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
Showing posts with label Lamphire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lamphire. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
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
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
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
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
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
Friday, August 9, 2019
Holbrook line: John Crocker the invisible, almost 1672-
My goodness. Some of these ancestors not only played hide and seek, but they apparently dug holes in the ground and stayed there most of their lives-or possibly went out to sea. I have found very little about this ancestor. In fact, some authorities think he died young. Well, perhaps he did, but it was after he had married and fathered four children.
John was a son of Thomas and Rachel Chappell Crocker, born in New London, Connecticut and probably died there, too. I say "probably" because I've found no death record, and the will for the John Crocker I've found is for a man by the same name in Barnstaple, Massachusetts. He names several children that are not our ancestor's children, and doesn't name our John's children at all, so my conclusion is that this is not our John Crocker. Perhaps he died at sea and his death was not recorded.
We do know that he married Mercy Tubbs, the daughter of Samuel and Mary Willey Tubbs probably by 1701. The two of them had four children together, three daughters and a son.
The only other tidbit of information I was able to pull from my search of quite a few records (not an exhaustive search, so keep looking, if you're also a descendant) regards one night of bad behavior in September of 1699. One wonders whether this was the result of a bachelor party for John, although I've certainly not heard of the tradition being observed in this time period. Nevertheless, John Chapell, Isreael Richards, John Crocker and Thomas Atwell were accused of "nightwalking" on the Sabbath eve of September, committing "various misdeameanors as pulling up bridges and fences, cutting the manes and tails of horses, and setting up logs against peoples doors." For this, they were charged in county court, and sentenced to pay 10 shillings each, and to sit two hours in the stocks. (Found in Frances Manwaring Calkins History of New London, Connecticut).
Yikes! They really had stocks? And our ancestor was placed there? Well, it wasn't the only time we had ancestors in the stocks, and they all survived that experience. John must have learned his lesson, for his name isn't mentioned again in the research I've done.
Other than a possible death date of August 25, 1706, which I have been unable to document, that is what is known of John Crocker. He would have been only 34 years old. He left three children, Hannah having died as an infant, and a widow. Mercy lived 52 more years, dying on March 4, 1758 in New London. She married a man twenty years older than herself, Thomas Leach, in December of 1706, and had more children with him.
Of course I would love to find out more about him. Did he die at sea, or in a military expedition, or from a sudden illness? Was Mercy happy to be married to him? Was she happy in her second marriage? What did John do for a living? Surely we are not the only people pondering these questions.
The line of descent is:
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
John was a son of Thomas and Rachel Chappell Crocker, born in New London, Connecticut and probably died there, too. I say "probably" because I've found no death record, and the will for the John Crocker I've found is for a man by the same name in Barnstaple, Massachusetts. He names several children that are not our ancestor's children, and doesn't name our John's children at all, so my conclusion is that this is not our John Crocker. Perhaps he died at sea and his death was not recorded.
We do know that he married Mercy Tubbs, the daughter of Samuel and Mary Willey Tubbs probably by 1701. The two of them had four children together, three daughters and a son.
The only other tidbit of information I was able to pull from my search of quite a few records (not an exhaustive search, so keep looking, if you're also a descendant) regards one night of bad behavior in September of 1699. One wonders whether this was the result of a bachelor party for John, although I've certainly not heard of the tradition being observed in this time period. Nevertheless, John Chapell, Isreael Richards, John Crocker and Thomas Atwell were accused of "nightwalking" on the Sabbath eve of September, committing "various misdeameanors as pulling up bridges and fences, cutting the manes and tails of horses, and setting up logs against peoples doors." For this, they were charged in county court, and sentenced to pay 10 shillings each, and to sit two hours in the stocks. (Found in Frances Manwaring Calkins History of New London, Connecticut).
Yikes! They really had stocks? And our ancestor was placed there? Well, it wasn't the only time we had ancestors in the stocks, and they all survived that experience. John must have learned his lesson, for his name isn't mentioned again in the research I've done.
Other than a possible death date of August 25, 1706, which I have been unable to document, that is what is known of John Crocker. He would have been only 34 years old. He left three children, Hannah having died as an infant, and a widow. Mercy lived 52 more years, dying on March 4, 1758 in New London. She married a man twenty years older than herself, Thomas Leach, in December of 1706, and had more children with him.
Of course I would love to find out more about him. Did he die at sea, or in a military expedition, or from a sudden illness? Was Mercy happy to be married to him? Was she happy in her second marriage? What did John do for a living? Surely we are not the only people pondering these questions.
The line of descent is:
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Holbrook line: Daniel Comstock abt 1624-1683
Contrary to what most websites say, Daniel Comstock was born before (probably shortly before) July 21, 1624 in Uxbridge, Middlesex, England. His parents were William and Elizabeth Daniel Comstock. He was probably in New England by 1639, when his father has records in Wetherfield, Connecticut, but because he was underage there don't seem to be records of his arrival here.
The first we know of Daniel for sure is that he was in Providence, Rhode Island in 1645, but we don't know why he was there. It's possible that he served as an indentured servant to one of the other families in the settlement. He was granted 25 acres of land there in 1645, and was there in 1648 when John Elderkin, his future father in law, took Robert Williams to Daniel's home to sleep off the effects of too much alcohol. That same year, he was fined for making a false report of an Indian attack.
John married Palthiah Elderkin probably in Providence about 1653, as their first daughter is thought to have been born in 1654. The family stayed in Providence for a few years and then moved on to Norwich, Connecticut. Daniel was selling land about 1657 and that may be when the family moved.
Daniel and Palthiah's family was large but there are differing opinions on just how large it was. Most seem to agree there were at least 11 children, and some add more. At any rate, Daniel and Palthiah were kept busy with their young brood. We don't know what his occupation was but perhaps he worked with his father in law. Elderkin was a ship's carpenter, and if Daniel followed the same trade, that could explain why he moved to Norwich and then on to New Haven, following the work.
He was made a freeman in New Haven, Connecticut in 1669. If he hadn't been a freeman in the other towns, this would have been his first chance to vote. We don't know whether he was involved in King Philip's War, or any of the earlier skirmishes between the colonists and the natives. He would have been at least 50 years old when the war started and perhaps he was excused from duty because of his age. Many Connecticut men were called to duty, either to fight the Indians or to stay behind and protect the families left behind, so it would not be totally unexpected if he took one of these roles.
Daniel died, probably in New Haven, in 1683. His inventory was taken there in November, and valued at almost 222 pounds. Most of the value appears to have been in real estate, including plots of 100 acres and 150 acres of land. His wife was to have control of the estate to assist her in raising their younger children, at least three of whom were minors.
