Holbrook line: Anthony Eames, Immigrant

Anthony Eames actually may not be our ancestor.  Some of the best genealogists don't list our connection, Robert Eames, as his son, but some do.  Robert's birthplace and date would fit into this family but he wasn't baptized in the church where his father served as church warden, or at least there are no records of such an event.  The answer could be simple; he may have been baptized in another family church or the records may have been lost or destroyed.  However, I think a tiny seed of doubt should be placed in our minds and we should be open to the idea that Anthony may be an uncle or some other relative to Robert, and not our ancestor at all. 

Anthony was born about 1592 in Fordington, Dorset, England, while Elizabeth I was the Queen of England.  He was the son of Thomas and Millicent (probably Brewster) Eames, and was the youngest of their five children.  He received a good education but not including the university level.  We don't know what he did for a living but he married Margery Pierce (Presse) about 1615, based on the birth date of their earliest known children.  They had perhaps as few as eight or as many as eleven children, because there are two others besides Robert who are not totally accepted by genealogists.  While in Fordington, he was a church warden several years and a constable, so he was respected. 

In 1634, when he was about 42, Robert came to New England on the ship Recovery, along with his children. Robert would have been only five years old at the time.  It's hard to imagine what a five year old would have thought about such a trip across the ocean, or what he would have thought about his new home.  It would have been so very different from his village at home.  Margery Eames was admitted to membership to the church in Charlestown in 1635, and Anthony probably joined a little later.  Anthony was admitted a freeman in Hingham on March 9,1636/37, where the family had moved, so would have been a church member then.  There was some sort of controversy involving Anthony's election, and then attempted un-election, if there is such a word, as captain of the training band in 1645.  At this time, Rev. Peter Hobart threatened to excommunicate Anthony and twelve other men, so they left the church. 

He was a deputy for Hingham to the Massachusetts Bay Colony General Court forseveral terms starting in April of 1637, so he must have had the community's respect. He had the probably unpopular task of being a member of a committeeto assess the various town for the expenses of the Pequot War, in 1637.

Hemoed to Marshfield about 1651 and soon was serving as adeputy to the Plymouth General Court starting in 1653 and lasting until 1661.  In 1651 he and his son Mark bought 100 acres of land from Francis Godfrey, carpenter, which included a dwelling house, lying on the North River.  The last time Anthony's name is found in the records is in 1670, but he is believed to have lived for several more years after that.  I've found no record of a will or inventory for Anthony or for his wife Margery.  The most likely date of death for Margery would be 1662 and for Anthony 1686, when he would have been about 94 years old.  He may have disposed of his land and other possessions and so a will would not have been needed.  There is some suggestion that he suffered a long illness and that is why where is no record of his activities after 1670.  Let's hope his children cared well for him in his old age. 

The line of descent is (maybe):

Anthony Eames-Margery Pierce
Robert Eames-Elizabeth
John Eames-Abigail Morgan
John Eames-Rachel Comstock
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants

Beeks line: John Gurney 1603-1663 Immigrant

It's fun to take a name that's on the family tree and try to place him in time and space, to think for a few minutes about his life and to realize that once again there are more questions than answers.  John Gurney is such a person.  Not much is known about him but I do want to give credit to the RootsWeb World Connect Project called "Genealogies of Families of Brantree, Quincy, Weymouth, Randolph, Holbrook, Mass. & Others".  I'd located maybe 20% of this information on my own, so it would have been slim pickings indeed for a post if I hadn't found this source.

As nearly as is known, John Gurney was born about 1603, since he gave a court deposition in 1652/53 saying he was 50 years old or thereabouts.  There is a John Gurney who was baptized at Stewkley, Buckinghamshire, England on February 21, 1603 and it is likely that this is our John.  If so, his father's name was also John, but that is as much family background as I have at present.  If this John Gurney is ours, then he came from an area identified as "Non-conformist" and he may have been a Puritan.  The church there is very old, dating to the twelfth century, so it is possible that generations on Gurneys worshipped there.  At present, we can't state that with any certainty.

