen. We can be proud of him and honor his memory with respect.
The line of descent is:
Edward Smith-Amphillis Angell
Amphillis Smith=Zechariah Eddy
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phetteplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
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
Christopher was in Providence, Rhode Island by 1649, and possibly sooner. He was a Quaker according to John Osborne Astin's Genealogical Record of Rhode Island, because during King Philips War he and the family went to Newport, which was not attacked. At that time Quakeer records call him "an ancient Friend of Providence". But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Edward came to Providence with his parents and some siblings, and on August 26, 1656 he was granted common equal to other townsmen, and was to have a vote with inhabitants. He was a hayward (kept stray animals out of fields) in 1656, a freeman on May 12, 1638, and a juryman in 1639. He must have handled his early responsibilities well, because he was a town sergeant (not sure about this-watchman, maybe?- in 1662 and was to be paid 20 shillings in "peage". "Peage" was also known as wampum, and was treated as legal tender in the colonies, as cash was in short supply.
His marriage intention, to Amphillis Angell, was recorded on May 9, 1663 but there doesn't seem to be a record of the marriage. Nevertheless, the marriage is accepted by genealogists. He participated in a division of lands in 1665, and ten years later, just before King Philip's War broke out, he asked for an accommodation of difficulties-basically an arbitration. It had to do with the division of lands with his neighbors.
He was 7 times a deputy and 9 times a town council member. In 1688. about 25 years after he was married, he was taxed on 5 cows, 4 three year olds, 2 two year olds, 4 yearlings, 2 oxen, 2 horses, 1 1/2 shares of meadow, 5 acres tilage, 4 acres pasture, 5 acres wild pasture, and 140 acres of woods. The number of cattle is a bit surprising, as it is a larger herd than many in that location had.
Edward and Amphillis had at least seven children together, and some stayed in Providence. I would like to know whether his children stayed in the Quaker meeting, or whether they changed religion at some point.
It isn't know what kind of relationship Edward had with his Connecticut siblings. I wonder whether perhaps there was a religious difference, and the Connecticut siblings were Puritans whereas Edward and his father remained Quaker. That is just my speculation.
Edward died shortly before January 2, 1694, when administration of the estate was granted to Amphillis and his son Edward. I have as yet not found the estate papers, inventory, or will, but I do have a case number which may help me track it down.
Edward's record shows him to be a well respected man of principle, a good provider and a good citizen. We can be proud of him and honor his memory with respect.
The line of descent is:
Edward Smith-Amphillis Angell
Amphillis Smith=Zechariah Eddy
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phetteplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
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
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Holbrook line: John Jordan of Guilford, Connecticut, Immigrant
The only mysteries we have about John Jordan are these: Who were his parents? When and where was he born? What did he do for a living? Was he literate? What happened to his will? In other words, we don't know much.
The first time we see John Jordan is on a ship heading from England to Guilford, Connecticut. This was the first town in New England to be settled directly and entirely by immigrants, rather than being an overflow of colonists who for one reason or another wished to leave their original home in New England. Henry Whitfield was the leader and pastor of this group. Whitfield was a pastor who was not willing to comply with government requirements in support of the Church of England. He and about 70 other people, including 25 men, signed an agreement while still on board ship regarding how the group would govern themselves. Among the names on that list is John Jordan. It is thought that his (probable) brother Thomas was also on board, but not yet of age to sign the compact.
Many of the men on the ship were young farmers, and until I find something to the contrary, I will postulate that John fell into this class. He and others like him were expected to grow crops to support the others, including Pastor Whitfield. Apparently life in Guilford went well, because when Charles I was executed in 1649, there were requests for Puritans to come back "home"/ Henry Whitfield answered that request, as did Thomas Jordan and a few others who were early settlers.
John, however, stayed in Guilford. He had married Ann Bishop, daughter of John BIshop (who was also on the original ship and signed the original compact) in October of 1639, probably soon after arriving in Connecticut. John and Ann had at least five children together. John was early a trustee of the lands of Guilford, and also a justice of the peace, so perhaps he had at least some education.
That is pretty much the end of his story, for John died in January of 1650. Indications are that he was likely a young man, perhaps around the age of 40. It's unknown whether it was an accident or an illness that killed him. He left a will, but it's been lost. His wife, Ann, married Thomas Clarke.