Many times the second and third generations of immigrants are more difficult to trace than the original settler was, so we can be grateful for the bits and pieces we have here. We don't know whether he was a church member, nor do we know whether he was literate, nor his occupation. But we know he adjusted to his new life and contributed to the story of our family. Perhaps more will be found in the future, but this is at least a start.
The line of descent is:
Daniel Comstock-Palthiah Elderkin
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first we know of Daniel for sure is that he was in Providence, Rhode Island in 1645, but we don't know why he was there. It's possible that he served as an indentured servant to one of the other families in the settlement. He was granted 25 acres of land there in 1645, and was there in 1648 when John Elderkin, his future father in law, took Robert Williams to Daniel's home to sleep off the effects of too much alcohol. That same year, he was fined for making a false report of an Indian attack.
John married Palthiah Elderkin probably in Providence about 1653, as their first daughter is thought to have been born in 1654. The family stayed in Providence for a few years and then moved on to Norwich, Connecticut. Daniel was selling land about 1657 and that may be when the family moved.
Daniel and Palthiah's family was large but there are differing opinions on just how large it was. Most seem to agree there were at least 11 children, and some add more. At any rate, Daniel and Palthiah were kept busy with their young brood. We don't know what his occupation was but perhaps he worked with his father in law. Elderkin was a ship's carpenter, and if Daniel followed the same trade, that could explain why he moved to Norwich and then on to New Haven, following the work.
He was made a freeman in New Haven, Connecticut in 1669. If he hadn't been a freeman in the other towns, this would have been his first chance to vote. We don't know whether he was involved in King Philip's War, or any of the earlier skirmishes between the colonists and the natives. He would have been at least 50 years old when the war started and perhaps he was excused from duty because of his age. Many Connecticut men were called to duty, either to fight the Indians or to stay behind and protect the families left behind, so it would not be totally unexpected if he took one of these roles.
Daniel died, probably in New Haven, in 1683. His inventory was taken there in November, and valued at almost 222 pounds. Most of the value appears to have been in real estate, including plots of 100 acres and 150 acres of land. His wife was to have control of the estate to assist her in raising their younger children, at least three of whom were minors.
Many times the second and third generations of immigrants are more difficult to trace than the original settler was, so we can be grateful for the bits and pieces we have here. We don't know whether he was a church member, nor do we know whether he was literate, nor his occupation. But we know he adjusted to his new life and contributed to the story of our family. Perhaps more will be found in the future, but this is at least a start.
The line of descent is:
Daniel Comstock-Palthiah Elderkin
Kingsland Comstock-Mary Atwell
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, April 19, 2019
Holbrook line: John Brown of Rhode Island, Immigrant
I've written earlier about Chad Brown or Browne, John's father, the immigrant ancestor to America. But John was an immigrant, too, a wide eyed boy of somewhere around 10 years old when he arrived in Boston in 1638 with his parents and possibly with siblings. He is reported to have been about 8 when the trip was made, which would put his birth date at 1630 but some sites are showing a birthdate of March 9, 1627 in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, England.
John's parents didn't stay long in Boston, so within months our wide eyed hero was in Providence, Rhode Island. A man by that name was given a free grant of 25 acres of land, and a right of commanage, then promised obedience to the State of England in 1645. He would have probably needed to have been at least 18 to obtain a land grant, unless some sort of exception was made for him. Had he done something special for the plantation? We don't know. He was taxed in 1650, and in 1651/52 pledged allegiance to England "as it now stands", meaning with no king or House of Lords due to the English Civil War. He was a juryman and a constable, as well as a surveyor of highways. He was made a freeman in 1655, and was deputy in 1663-64 as well as being on the town council.
In 1654 he married Mary Holmes, the daughter of Obadiah and Catherine Hyde Holmes of Newport. Holmes was a rather famous Baptist minister (at least, he became famous later) and our John Brown has been variously described as "Elder" and "Reverend". He was also of the Baptist faith. John and Mary had at least five children, but probably there were more who were not living when John died.
John's date of death is disputed. Some say he died in 1677. If this is so, then he's been confused with another John Brown, because one John Brown, or another was taxed in 1679 and in 1701 helped ordain James Clarke of Newport as pastor of the Newport church. He sold the land the family home was on in 1672, but great grand children purchased it back and this eventually became what is now known as Brown University.
I have not been able to determine what happened to John Brown and his family during King Philip's War. Almost all of the homes in Providence were destroyed, either by the native American's setting fire to them or by decay, as it took years for some of the families to return. Did they go to Newport, perhaps, or to safer locations in Massachusetts? We don't know. I know there were several John Browns who were listed as soldiers during that war, and it seems logical to think that John, being under 50 years of age, would have been in the militia, but I can't state that categorically.
I've not yet located a will or probate for John. Mary died in 1696 and John died either 19 years earlier or ten years later. Finding the probate papers would likely shed some light on that puzzle.
John Brown, one of our Baptist ancestors, whether he lived 50 years or 80, had an influence on his family and his church family as well as his community. He was a man of service and we can be glad he is part of our family.
The line of descent is:
John Brown-Mary Holmes
Sarah Brown-John Pray
Mary Pray Richard Brown
Deborah Brown-Othniel Brown
Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
John's parents didn't stay long in Boston, so within months our wide eyed hero was in Providence, Rhode Island. A man by that name was given a free grant of 25 acres of land, and a right of commanage, then promised obedience to the State of England in 1645. He would have probably needed to have been at least 18 to obtain a land grant, unless some sort of exception was made for him. Had he done something special for the plantation? We don't know. He was taxed in 1650, and in 1651/52 pledged allegiance to England "as it now stands", meaning with no king or House of Lords due to the English Civil War. He was a juryman and a constable, as well as a surveyor of highways. He was made a freeman in 1655, and was deputy in 1663-64 as well as being on the town council.
In 1654 he married Mary Holmes, the daughter of Obadiah and Catherine Hyde Holmes of Newport. Holmes was a rather famous Baptist minister (at least, he became famous later) and our John Brown has been variously described as "Elder" and "Reverend". He was also of the Baptist faith. John and Mary had at least five children, but probably there were more who were not living when John died.
John's date of death is disputed. Some say he died in 1677. If this is so, then he's been confused with another John Brown, because one John Brown, or another was taxed in 1679 and in 1701 helped ordain James Clarke of Newport as pastor of the Newport church. He sold the land the family home was on in 1672, but great grand children purchased it back and this eventually became what is now known as Brown University.
I have not been able to determine what happened to John Brown and his family during King Philip's War. Almost all of the homes in Providence were destroyed, either by the native American's setting fire to them or by decay, as it took years for some of the families to return. Did they go to Newport, perhaps, or to safer locations in Massachusetts? We don't know. I know there were several John Browns who were listed as soldiers during that war, and it seems logical to think that John, being under 50 years of age, would have been in the militia, but I can't state that categorically.