I can't find documentation, but John was supposedly married to a woman named Mary, most likely in England.  He may have been an indentured servant but the dates don't match for the most commonly quoted master.  At any rate, either at home or in Massachusetts he learned the tailor trade.  He is reported as being in Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, but it's possible he arrived earlier.  His children have birth dates of from about 1628 to about 1640, which is puzzling to have so many "abouts" unless the family was moving frequently. 

We know that he was a tenant of rented land owned by Captain William Tyng in Brantree in 1653, which was 45 acres of upland and marsh.  As mentioned ealier, he was a tailer and lived within Braintree, with a house and five acres of land, until he sold it in 1661 to Richard Thayer.

John's wife Mary died September 20, 1661 and just a few weeks later he married Grizell Fletcher Jewell Griggs Kibbee.  It was his second marriage and her fourth.  It's only speculation but perhaps he was already in poor health.  To put a good face on it, Grizell seems to have bettered herself with each marriage, and she would have one final marriage soon after John died.  (I wonder if people then talked, or whispered, about a woman with five marriages.  Two marriages were common, three were somewhat frequent, four were occasional, but five?  Really?)

I've found no record of John being admitted as a freeman, and no record of church or civic involvement.  John may have been a man determined to keep his head down and just to concentrate on raising his family.  When he died, he left an inventory valued at 55 pounds, 14 shillings, and 6 pence.  He also had a long list of debts, so it is likely that there wasn't much left for the widow or his children to inherit.  Son John did get lands in Mendon, which is where our John had intended to move before his last illness.

This is a summary of the information I've been able to locate about John Gurney.  It's the unrecognized people who helped build America, and for that reason, I'm happy to introduce you briefly to John Gurney, immigrant and nation builder.

The line of descent is:

John Gurney-Mary
Mary Gurney-Daniel Shedd
Elizabeth Shedd-Daniel Pierce
Elizabeth Pierce-Samuel Smith
Shubael Smith-Prudence Fitzrandolph
Mary Smith-Jonathan Dunham
Samuel Dunnah-Hannah Ruble
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel G Dunham-Eliza Matilda Reese
Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendants

Beeks line: Daniel Shed 1620-1708, Immigrant

Daniel Shedd is another in a line of New Englanders of whom little is known.  I often wonder about them.  For instance, was Daniel the kind of man who would have been the life of the party?  Was he a Puritan?  If he was, then he probably wasn't the life of the party, but he may have been a very religious man, or he may have been someone who went through the motions for business reasons.  He may have been a farmer or a tradesman of some sort, but so far I've found nothing to help indicate his occupation, trade, or even education.  That's the bad news.

The good news is that there is a little bit of information about him, anyway. He was born on or before June 25, 1620 in Finchingfield, Braintree, Essex, England, and was baptized on that date as the son of Daniel Shedd and Sarah.   Daniel and Sarah had three girls, and Daniel, that we know of.  Do you think Daniel might possibly have been just a little bit spoiled?  We don't even know for sure when he came to America.  He was here by 1643, when he was an early settler of "Brantrey", but he wasn't given land in the first set of grants so either he was young or he wasn't there when the village was started. He did receive land in 1645. He's not found on any immigration lists that I've found, which means that he may (or may not) have come over as an indentured servant and had just gained his freedom in 1643, at the same time that he went to Braintree.  (This is just my conjecture, but it makes sense to me.)

He was married by 1646, to Mary Gurney, who seems to have been a daughter of John Gurney, and they had seven children together.  Mary died about the time their youngest daughter Sarah was born, in 1658, and Daniel married Elizabeth, maiden name not known, soon after, because the first of four children was born to Daniel and Elizabeth on August 13, 1660.  Daniel had the sad situation of seeing at least three of his children die before he did, as young marrieds in the prime of life.  One son, his namesake,  died of small pox and I've not seen the cause of death of his two daughters. 