Please don't write a thesis stating that John's wife was Ann Bishop, daughter of John. Some think that she was his widowed daughter in law, which is possible, although I've seen no evidence for that. If that's so, we don't know who Ann's parents were, either.
I'm ending this blog post with one more mystery than I started with. However, we do know that John came to Guilford and stayed in Guilford. He helped get the new village started and so was important to the history of Connecticut, and to our family!
The line of descent is:
John Jordan-Ann Bishop
John Jordan-Katherine Chalker
Hannah Jordan-John Stannard
John Stannard-Hannah Hanchett
Libbeus Stannard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first time we see John Jordan is on a ship heading from England to Guilford, Connecticut. This was the first town in New England to be settled directly and entirely by immigrants, rather than being an overflow of colonists who for one reason or another wished to leave their original home in New England. Henry Whitfield was the leader and pastor of this group. Whitfield was a pastor who was not willing to comply with government requirements in support of the Church of England. He and about 70 other people, including 25 men, signed an agreement while still on board ship regarding how the group would govern themselves. Among the names on that list is John Jordan. It is thought that his (probable) brother Thomas was also on board, but not yet of age to sign the compact.
Many of the men on the ship were young farmers, and until I find something to the contrary, I will postulate that John fell into this class. He and others like him were expected to grow crops to support the others, including Pastor Whitfield. Apparently life in Guilford went well, because when Charles I was executed in 1649, there were requests for Puritans to come back "home"/ Henry Whitfield answered that request, as did Thomas Jordan and a few others who were early settlers.
John, however, stayed in Guilford. He had married Ann Bishop, daughter of John BIshop (who was also on the original ship and signed the original compact) in October of 1639, probably soon after arriving in Connecticut. John and Ann had at least five children together. John was early a trustee of the lands of Guilford, and also a justice of the peace, so perhaps he had at least some education.
That is pretty much the end of his story, for John died in January of 1650. Indications are that he was likely a young man, perhaps around the age of 40. It's unknown whether it was an accident or an illness that killed him. He left a will, but it's been lost. His wife, Ann, married Thomas Clarke.
Please don't write a thesis stating that John's wife was Ann Bishop, daughter of John. Some think that she was his widowed daughter in law, which is possible, although I've seen no evidence for that. If that's so, we don't know who Ann's parents were, either.
I'm ending this blog post with one more mystery than I started with. However, we do know that John came to Guilford and stayed in Guilford. He helped get the new village started and so was important to the history of Connecticut, and to our family!
The line of descent is:
John Jordan-Ann Bishop
John Jordan-Katherine Chalker
Hannah Jordan-John Stannard
John Stannard-Hannah Hanchett
Libbeus Stannard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stanard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, October 11, 2019
Holbrook line: John Graves of Roxbury, Immigrant
Just when I thought I'd written about all the immigrants who could be traced at all, here is John Graves. While much information about him is lacking, there is also much information that we know. We are really fortunate when an ancestor is included in Robert Charles Anderson's Great Migration project, because that typically gives us much information. We are also fortunate to have John's will. I haven't found his inventory yet, but I would love to do that. And I learned a fascinating term and a new occupation for an ancestor. Have I convinced you yet to read on?
John Graves was born probably about 1600 but it could be a few years either way because his birth records have not yet been identified. "John Graves" is a fairly common name. It is thought that he came from the area around Nazing, Essex, England. This is where John Eliot came from, and he was a close friend of the Apostle to the Indians. We know John had a sister named Lydia, and we know his mother came to New England also, but we don't know when she arrived or with whom.
John's occupation was "cowleech". I'd never heard of such a thing, but Google quickly informed me that he treated diseases in cows. Presumably leeching was one of the treatments. So he was an early form of veterinarian, although we don't know whether he treated horses, swine, or sheep also. Almost every household in early New England would have had a cow or two, so he was probably in demand, although I don't know whether that also meant he made money, or had any kind of status because of his job. I don't know if that indicates that he had any kind of formal education in the field, or whether he had learned as an apprentice, or how he got started in his career. Still, "cowleech". That's interesting.