I've not yet located a will or probate for John. Mary died in 1696 and John died either 19 years earlier or ten years later. Finding the probate papers would likely shed some light on that puzzle.
John Brown, one of our Baptist ancestors, whether he lived 50 years or 80, had an influence on his family and his church family as well as his community. He was a man of service and we can be glad he is part of our family.
The line of descent is:
John Brown-Mary Holmes
Sarah Brown-John Pray
Mary Pray Richard Brown
Deborah Brown-Othniel Brown
Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, April 12, 2019
Holbrook line: Benjamin Atwell, 1640-1683, probable immigrant
He married an Indian woman named Mary Uncas? How exciting!! Oops, how wrong! It seems there is no evidence whatsoever for this "fact" so let's just file thais in the back of the folder with a huge "unproven" on it. Benjamin did have a wife named Mary, who later married Joseph Ingham, but she was not Mary Uncas, at least not so far as we know. It would be totally out of character for a man married to an Indian to be named a constable of his town, anyway.
So let's start with what we think we know, since Benjamin is really the first documented person in the Atwell line. He was probably born about 1640, probably in England. There is a Benjamin Atwell in Maine by this time period but he is not considered a likely candidate to be Benjamin's father. Perhaps there is a tie in further back in England, but it's not yet been discovered. He is in New London, Connecticut in 1667 and may have arrived earlier, but if so, it is strange that his marriage and the birth of his first son were not entered in the New London records.
Benjamin was a carpenter by trade. We don't know whether he worked in the shipbuilding business which was part of New London's heritage, or whether he built houses and buildings, but he was a skilled tradesman. He was elected constable in 1675 and may have held that office earlier. At one time he owned two houses and lots in New London, but sold one in 1672. Perhaps he had built a new, larger house as his family grew.
Benjamin and Mary had eight children together, from about 1668 to April of 1682. Benjamin died between October 1682 and November 1683, and Mary married Joseph Ingram shortly after, probably about 1684. Benjamin's estate wasn't settled until 1712, after one son petitioned for a settlement in 1707.
Mary had one child with Joseph but they had separated by 1686 and despite court orders, Mary did not return to her second husband. Mary may have had a backbone somewhat unusual in our female ancestors of the 1600s. Whether this was a case of spousal abuse, or alcoholism, or any of a number of other factors, something made Mary decide to raise her 9 children on her own, except that Joseph eventually got custody of that child. She was a feisty woman, I would guess.
This is what we know of the story of Benjamin and Mary. I see Benjamin as a hard working man (aren't all carpenters hard workers?) and since he was elected constable he had the respect of his community. Mary was probably a woman who conformed to the times until she couldn't stand it any longer. I find much to admire in both of these ancestors. I just wish we could find Mary's identity!
The line of descent is"
Benjamin Atwell-Mary
Mary Atwell-Kingsland Comstock
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
So let's start with what we think we know, since Benjamin is really the first documented person in the Atwell line. He was probably born about 1640, probably in England. There is a Benjamin Atwell in Maine by this time period but he is not considered a likely candidate to be Benjamin's father. Perhaps there is a tie in further back in England, but it's not yet been discovered. He is in New London, Connecticut in 1667 and may have arrived earlier, but if so, it is strange that his marriage and the birth of his first son were not entered in the New London records.
Benjamin was a carpenter by trade. We don't know whether he worked in the shipbuilding business which was part of New London's heritage, or whether he built houses and buildings, but he was a skilled tradesman. He was elected constable in 1675 and may have held that office earlier. At one time he owned two houses and lots in New London, but sold one in 1672. Perhaps he had built a new, larger house as his family grew.
Benjamin and Mary had eight children together, from about 1668 to April of 1682. Benjamin died between October 1682 and November 1683, and Mary married Joseph Ingram shortly after, probably about 1684. Benjamin's estate wasn't settled until 1712, after one son petitioned for a settlement in 1707.
Mary had one child with Joseph but they had separated by 1686 and despite court orders, Mary did not return to her second husband. Mary may have had a backbone somewhat unusual in our female ancestors of the 1600s. Whether this was a case of spousal abuse, or alcoholism, or any of a number of other factors, something made Mary decide to raise her 9 children on her own, except that Joseph eventually got custody of that child. She was a feisty woman, I would guess.
This is what we know of the story of Benjamin and Mary. I see Benjamin as a hard working man (aren't all carpenters hard workers?) and since he was elected constable he had the respect of his community. Mary was probably a woman who conformed to the times until she couldn't stand it any longer. I find much to admire in both of these ancestors. I just wish we could find Mary's identity!
The line of descent is"
Benjamin Atwell-Mary
Mary Atwell-Kingsland Comstock
Kingsland Comstock-Rachel Crocker
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Holbrook line: Richard Rosemorgie, Immigrant
Ive hesitated to write about this ancestor for a long time, because I found so many confusing ways that his name was spelled or presented. I also found opposing views about his country of origin. I finally found an authoritative source, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 154 page 63 and following, written by Anita A. Lustenberger, C.G. Even she, however, is hesitant to state with certainty his origins.
First, I do not believe some of the web sites that say he was "Sir Richard Rhys Morgan" of Wales. There are simply no records that support that theory, and is he was a "Sir" he would have left more records in New England than he did. Those folks who could claim a title of some sort did so, and he did not. It appears likely that he came from a small town or hamlet called "Rosemergy", which is in Morvah Parish, Penwith District, Cornwall, England. Of course records for the years that would interest us are missing. Rosemergy is just a few miles inland from the coast but I don't know of a good nearby harbor. I'd don't know whether he would have been exposed to the life of a mariner, or a fisherman, or whether he would have raised sheep, or worked in the mines of Cornwall. We simply don't know any of his early life.
We do know that Richard was in Charlestown, Massachusetts by 1664, when he married Hopestill Merrick, daughter of John and Hopestill (maiden name unknown) Merrick. The Merricks had been in New England for about 33 years by then, and may or may not have approved of this man who would marry their daughter. Richard didn't own land in Charlestown, and moved to New London, Connecticut when his landlord died and left the house to his widow, by which time the Rosemoregie's had at least three children.
I've not found anything that says what Richard's occupation was. He acquired land both by grant and by purchase in New London He acquired enough land that he could well have been a planter, but because this was New London, he could have been engaged in some kind of maritime work, such as ship building, or trading, or fishing. We do know he was busy building a life for his family, which eventually included seven children.
The book "From Deference to Defiance", by Robert Charles Anderson, reports that Richard and Hopestill were charged with premarital fornication in 1666. Since they were married in 1664, it's a little puzzling to me why these charges were brought at that time. No mention is made of their disposition. Usually in these cases the woman was soundly whipped, and sometimes the man, also. And before we get too excited and say "Grandma Hopestill, you did what?" let's remember that many times the woman was not to blame, but had been assaulted, coerced or exploited in some way. Still, Hopestill's parents must have been mortified, as they were members of the church.