In 1658, the year his youngest daughter in the first set of children was born and possibly the year his first wife died, he moved from Braintree to Billerica, where he stayed for the remaining 50 years of his life.  His family was assigned to live in the main garrison there, during King Philip's War. Billerica was on the frontier and considered a possible target of the native Americans.  I'm finding various "alternate facts" about the war, indicating that Billerica did or did not suffer attack, and indicating that the town of about 48 families evacuated to safer locations.  Maybe all of the above are true, at different times during the conflict. 

Daniel lived a long life and died in Billerica July 27, 1708.  Elizabeth survived him.  Although we know little of his life, he surely lived a long life in interesting times.  He came across the Atlantic as a young boy or young man, made a home out of the wilderness not once but twice, raised two families, likely served in the militia and possibly saw duty during King Philip's War. Even though his name does not survive in very many records, we know that he was a pioneer when that word meant something, and he is a man the family can be proud to honor. 

The line of descent is:

Daniel Shedd-Mary Gurney
Eliabeth Shedd-Daniel Pierce
Elizabeth Pierce-Samuel Smith
Shubael Smith-Prudence Fitzrandolph
Mary Smith-Jonathan Dunham
Samuel Dunham-Hannah Ruble
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel G Dunham-Eliza Matilda Reese
Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendants

Beeks line: Thomas Soole or Soule abt 1567 to 1614

I'm writing about Thomas because he didn't live to come to New England, although I'm thinking he would have wanted to do so.  There isn't much available about him but we do know the basics of his life.  He was born 1567 in Hawkhurst, Kent, England.  This is near the southeast coastline of England, and was known for smuggling activities in the 1700's.  Hawkhurst even now is a small town with a population of 4400, so back then it was probably no more than a village.

Thomas was born to John Soole and Marie Whitfield, most probably.  Records for this have apparently not been found, but it seems that every family history and genealogy state this as fact, and it certainly fits that these were his parents.  If so, he may have had siblings Jane, Miles, Robert, James and Henry.

We don't know what Thomas did for a living, but we know a little about his family.  He married Mary Iddenden  (also seen as Indenden and even Ildenden,) daughter of John Iddenden and Christian Mercer, on October 15, 1598  The church would have been St. Laurence, which has been on the same site since about 1100.  The church today looks much as it would have looked in the time of Thomas.  Just think of how many baptisms, marriages, and deaths this church would have seen! 

Thomas of course was living through the "Golden Age" of Queen Elizabeth I.  She was the queen when he was born, and for the first 36 or so years of his life.  But he was near the coast, so as a young man Thomas may very well have been involved in preparing to fight the army, or the navy, of the Spanish armada.  This may partially explain why he was above the age of 30 when he married.  People in his village may have been Catholic, in a time of great religious turmoil.  I can see why people from Kent would have wanted to have come to the New World.

Thomas died sometime in or after 1614, and didn't get the chance to come to the New World.  His daughter Sarah did, however.  She had married Samuel Hinckley in 1617 in Hawkhurst, Kent, England and they arrived in 1635 on the ship "Hercules". They were accepted into local churches as members so they must have been Puritans. Was Thomas a Puritan also, one wonders?

 Sarah's known siblings were Mary, Thomas, and Anne.  Thomas and Mary may have had other children, because even if Thomas died in 1614, that is sixteen years of marriage, and four children would be a low number for that amount of time. 

If Thomas left a will, it apparently hasn't been identified yet.  I thought it was important to write this post, to remind us of the people "left behind" in England, due to age, infirmities, or lack of desire to come to the New World.  The families just before the Pilgrims and the Great Migration went through a very trying time, too.  That may have given their children the strength and desire to leave and make a home for themselves in the New World.