Also interesting is John's marital status. Anderson thinks he may have had three wives. The first wife was Sarah Finch, with whom he had two children, John and Sarah. The second wife is unidentified. She was the mother of Samuel, Jonathan and Mary, and she died shortly after the family arrived in Roxbury. His third wife was Judith Alward, who was or had been a "servant girl". They were married in Roxbury in December of 1635 and their daughter Hannah was born September 8, 1636. The sad thing is that after son John's death a year after his father's, Hannah is the only child who can be traced.
John became a member of the church in Roxbury in 1635 and was made a freeman in 1637. He acquired several plots of land in the 10 years or so he was in Roxbury, apparently all as part of land divisions made by the town. He died November 4, 1644, as reported by John Eliot "John Grave, a godly brother of the church, he took a deep cold, which swelled his head with rheum and overcame his heart. (He and Thomas Ruggles) broke the knot first of the Nazing Christians. I mean they first died of all those Christians that came from that town in England."
In his will, John provided for his wife and for all the children except Sarah. It is possible that he omitted her because she had received a bequest from her maternal grandfather, or perhaps he had otherwise given her what he could. Judith went on to marry William Potter on June 2, 1646, and then Samuel Finch on December 13, 1654, and lived until October of 1683.
The line of descent is:
John Graves-Judith Alward
Hannah Graves-John Mayo
Mehitable Mayo-Samuel Morris
Abigail Morris-John Perrin
Benjamin Perrin-Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Update May 24, 2020: John Graves and Judith Alward are now "former ancestors". Abigail Morris was not the daughter of Mehitable Mayo, so the lines above that are incorrect. See the post about Samuel Morris for further explanation.
John Graves was born probably about 1600 but it could be a few years either way because his birth records have not yet been identified. "John Graves" is a fairly common name. It is thought that he came from the area around Nazing, Essex, England. This is where John Eliot came from, and he was a close friend of the Apostle to the Indians. We know John had a sister named Lydia, and we know his mother came to New England also, but we don't know when she arrived or with whom.
John's occupation was "cowleech". I'd never heard of such a thing, but Google quickly informed me that he treated diseases in cows. Presumably leeching was one of the treatments. So he was an early form of veterinarian, although we don't know whether he treated horses, swine, or sheep also. Almost every household in early New England would have had a cow or two, so he was probably in demand, although I don't know whether that also meant he made money, or had any kind of status because of his job. I don't know if that indicates that he had any kind of formal education in the field, or whether he had learned as an apprentice, or how he got started in his career. Still, "cowleech". That's interesting.
Also interesting is John's marital status. Anderson thinks he may have had three wives. The first wife was Sarah Finch, with whom he had two children, John and Sarah. The second wife is unidentified. She was the mother of Samuel, Jonathan and Mary, and she died shortly after the family arrived in Roxbury. His third wife was Judith Alward, who was or had been a "servant girl". They were married in Roxbury in December of 1635 and their daughter Hannah was born September 8, 1636. The sad thing is that after son John's death a year after his father's, Hannah is the only child who can be traced.
John became a member of the church in Roxbury in 1635 and was made a freeman in 1637. He acquired several plots of land in the 10 years or so he was in Roxbury, apparently all as part of land divisions made by the town. He died November 4, 1644, as reported by John Eliot "John Grave, a godly brother of the church, he took a deep cold, which swelled his head with rheum and overcame his heart. (He and Thomas Ruggles) broke the knot first of the Nazing Christians. I mean they first died of all those Christians that came from that town in England."
In his will, John provided for his wife and for all the children except Sarah. It is possible that he omitted her because she had received a bequest from her maternal grandfather, or perhaps he had otherwise given her what he could. Judith went on to marry William Potter on June 2, 1646, and then Samuel Finch on December 13, 1654, and lived until October of 1683.
The line of descent is:
John Graves-Judith Alward
Hannah Graves-John Mayo
Mehitable Mayo-Samuel Morris
Abigail Morris-John Perrin
Benjamin Perrin-Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Update May 24, 2020: John Graves and Judith Alward are now "former ancestors". Abigail Morris was not the daughter of Mehitable Mayo, so the lines above that are incorrect. See the post about Samuel Morris for further explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)