Richard died about 1698, leaving a will which has been lost, and Hopestill died in 1712. They were "Rosemorgie"s to the end of their days, but some of their children and all of their grandchildren changed their names to Morgan, probably because it was just easier to say and to spell. This led to the confusion I mentioned in my first paragraph, because I wasn't sure I had the right family. I did.
The line of descent is:
Richard Rosemorgie-Hopestill Merrick
Abigail Morgan-John Eames
John Eames-Rachel Comstock
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, February 22, 2019
Holbrook line: Samuel Eddy, Immigrant, of Plymouth
He wasn't a Mayflower Pilgrim, but there he is, arriving in New England in 1630, probably, and settling in Plymouth Colony. So he knew our Mayflower ancestors William Brewster, Myles Standish, and Edward Doty. He was a tailor, so he may even have sewn clothes for them and their families. How cool is that! I also find it "cool" that there is quite a bit of material available about him, so let's start at the beginning.
Samuel Eddy was born on or before May 15, 1608 in Cranbook, Kent, England, the child of William and Mary Fosten Eddy. If that location and those parents seem familiar, it's because John Eddy, an ancestor on the Allen side of the family, was Samuel's brother. I've written about John before. We know little of Samuel's life in England, except that he was a PK, (preacher's kid, for those who don't recognize the initials). His mother died in 1611 and his father died in 1616, so it's likely that his guardian, older bother Phineas, was the one who decided that Samuel should learn the trade of a tailor. We don't know how much schooling Samuel had, but the terms of his father's will said that he was to be educated before being put to a trade. So presumably he at least had a few years of primary school, and could read and write.
It's believed that Samuel came to New England with his brother John in 1630. John settled in Watertown but Samuel decided to stay in Plymouth Colony. He had enough money left from his father's bequest to purchase a home within two years of his arrival. It's not known for sure when he married, but it was probably around 1635 or 1636 because the children started arriving in 1637. It is believed, but not for certain, that his wife was Elizabeth Savory.
Samuel and Elizabeth had somewhere between 5 and 8 children, depending on which list you believe. Robert Charles Anderson in "The Great Migration Begins" credits them with five children, all born between 1637 and 1647. Life may have been difficult for the two, as they sent at least three of the children to live with others, and to be taught a trade. It's possible that there was not great call for a tailor in Plymouth, or perhaps there was competition.
Samuel was made a freeman on January 1, 1634/35, and was on the surviving tax lists for many years after. He apparently had some sort of aptitude for real estate, because he bought several different parcels during his lifetime, and was granted more by the colony. In 1632/33, his servant, Thomas Brian, ran away but I was not able to learn the resolution of this. His wife Elizabeth was called to court two different times for being absent from the meeting house on Sunday. Once she was doing laundry (which may have been a necessity as there was sickness in the house) and once she went to Boston because someone was ill there, and asked for her. She was admonished, but apparently not punished further, both times.
Samuel was still practicing his tailor trade in 1675/76, because the colony paid him for making uniforms for the soldiers who fought in King Philip's War. Samuel had been a member of the training band but by the time of this war, he was in his late 60's, and had probably been excused from duty. Samuel and Elizabeth moved to Swansea, Massachusetts about 1680, and Samuel died there a year later. He had apparently donated some of his land as a burial ground for his family there, and there are a lot of Eddy wills and estates through the 1700s and later. Elizabeth died at Swansea in 1689. I've been unable to locate a copy of the will or estate.
So here is Samuel Eddy, tailor, husband, father, church member, tax payer, and probably a good man. It would be nice to know more about him, but we have enough information to recognize that he was a valued member of his society and an ancestor worthy of our respect.
The line of descend is:
Samuel Eddy-Elizabeth Savory
Zachariah Eddy-Alice Paddock
Zachariah Eddy-Amphyllis 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
Samuel Eddy was born on or before May 15, 1608 in Cranbook, Kent, England, the child of William and Mary Fosten Eddy. If that location and those parents seem familiar, it's because John Eddy, an ancestor on the Allen side of the family, was Samuel's brother. I've written about John before. We know little of Samuel's life in England, except that he was a PK, (preacher's kid, for those who don't recognize the initials). His mother died in 1611 and his father died in 1616, so it's likely that his guardian, older bother Phineas, was the one who decided that Samuel should learn the trade of a tailor. We don't know how much schooling Samuel had, but the terms of his father's will said that he was to be educated before being put to a trade. So presumably he at least had a few years of primary school, and could read and write.
It's believed that Samuel came to New England with his brother John in 1630. John settled in Watertown but Samuel decided to stay in Plymouth Colony. He had enough money left from his father's bequest to purchase a home within two years of his arrival. It's not known for sure when he married, but it was probably around 1635 or 1636 because the children started arriving in 1637. It is believed, but not for certain, that his wife was Elizabeth Savory.
Samuel and Elizabeth had somewhere between 5 and 8 children, depending on which list you believe. Robert Charles Anderson in "The Great Migration Begins" credits them with five children, all born between 1637 and 1647. Life may have been difficult for the two, as they sent at least three of the children to live with others, and to be taught a trade. It's possible that there was not great call for a tailor in Plymouth, or perhaps there was competition.
Samuel was made a freeman on January 1, 1634/35, and was on the surviving tax lists for many years after. He apparently had some sort of aptitude for real estate, because he bought several different parcels during his lifetime, and was granted more by the colony. In 1632/33, his servant, Thomas Brian, ran away but I was not able to learn the resolution of this. His wife Elizabeth was called to court two different times for being absent from the meeting house on Sunday. Once she was doing laundry (which may have been a necessity as there was sickness in the house) and once she went to Boston because someone was ill there, and asked for her. She was admonished, but apparently not punished further, both times.
Samuel was still practicing his tailor trade in 1675/76, because the colony paid him for making uniforms for the soldiers who fought in King Philip's War. Samuel had been a member of the training band but by the time of this war, he was in his late 60's, and had probably been excused from duty. Samuel and Elizabeth moved to Swansea, Massachusetts about 1680, and Samuel died there a year later. He had apparently donated some of his land as a burial ground for his family there, and there are a lot of Eddy wills and estates through the 1700s and later. Elizabeth died at Swansea in 1689. I've been unable to locate a copy of the will or estate.
So here is Samuel Eddy, tailor, husband, father, church member, tax payer, and probably a good man. It would be nice to know more about him, but we have enough information to recognize that he was a valued member of his society and an ancestor worthy of our respect.
The line of descend is:
Samuel Eddy-Elizabeth Savory
Zachariah Eddy-Alice Paddock
Zachariah Eddy-Amphyllis 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
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Holbrook line: William White, Immigrant (but not on the Mayflower)
I've wanted to write about William White for a long time. Well, actually, I've wanted to learn about him for a long time. I knew he was not the William White of the Mayflower, and that's about all I was sure of. Today I found a very well written and referenced profile of him on WikiTree and I'm going to borrow from it rather shamelessly, in order to provide a brief sketch of this most interesting ancestor. Any errors of course are mine.
William White is a most interesting man. We don't know when or where he is born but conjecture is that he may have been the William White who was born about June 8, 1604 in Derbyshire, England. Both the date and the location make sense based on his marriage date and on his future occupation(s), but the first date that we really can say "this is probably our William White is his marriage to Elizabeth Jackson in 1629 at St. Gregory but St Paul's in London, England. This would put WIlliam at 25 years of age, and also puts him in London, where he apparently lived from his marriage until his emigration to England.
William and Elizabeth's first three children, Elizabeth, William, and Margaret were born in London. Margaret was born in 1635 and Ursula was born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1639 so the family must have emigrated between 1635 and 1639. I would tend to think it was earlier because most families didn't travel directly to Providence, but were in Massachusetts at first. There is a possibility that the family, or at least William, went back to England because he is again noted in 1645, as having emigrated to Massachusetts in the company of Dr. Robert Child who had recruited him to work in the New England Iron Works for five shillings a day.
William was not a common laborer, however. He seems to have had special skills and knowledge because Samuel Hartlibs "Ephemerides in 1643 says "?Mr. White has amongst many other things invented a new kind of Furnace which will save charges and coales. William White's "Catalogue of Inventions reveals him to have been involved in an exceptionally wide range of activities and to have been actively thinking about involvement in colonization.
William was employed at the Saugus Ironworks from 1646-1648 but was not a model employee. He was fined four pounds for selling beer without a license. (It was about this time that his daughter Elizabeth married Benjamin Herendeen, an ironworker, and may have had cause to regret it, as he was found guilty of beating his wife.) Perhaps the family was somewhat dysfunctional.
Next we find William White, and presumably his family, leaving Boston, where he had lived, and going to Bermuda to help a Bermudian merchant, William Berkeley, salvage a sunken Spanish treasure ship. (The term 'Bermudian merchant' may imply that Berkeley was involved in the slave trade in one way or another.) William supported himself and his family by repairing stills the Bermudians used for making liquor, as well as by fishing aand gardening.
Trouble developed between the White family and William Berkeley. In 1654, one daughter, Margaret, charged that Berkeley had raped her. Margaret had been a servant in Berkeley's home. Another daughter, Ursula, said that he had given her a shilling and tried to get her into his bed. Berkeley supposedly retaliated by accusing Elizabeth, William's wife, of putting a spell on his cattle, and accusing William of saying "the devil take them". Both charges implied witchcraft, at a time when this was a serious charge.
It was time for the Whites to end their efforts in Bermuda and go back to New England. He stopped first in Warwick, R.I., having underestimated the time it would take him to join John Winthrop Jr in Pequot. He had intended to work for Winthrop in his "major alchemical/industrial enteerprise that he was planning on Fishers Island near New Haven.
William was granted land at Pawtucket in 1656, next to his son in law Benjamin Hearndon/Herendeen, and later was granted meadowlands. It appears that he had at least something to do with a bridge that was at Weybosset. He sold this land to Hearndon and went back to Boston, where he was described as a bricklayer. William signed his will October 13, 1673, and he had died by December 30 of that year. The inventory, found on American Ancestors, (Suffolk County #676) is difficult to make out but it clearly is more than just a typical household inventory. One item alone is valued at 1000 pounds. Since much of this appears to do with his industrial/alchemical business, one wonders who actually bought the equipment and what the family actually received as proceeds.
There is more to William's story than I have been able to write in this short sketch, but I hope it shows us that not everyone came to New England and farmed or fished. Some helped build the industrial complexes of the day. Some spent time on Bermuda, or Barbados, or other islands. Some were truly interesting, even if they weren't famous. Such was William White.
The line of descent is
William White-Elizabeth Jackson
Elizabeth White-Benjamin Hearnden
Alice Hearnden-Daniel Brown
Hosanna Brown-Mary Hawkins
Othniel Brown-Deborah Brown
Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Brown Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
William White is a most interesting man. We don't know when or where he is born but conjecture is that he may have been the William White who was born about June 8, 1604 in Derbyshire, England. Both the date and the location make sense based on his marriage date and on his future occupation(s), but the first date that we really can say "this is probably our William White is his marriage to Elizabeth Jackson in 1629 at St. Gregory but St Paul's in London, England. This would put WIlliam at 25 years of age, and also puts him in London, where he apparently lived from his marriage until his emigration to England.
William and Elizabeth's first three children, Elizabeth, William, and Margaret were born in London. Margaret was born in 1635 and Ursula was born in Providence, Rhode Island in 1639 so the family must have emigrated between 1635 and 1639. I would tend to think it was earlier because most families didn't travel directly to Providence, but were in Massachusetts at first. There is a possibility that the family, or at least William, went back to England because he is again noted in 1645, as having emigrated to Massachusetts in the company of Dr. Robert Child who had recruited him to work in the New England Iron Works for five shillings a day.
William was not a common laborer, however. He seems to have had special skills and knowledge because Samuel Hartlibs "Ephemerides in 1643 says "?Mr. White has amongst many other things invented a new kind of Furnace which will save charges and coales. William White's "Catalogue of Inventions reveals him to have been involved in an exceptionally wide range of activities and to have been actively thinking about involvement in colonization.
William was employed at the Saugus Ironworks from 1646-1648 but was not a model employee. He was fined four pounds for selling beer without a license. (It was about this time that his daughter Elizabeth married Benjamin Herendeen, an ironworker, and may have had cause to regret it, as he was found guilty of beating his wife.) Perhaps the family was somewhat dysfunctional.
Next we find William White, and presumably his family, leaving Boston, where he had lived, and going to Bermuda to help a Bermudian merchant, William Berkeley, salvage a sunken Spanish treasure ship. (The term 'Bermudian merchant' may imply that Berkeley was involved in the slave trade in one way or another.) William supported himself and his family by repairing stills the Bermudians used for making liquor, as well as by fishing aand gardening.
Trouble developed between the White family and William Berkeley. In 1654, one daughter, Margaret, charged that Berkeley had raped her. Margaret had been a servant in Berkeley's home. Another daughter, Ursula, said that he had given her a shilling and tried to get her into his bed. Berkeley supposedly retaliated by accusing Elizabeth, William's wife, of putting a spell on his cattle, and accusing William of saying "the devil take them". Both charges implied witchcraft, at a time when this was a serious charge.
It was time for the Whites to end their efforts in Bermuda and go back to New England. He stopped first in Warwick, R.I., having underestimated the time it would take him to join John Winthrop Jr in Pequot. He had intended to work for Winthrop in his "major alchemical/industrial enteerprise that he was planning on Fishers Island near New Haven.
William was granted land at Pawtucket in 1656, next to his son in law Benjamin Hearndon/Herendeen, and later was granted meadowlands. It appears that he had at least something to do with a bridge that was at Weybosset. He sold this land to Hearndon and went back to Boston, where he was described as a bricklayer. William signed his will October 13, 1673, and he had died by December 30 of that year. The inventory, found on American Ancestors, (Suffolk County #676) is difficult to make out but it clearly is more than just a typical household inventory. One item alone is valued at 1000 pounds. Since much of this appears to do with his industrial/alchemical business, one wonders who actually bought the equipment and what the family actually received as proceeds.
There is more to William's story than I have been able to write in this short sketch, but I hope it shows us that not everyone came to New England and farmed or fished. Some helped build the industrial complexes of the day. Some spent time on Bermuda, or Barbados, or other islands. Some were truly interesting, even if they weren't famous. Such was William White.
The line of descent is
William White-Elizabeth Jackson
Elizabeth White-Benjamin Hearnden
Alice Hearnden-Daniel Brown
Hosanna Brown-Mary Hawkins
Othniel Brown-Deborah Brown
Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Brown Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, January 25, 2019
Holbrook line: Edward Rainsford, Immigrant
It's a great day for me when I easily find a lot of information about an ancestor. Most of this information comes from work done and published by James Rasmussen in 1985 in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register and by Robert Charles Anderson in The Great Migration Begins. I have been both fascinated and frustrated with the genealogy of this man; fascinated because he was listed as a Gateway Ancestor, with ancestors going back to the Plantagenets, and then frustrated when that line was withdrawn. Now it appears that he may indeed have a line, or more, to the Plantagenets but the article I need to review is not available on line. (However, my favorite library will undoubtedly have a copy, which I shall pursue.)
All that is incidental to his post, because so far I have written almost nothing about our links to our royal ancestors. It's enough that we know that Edward is the son of Robert and Mary Kirton Raynsford, and that he was baptized at Staverton, Northampton, England on September 9, 1609. He came to New England as a young man in 1630, probably with the Winthrop Fleet. When his father died, he had left his son 100 pounds, which was a nice sum of money in those days. Edward was an apprentice to Owen Rowe of London, in the Haberdashers (merchants of small wares) Company. So Edward had training as a merchant, and money to get him started, and he shared his master's Puritan views. Those attributes would serve him well in Massachusetts. Edward joined the First Church at Boston shortly after his arrival in Massachusetts Bay Colony, although he wasn't made a freeman until 1637.
By that time Edward had married, buried his first wife but had a daughter (one of twins but her brother died as an infant), and married again. He had also made a trip to England and returned, perhaps to introduce his new wife to his family in England. Her identity is not confirmed but she may have been Elizabeth Dilloe. She was the mother of 11 children.
Fortunately, Edward had the means to support a large family. Although I have seen him described as a fisherman, that may have been his first occupation. He became more of a sea merchant, since at his death he was owner or part owner in at least six shipping vessels, ranging in size from a canoe to a ship. He also owned a warehouse "with privileges", which apparently meant that he had access to the harbor for easy loading and unloading of goods. The warehouse housed both fish and haberdasher goods.
Edward was a deacon of the First Church but was dismissed in 1668 when he did not support Rev. Davenport as minister of the church. He then went to the Third Church when it formed in 1669 and was the Ruling Elder there. He must have had some education because his estate included books valued at five pounds, which is larger than most of the inventories I've looked at. He was also selectman for Boston from 1662 through 1670.
Edward's estate was quite large when he died August 16, 1680. It totaled almost 1639 pounds, about half of which was real estate in several different locations. He also had "one negro boy Nat: and one negro girl Nance" included in the inventory.
Edward was many faceted. Elder, selectman, father, fisherman, merchant, ship owner, probably part of the training band, land owner, slave owner, on various committees to set rates, draw up instructions, and so on. He was respected in his town and probably in England, too. I may have passed by his grave at Kings Chapel Burying Grounds in Boston, not knowing at the time that he was an ancestor. But to me, maybe that was his most important role.
The line of descent is:
Edward Rainsford-Elizabeth possibly Dilloe
Ranis (also seen as Uranis) Rainsford-Josiah Belcher
Elizabeth Belcher-John Paine
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
All that is incidental to his post, because so far I have written almost nothing about our links to our royal ancestors. It's enough that we know that Edward is the son of Robert and Mary Kirton Raynsford, and that he was baptized at Staverton, Northampton, England on September 9, 1609. He came to New England as a young man in 1630, probably with the Winthrop Fleet. When his father died, he had left his son 100 pounds, which was a nice sum of money in those days. Edward was an apprentice to Owen Rowe of London, in the Haberdashers (merchants of small wares) Company. So Edward had training as a merchant, and money to get him started, and he shared his master's Puritan views. Those attributes would serve him well in Massachusetts. Edward joined the First Church at Boston shortly after his arrival in Massachusetts Bay Colony, although he wasn't made a freeman until 1637.
By that time Edward had married, buried his first wife but had a daughter (one of twins but her brother died as an infant), and married again. He had also made a trip to England and returned, perhaps to introduce his new wife to his family in England. Her identity is not confirmed but she may have been Elizabeth Dilloe. She was the mother of 11 children.
Fortunately, Edward had the means to support a large family. Although I have seen him described as a fisherman, that may have been his first occupation. He became more of a sea merchant, since at his death he was owner or part owner in at least six shipping vessels, ranging in size from a canoe to a ship. He also owned a warehouse "with privileges", which apparently meant that he had access to the harbor for easy loading and unloading of goods. The warehouse housed both fish and haberdasher goods.
Edward was a deacon of the First Church but was dismissed in 1668 when he did not support Rev. Davenport as minister of the church. He then went to the Third Church when it formed in 1669 and was the Ruling Elder there. He must have had some education because his estate included books valued at five pounds, which is larger than most of the inventories I've looked at. He was also selectman for Boston from 1662 through 1670.
Edward's estate was quite large when he died August 16, 1680. It totaled almost 1639 pounds, about half of which was real estate in several different locations. He also had "one negro boy Nat: and one negro girl Nance" included in the inventory.
Edward was many faceted. Elder, selectman, father, fisherman, merchant, ship owner, probably part of the training band, land owner, slave owner, on various committees to set rates, draw up instructions, and so on. He was respected in his town and probably in England, too. I may have passed by his grave at Kings Chapel Burying Grounds in Boston, not knowing at the time that he was an ancestor. But to me, maybe that was his most important role.
The line of descent is:
Edward Rainsford-Elizabeth possibly Dilloe
Ranis (also seen as Uranis) Rainsford-Josiah Belcher
Elizabeth Belcher-John Paine
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
Friday, December 21, 2018
James Longbottom, Immigrant
I'm really not sure whether I should be writing this blog post or not. Most of the sites say that James is "assumed" to be the father of Daniel Longbottom. But then, most sites clearly have erroneous information about James, giving him the same birth date and marriage date, and stating, without any proof that I can find, that he died in Norwich, New Haven County, Connecticut. So let's see what we do know about James, and try to separate fact from speculation.
James Longbottom was probably born about 1605, more or less, somewhere around the village of Todmorden, West Yorkshire, England. A James Longbottom married Isabel Hoult on August 19, 1628 at Heptonstall, Yorkshire, England. Note: The name is spelled Longbotham in England). This couple is often given as Daniel's parents. It's possible, because no one seems to know when exactly Daniel was born, although his birth year is typically given as 1658-1660. If this is Daniel's birth year, then it's not likely that Isabel was his mother, although it's barely possible, especially if Daniel was born say 5 years earlier. Or James may be the father, but another woman may be his mother.
James's place of death is frequently given as Norwich, New London County, Connecticut. In a review of some of the available on line sources, I've not been able to verify that. (A son of Daniel's did die in Norwich, and that might be the source of the confusion.) James is believed to have died in 1674, which would mean that he wasn't likely living with Daniel, in Norwich as Daniel would have been young.
OK, so there are all those things we don't know about James. But I believe I've found traces of him, not in Norwich but in Rhode Island. The time period fits and the story there is believable. He was first of Newport, and in 1660 was one of a group of six who bought land from the native American Narragansett tribe in 1660, representing a group of about 80 men. This land later became the town of Westerly, R.I., and James drew the 55th lot when land was distributed. The town was on the east side of the Pawtucket River, and there were disputes with Stonington, Connecticut, when persons from Stonington built on disputed land there. Eventually this led to quite a feud, and some of the Westerly men were thrown in jail (not sure whether this was in Connecticut or in Massachusetts). I didn't find a list of the men who were arrested so we don't know if this included James or not, but it surely included some of his friends and neighbors.
There is a list of freemen of Westerly on March 18, 1669 that does not include James Longbottom. Was this an oversight? Was he not a freeman? Or had he, perhaps, already left the area for Norwich, or gone back to Newport? Any of these are possible. The land that James had bought in Westerly was sold by Daniel Longbottom in 1714, which is the reason James is believed to be Daniel's father. He could be a grandfather, though. Also there is one reference that Daniel sold land of James's in 1674. This would mean Daniel had to be at least 21 years of age at the time.
Here we come to the end of what I've been able to locate about James Longbottom. He is as shadowy as they come, and if it weren't for the information we have about him in 1660-1661, we wouldn't know he had been in America at all. Newport and later Westerly had early Baptist histories. Perhaps James was a Baptist, and his death was simply not reported to the authorities. It would appear that he stayed out of legal trouble, based only on the idea that no one has reported finding him in court records.
Some of our ancestors like to hide behind thin veils and some behind thick curtains. Some may stay hidden there during my lifetime, but perhaps these hints will allow someone else to do some real digging, perhaps in Yorkshire, and come up with a more definite sketch of our ancestor. I certainly hope that is the case, for I'd like to know more about James Longbottom!
The probable line of descent is:
James Longbottom-possibly Isabel Hoult
Daniel Longbottom-Elizabeth Lamb
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
James Longbottom was probably born about 1605, more or less, somewhere around the village of Todmorden, West Yorkshire, England. A James Longbottom married Isabel Hoult on August 19, 1628 at Heptonstall, Yorkshire, England. Note: The name is spelled Longbotham in England). This couple is often given as Daniel's parents. It's possible, because no one seems to know when exactly Daniel was born, although his birth year is typically given as 1658-1660. If this is Daniel's birth year, then it's not likely that Isabel was his mother, although it's barely possible, especially if Daniel was born say 5 years earlier. Or James may be the father, but another woman may be his mother.
James's place of death is frequently given as Norwich, New London County, Connecticut. In a review of some of the available on line sources, I've not been able to verify that. (A son of Daniel's did die in Norwich, and that might be the source of the confusion.) James is believed to have died in 1674, which would mean that he wasn't likely living with Daniel, in Norwich as Daniel would have been young.
OK, so there are all those things we don't know about James. But I believe I've found traces of him, not in Norwich but in Rhode Island. The time period fits and the story there is believable. He was first of Newport, and in 1660 was one of a group of six who bought land from the native American Narragansett tribe in 1660, representing a group of about 80 men. This land later became the town of Westerly, R.I., and James drew the 55th lot when land was distributed. The town was on the east side of the Pawtucket River, and there were disputes with Stonington, Connecticut, when persons from Stonington built on disputed land there. Eventually this led to quite a feud, and some of the Westerly men were thrown in jail (not sure whether this was in Connecticut or in Massachusetts). I didn't find a list of the men who were arrested so we don't know if this included James or not, but it surely included some of his friends and neighbors.
There is a list of freemen of Westerly on March 18, 1669 that does not include James Longbottom. Was this an oversight? Was he not a freeman? Or had he, perhaps, already left the area for Norwich, or gone back to Newport? Any of these are possible. The land that James had bought in Westerly was sold by Daniel Longbottom in 1714, which is the reason James is believed to be Daniel's father. He could be a grandfather, though. Also there is one reference that Daniel sold land of James's in 1674. This would mean Daniel had to be at least 21 years of age at the time.
Here we come to the end of what I've been able to locate about James Longbottom. He is as shadowy as they come, and if it weren't for the information we have about him in 1660-1661, we wouldn't know he had been in America at all. Newport and later Westerly had early Baptist histories. Perhaps James was a Baptist, and his death was simply not reported to the authorities. It would appear that he stayed out of legal trouble, based only on the idea that no one has reported finding him in court records.
Some of our ancestors like to hide behind thin veils and some behind thick curtains. Some may stay hidden there during my lifetime, but perhaps these hints will allow someone else to do some real digging, perhaps in Yorkshire, and come up with a more definite sketch of our ancestor. I certainly hope that is the case, for I'd like to know more about James Longbottom!
The probable line of descent is:
James Longbottom-possibly Isabel Hoult
Daniel Longbottom-Elizabeth Lamb
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, December 14, 2018
Holbrook line: Richard Harding, Immigrant
Richard Harding is an immigrant. We know that because he died in Braintree, Massachusetts on December 27, 1657, a few days after writing his will there. That's pretty much the one sure thing we know about him. The rest of what I will write is information, or possibly speculation, that I can't document.