The line of descent is:

Thomas Soole-Mary Iddenden
Sarah Soole-Samuel Hinckley
Susannah Hinkley-John Smith
Samuel Smith-Elizabeth Pierce
Shubael Smith-Prudence Fitzrandolph
Mary Smith-Jonathan Dunham
Samuel Dunham-Hannah Ruble
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel Dunham-Eliza Reese
Margaret Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendents

Beeks line: John Smith, 1614-1710 Immigrant.pastor and mill wright, updated

Any family historian groans when his or her path leads to a John Smith.  We have several in our lines, but this John Smith is only moderately challenging.  By that, I mean we do know a few things about him, and they are only slightly confusing.  Naturally, there is much more we'd like to know. 

This particular John Smith was born in 1614 in Brinspitell,(Dorset or possibly Dorchester, England,) according to his own deposition in a court case.  His parents were Thomas and Joan Doan Smith, and it's not known whether he had siblings.

He appears to have come to Plymouth colony as early as 1630. which would have been at a young age indeed.  He may have been one of the first settlers of Barnstable, which was founded on Cape Cod in 1638, under the leadership of Thomas Hull.  We know he was made freeman there in 1640, indicating that he was of age, of good moral character, and owned property.  Rev. John Lathrop was pastor there in October of 1640, when John was admitted to the church.  A  few years later, on June 13, 1643, John Smith married Susanna Hinckley, sister of the future governor of Plymouth Colony, Thomas Hinckley.

In his manhood, we was a member of the militia,and a deputy to the General Court in 1656-1657.  He was part of a negotiating team with the native Americans in 1653 and again in 1657.  In 1659 we was "allowed" with Isaac Robinson to talk to Quakers and possibly even go to their services, in order to determine what was in their hearts.  They recommended that the anti-Quaker laws be repealed, but their recommendations were ignored.  He occasionally preached in Barnstable and was pastor of a Separatist church in 1661-1662, until the church was closed. He may have upset the authorities or he may have been upset by the authorities, because he left Barnstable about this time. Some believe that he first went to Long Island, NY, although I find that the John Smiths there are confusing and there may be some room to question that conclusion. 

It is clear, however, that John and Susannah and family left the Puritan colony and they did settle in New Jersey, whether or not they were first on Long Island.  He received land at Piscataway in 1666 but settled at Woodbridge, N.J. and was quite active there.  He assisted in building the church and supporting the minister, was constable in 1669, was member of the New Jersey Assembly town clerk, and moderator, and eventually, justice.  During this time, his occupation is given as mill wright.  We don't know where he learned that trade, or whether he had been pursuing it in Barnstable or even in Long Island. 

By 1675, the town of Sandwich, Massachusetts was looking for a pastor and called him to fill the spot.  Most pastors were from England and had a college education so I'm a little confused about this, but he was apparently ordained in Sandwich and served the church there until 1688, when his pastorate ended at his own request, at the age of 74.  He may have been feeling the effects of his age, or other infirmities may have set in. 

John and Susannah had 13 children, Samuel, Sarah, Ebenezer (died as an infant), Mary, Dorcas, John (lived two days), Shubael, John, Benjamin, Ichabod, Elizabeth, Thomas and Joseph, born from 1644 to 1667.  I find conflicting death dates for Susannah, of 1667 and 1675.  I hope she lived until 1675, to see her family grow up and to make sure her youngest children would remember her.  John died in 1710, at the age of 96 years, probably in the home of one of his children. 

I'd love to know more about his religious beliefs and what led him to pastor a church when he was already past the age of 60 years old, and the circumstances of his ordination.  I'd love to know what books he had in his library.  I'd love to learn where he learned the skills to be a mill wright, and where he learned the diplomacy to deal with the native Americans.  He was another fascinating man.

The line of descent is:

John Smith-Susannah Hinckley
Samuel Smith-Elizabeth Pierce
Shubael Smith-Prudence Fitzrandolph
Mary Smith-Jonathan Dunham
Samuel Dunham-Hannah Ruble
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel Dunham-Eliza Reese
Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendants

Update:  I've been directed by a wonderful reader (all my readers are wonderful, but my favorites are the ones who point out errors or additional information) to an article in the The American Genealogist from January/April 1985 that has convinced me that we don't know where John Smith came from.  He was certainly close friends with Elder John Chipman, who was from Brinspittle, Dorset, England, but there is no evidence that John Smith was born there, or had even been there.  The search for his origins continues. 