Richard is thought to have been born in 1587 in Boreham, Devonshire, England to John and Mary Greene Harding. The family later moved to Northampton, Northamptonshire, England, perhaps. Richard was one of several children, but he isn't mentioned in the will of his fagther. He was already in America when his father died, so it is quite possible that he had already received what would have been his inheritance, perhaps as a gift to help Richard get settled here.
Richard is supposed to have arrived in 1623 with a wife and an infant son. The "infant" son may have been John, was was born about 1620, or it may have been Stephen, our ancestor, who was born in 1623, believed to have been born in America. Richard made his living as a mariner and fisherman, living not far from Weymouth Landing. It would have been very difficult for Richard's wife to stay at home with two small children while Richard was at sea.
We don't know what kind of house Richard had, but it's speculated that he lived on land given him by his aunt's husband, Sir Robert Gorges. Sir Robert had been given the land in an effort to plant a colony there. Richard evidently lived there all his life. A confusing statement is that he helped settle Rhode Island and was a follower and supporter of Roger Williams. Richard was granted freeman status in 1648 in Massachusetts, so it's hard to imagine that he also was supporting Roger Williams, who had been banished to what became Rhode Island in 1636.
This is as much as I know, think I know, or have my doubts about, Richard Harding. Definitely he was here, and it's highly likely he was the father of Stephen Harding. Beyond that, I have no documentation. He isn't mentioned in any of the Great Migrations literature, that I've found. So take it with a grain of salt, and if you know something contrary to what I've said, or supporting it, with documentation, please let me know!
The line of descent is:
Richard Harding-unknown first wife
Stephen Harding-Bridget Estance
Abraham Harding-Deborah Gardner
Mercy Harding-Samuel Winsor
Joseph Winsor-Deborah Mathewson
Lillis Winsor-Nathan Paine
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph B Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Richard is thought to have been born in 1587 in Boreham, Devonshire, England to John and Mary Greene Harding. The family later moved to Northampton, Northamptonshire, England, perhaps. Richard was one of several children, but he isn't mentioned in the will of his fagther. He was already in America when his father died, so it is quite possible that he had already received what would have been his inheritance, perhaps as a gift to help Richard get settled here.
Richard is supposed to have arrived in 1623 with a wife and an infant son. The "infant" son may have been John, was was born about 1620, or it may have been Stephen, our ancestor, who was born in 1623, believed to have been born in America. Richard made his living as a mariner and fisherman, living not far from Weymouth Landing. It would have been very difficult for Richard's wife to stay at home with two small children while Richard was at sea.
We don't know what kind of house Richard had, but it's speculated that he lived on land given him by his aunt's husband, Sir Robert Gorges. Sir Robert had been given the land in an effort to plant a colony there. Richard evidently lived there all his life. A confusing statement is that he helped settle Rhode Island and was a follower and supporter of Roger Williams. Richard was granted freeman status in 1648 in Massachusetts, so it's hard to imagine that he also was supporting Roger Williams, who had been banished to what became Rhode Island in 1636.
This is as much as I know, think I know, or have my doubts about, Richard Harding. Definitely he was here, and it's highly likely he was the father of Stephen Harding. Beyond that, I have no documentation. He isn't mentioned in any of the Great Migrations literature, that I've found. So take it with a grain of salt, and if you know something contrary to what I've said, or supporting it, with documentation, please let me know!
The line of descent is:
Richard Harding-unknown first wife
Stephen Harding-Bridget Estance
Abraham Harding-Deborah Gardner
Mercy Harding-Samuel Winsor
Joseph Winsor-Deborah Mathewson
Lillis Winsor-Nathan Paine
Deborah Paine-Enos Eddy
Joseph B Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, November 30, 2018
Thomas Savory, maybe an immigrant?
This is more of a plea for help than a blog post, actually. I've had such difficulty in pinning this man down that about all I can write about him will be theories and speculation. The one thing I am reasonably certain of is that he married Mary (Marie) Woodcock (Woororke, or something similar) on January 26, 1595 in Hannington, Wiltshire, England. This would probably make his birth date sometime in the early 1570's but that is really just a guess. I show on my tree that his parents were Robert and Joan Savory, but I haven't seen good documentation for that and so I regard it merely as speculation. Robert and Joan did have a child named Thomas in that time period and location, but so did at least one other couple, so I say "show me".
We don't know when he came to America. In fact, there are those who don't think he came to America at all. Because his daughter was Elizabeth Savory who married Samuel Eddy in Massachusetts Bay Colony, I lean toward the idea that he was here but I have no proof. He most likely is not the Thomas who came to America in 1633, and neither is he the one who came on the Mary and John in 1634.
There is even considerable dispute about his children. Some lists do not include Elizabeth, but she does seem to fit in this family, due to her birth date of May 1607, between two of her brothers. It's possible that Elizabeth came to America without her parents, but no proof has been found.
So Thomas is a mystery, and I'm asking for help in finding him. If he came to America, he deserves recognition. If he didn't come to America, then how did Elizabeth get here, and were Thomas and Mary her parents?
This blog post is written as quite evident proof that there is much more to be learn about our ancestors. Did Thomas come to America and possibly live just a short time? Did he stay in England and perhaps perish in the Civil War there? Did he die on board ship? How did he stay under the radar for so long? I hope to update this blog post at some point in the future, but let this be evidence that finding accurate information about our ancestors is difficult!
The (supposed) line of descent is:
Thomas Savory-Mary Woodcocke
Elizabeth Savory-Samuel Eddy
Zechariah Eddy-Alice Paddock
Zechariah Eddy-Anphillis Smith
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phettiplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Brown Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
We don't know when he came to America. In fact, there are those who don't think he came to America at all. Because his daughter was Elizabeth Savory who married Samuel Eddy in Massachusetts Bay Colony, I lean toward the idea that he was here but I have no proof. He most likely is not the Thomas who came to America in 1633, and neither is he the one who came on the Mary and John in 1634.
There is even considerable dispute about his children. Some lists do not include Elizabeth, but she does seem to fit in this family, due to her birth date of May 1607, between two of her brothers. It's possible that Elizabeth came to America without her parents, but no proof has been found.
So Thomas is a mystery, and I'm asking for help in finding him. If he came to America, he deserves recognition. If he didn't come to America, then how did Elizabeth get here, and were Thomas and Mary her parents?
This blog post is written as quite evident proof that there is much more to be learn about our ancestors. Did Thomas come to America and possibly live just a short time? Did he stay in England and perhaps perish in the Civil War there? Did he die on board ship? How did he stay under the radar for so long? I hope to update this blog post at some point in the future, but let this be evidence that finding accurate information about our ancestors is difficult!
The (supposed) line of descent is:
Thomas Savory-Mary Woodcocke
Elizabeth Savory-Samuel Eddy
Zechariah Eddy-Alice Paddock
Zechariah Eddy-Anphillis Smith
Elisha Eddy-Sarah Phettiplace
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Brown Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)