Beeks line: Samuel Hinckley, Immigrant

First, I have to acknowledge my joy and ensuing gratitude when I realized that there is a huge amount of information on americanancestors.org about this immigrant.  It certainly makes it a lot easier to write a post about this man, even though I am doing absolutely no original research. 

I found it fascinating to learn that when Samuel Hinckley, who is my husband's ancestor, came to America in 1635, he was on the same ship as my ancestor, Comfort Starr, whom I have known about since I was a young girl.  They went their separate ways after landing, but still, they knew each other for the time period of their voyage, anyway.  How cool is that? The other fun fact about Samuel is that he is the ancestor of both Presidents Bush, and also the ancestor of Barack Obama. 

Anyway, Samuel Hinckley was born or christened on May 25, 1589 in Harrietsham, Kent, England to Robert Hinckley and "widow Katherine Leese".  He was one of at least 8 children born to this couple.  I've not been able to determine Robert's occupation but he had  small property (thirty three acres of land and a dwelling) to dispose of in his will, so it may be that he was a farmer.  The family was more prosperous than some, but probably not wealthy by any means.

After his christening, we know nothing of Samuel until his marriage, on May 7, 1617, in Hawkhurst, Kent to Sarah Soole, daughter of Thomas Soole and Mary Iddenden.  The couple lived in the Hawkhurst area for 18 years, before they emigrated to America. They were a Puritan couple, yet they had their certificate departures signed by Mr. Jno Gee, vicar of Tenterden, Jn Austin, mayor, and Fregift Stace, jurat, on March 15, 1634.  Did they keep their faith quiet, or was someone paid off, one wonders?  Or was the town just winking an eye and they were glad to be rid of them? 

The record shows that only three children were listed as traveling with their parents to America on the ship Hercules. Eight children had been born to the couple in England, but at least three had died. I was unable to determine the fate of the other two children. Sarah was pregnant during the trip across the ocean, because another child, Elizabeth, was christened on September 6, 1635 in Scituate, Massachusetts, where the family first settled.  A total of 8 children were born in Massachusetts, with four of them dying as infants or children.  Even for these hard times, this was a lot of children to bear, and a lot of children to loose, for Samuel and Sarah. 

Samuel and Sarah had first settled in Scituate but then went to Barnstaple and lived the rest of their lives there.  Samuel died October 31, 1662, about six years after the death of Sarah. He had remarried in the meantime, to Bridget widow Bodfish.  The inventory of his estate totaled 162 pounds 16 shillings, plus some other items including real estate and housing. So he was not a poor man when he died. 

The clues we have as to his personality are scant. He was one of 8 Scituate men who were presented (charged with) "receiving strangers and foreigners into their houses and lands, without license of the Governor or Assistants, or acquainting the town of Scituate therewith."  "Strangers and foreigners" basically meant non Puritans, who were regarded as being a threat to the peace of the colony.  It was shortly after this that the Hinckleys moved to help settle Barnstaple, but they could not have gone there without the approval of the authorities so they must have smoothed things over somehow.  Then in 1651 Samuel Hinckley and Jonathan Hatch were charged by the grand jury with hiring land of the Indians.  Again, this was something the colony would have wanted to control.  Samuel was a non-conformist in England and a non-conformist of the non-conformists after he had moved to America.

We owe this couple honor and respect for the sacrifices they made to raise their family, to bury so many children, and to do the hard work it took to establish a home in this country in the 17th century. Their efforts made it possible for us to raise our families here in America. 

The line of descent is:

Samuel Hinkley-Sarah Soole
Susannah Hinkley-Rev. John Smith
Samuel Smith-Elizabeth Pierce
Shubael Smith-Prudence Fitzrandolph
Mary Smith-Jonathan Dunham
Samuel Dunham-Hannah Ruble (probably)
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel G Dunham-Eliza Reese
Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendents