We're always glad for a little bit of information about an ancestor and always hoping for more. I have to admit that there is not one new piece of information in this blog post about David Fay, but perhaps something new will come on line tomorrow, or the day after. It's always a disappointment when all I can find is information that is already in print, but I'm happy to at least get this much written down for our family.
David Fay came from a family who may or may not have been French Huguenots. David's father, John Fay, came to America as an eight year old orphan boy boy, but his mother, Susanna Shattuck, had grandparents and even great grandparents who had come early to Massachusetts Bay Colony.
David was part of a large family. His father and mother had four children, but Susannah had previously been married to Joseph Morse and had ten children with him. Somehow, Susannah survived 14 or more childbirths, and three husbands, for she married Thomas Brigham after John's death. John was a brave man, too, to accept responsibility for the ten children of his new wife.
David was born August grew up in Marlboro or Marlborough Massachusetts, He wasn't born until 1679, but he would have grown up hearing stories of King Philip's War, and of how the family had fled to Watertown until peace was restored. He may have heard about the Praying Indians that lived within the town limits, and he may have learned about the treatment the natives received from the colonists.
On May 1, 1699, David married Sarah Larkin, daughter of John and Joanna Hale Larkin, in Watertown, Massachusetts. This was the town his family had gone to during King Philip's War, and it was here that he found the young lady he married. David was just about 20 and Sarah was just two years older, so this was couple was a little bit young for the time, but they made their marriage work.
David inherited land from his father after John Fay's death in 1690. This would have been held in trust for him until he reached the age of majority, which happened right around the time of his marriage. In 1695, he was still considered a minor at 16 years of age, and asked the court to appoint Joseph Morse, probably his half brother, as his guardian. The court approved.
After their marriage, David and Sarah went to Marlboro, where they lived all their married life. David was starting to accept responsibilities in town. In 1710, he joined the church, which was still quite a lengthy process, as the whole church had to listen to his testimony and then decide whether he was living a plain, Christian life. By no means was this an easy task, so David must have been respected in the town. (Possibly he joined the church so his children could be baptized, but he still would have needed the approval of the congregation,) He was on a committee to seat the church after that. This was a delicate job because seating was assigned based on how long one had been a member of the church, general reputation, and how much money one was giving, The town fathers generally sat at the front and the tenant farmers at the back, for instance.
David supported his family as a weaver, in addition to the farming that he did. He was given a grant of land by the town in 1710. David and Sarah had 12 children together. It was probably fortunate that David had grown up in a large family and had learned to roll with the punches. Sarah was one of five children, so this may have been an adjustment for her, but most women think "We can do just one more" so this may have been her attitude.
Starting in 1727, plans were made for a peaceful division of the town of Marlborough. David and Sarah lived in what became Southborough, so it's not correct to say they moved to Southborough. They lived on the same farm they had always lived on. In Southborough, David was a constable, and a selectman in 1730, 1733, and 1735. We also know that his family was assigned to Isaac Howe's garrison, for protection from the native Americans. This implies that David was probably in the militia, but we don't know whether they ever had to go to the garrison or not, or what alarms and skirmishes he might have been involved in.
David died April 10, 1738, before his fiftieth birthday. I have not found any record of probate or estate records for him, There could be guardian records for some of the younger children, too, but I haven't located them. Sarah died in 1755 at Southborough, without remarrying. She must have been busy, raising that family, and we can hope that the children, as well as her husband's siblings, helped take care of her as she aged.
That's what I know about David Fay. Since he was a Puritan, it's likely that he was literate and could read the Bible to his children, and write as needed. As a weaver, he may have needed to have computational skills also, to keep track of his sales and his inventory. We don't know about his military service and his grandparents haven't been satisfactorily identified. But we do know that he cared for his family, stayed out of trouble, and was elected to public office several times. He was another solid New England ancestor.
The line of descent is:
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Showing posts with label Larkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Larkin. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2020
Friday, July 26, 2019
Holbrook line: John Larkin 1640-1678
This man should be in my husband's line, but as far as I know John is my ancestor only. But husband should at least have a deep and heartfelt liking for the man, because he was a turner by trade. His father was a turner, also, and John passed his tools on to his sons so they could continue the trade also. A turner was someone who worked on a wood lathe, making whatever was needed (his father made wheels and it's possible that's what John did, too). It's interesting to find a family where the family business was passed from father to son like this.
To start at the beginning, John was the son of Edward and Joanna Butler Larkin (mother's name is not certain; some say her name was Cutler or Cutter, This genealogy stuff is never easy). Edward and Joanna were immigrants but John was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts Bay Colony, sometime on or before March 10, 1640, which is his baptismal date. He was the oldest son, one of at least seven children of the couple, which is why he received the tools and training from his father.
John married Joanna Hale, daughter of Robert and Joanna Cutter Hale on November 9, 1664 in Charlestown, and the couple set up their home there. Actually, John apparently already had his own home in 1658, when he was listed on a tax list in Charlestown along with the notation 0-4-0. That may or may not mean that he was taxed 4 shillings, which was more than some and less than other residents of the town on this list.
John and Joanna had at least six children together, but their time together was regrettably short. John reportedly died of smallpox on February 17, 1678. Although I haven't been able to document his cause of death, there is good reason to believe this is accurate because it's known that a great epidemic hit Boston and surrounding areas in 1678. The wonder is that, as far as I know, no one else in the family died of the disease. Other families were not so "lucky", to lose just one family member.
In between his marriage and his death, not much is known about John. I did locate a book, "From Deference to Defiance" that lists John as a constable in 1673, but he seems not to have been otherwise involved in public service. Roger Thompson, the author of the book mentioned, would likely have mentioned him had he been in serious trouble with the courts, so he probably complied with the laws and likely attended church regularly. That, and his trade of turning is all that I could find about him.
That is, until I located his will on Ancestry. That's where I learned that his son Edward was to have a double portion of the estate, plus John's turning tools, if he became a turner. If not, son John was to have them, if he became a turner.
Joanna was left her widow's third, plus partial control of the estate until the children were old enough to receive their bequests. Edward, the oldest, was just 12 when his father died, and Sarah, the youngest, was just a year old. Joanna had her hand's full with six children, but remained single for 7 years, when she married William Dodge of Beverly, Massachusetts.
John left his family enough money to live on, so Joanna probably felt less pressure to remarry quickly than some other widows. John's estate was appraised with a value of over three hundred poounds, as nearly as I can tell. When it was re-appraised in 1691, so Edward could receive at least part of his inheritance, it was noted that there was a dwelling house, wharf and warehouse. There was also an old boat, which perhaps wasn't so old when John had it. The picture I have in my mind is that he was a turner, yes, but also a merchant of sorts. Whether he sold his own goods to other towns and villages, or whether he did some trading, I'm not sure as there is much of the inventory that I can't make out. However, this is not the inventory of someone just getting by. I was pleased to see that there was mention of books in the inventory, so he or someone in his family must have been literate.
It looks like the final settlement of the estate didn't occur until 1698, when some of the children petitioned to receive their share. Among the names on the document are David and Sarah Larkin Fay. Sarah, the youngest child, was now 21 and there was no legal reason why the estate could not be divided as John had planned. Joanna, John's widow, had died in 1694, between the time Edward claimed some of his inheritance and the time the estate was finally divided.
It's been fun to find this story. I love the father to son to son trade, and I love knowing that John was relatively successful. But most of all, with my hsuband really enjoying learning to "turn" on his new lathe, I love hearing it hum and thinking back to the way it would have been done when foot pedals were the means of turning. The sawdust probably smells the same!
The line of descent is:
John Larkin-Joanna Hale
Sarah Larkin-David Fay
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
To start at the beginning, John was the son of Edward and Joanna Butler Larkin (mother's name is not certain; some say her name was Cutler or Cutter, This genealogy stuff is never easy). Edward and Joanna were immigrants but John was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts Bay Colony, sometime on or before March 10, 1640, which is his baptismal date. He was the oldest son, one of at least seven children of the couple, which is why he received the tools and training from his father.
John married Joanna Hale, daughter of Robert and Joanna Cutter Hale on November 9, 1664 in Charlestown, and the couple set up their home there. Actually, John apparently already had his own home in 1658, when he was listed on a tax list in Charlestown along with the notation 0-4-0. That may or may not mean that he was taxed 4 shillings, which was more than some and less than other residents of the town on this list.
John and Joanna had at least six children together, but their time together was regrettably short. John reportedly died of smallpox on February 17, 1678. Although I haven't been able to document his cause of death, there is good reason to believe this is accurate because it's known that a great epidemic hit Boston and surrounding areas in 1678. The wonder is that, as far as I know, no one else in the family died of the disease. Other families were not so "lucky", to lose just one family member.
In between his marriage and his death, not much is known about John. I did locate a book, "From Deference to Defiance" that lists John as a constable in 1673, but he seems not to have been otherwise involved in public service. Roger Thompson, the author of the book mentioned, would likely have mentioned him had he been in serious trouble with the courts, so he probably complied with the laws and likely attended church regularly. That, and his trade of turning is all that I could find about him.
That is, until I located his will on Ancestry. That's where I learned that his son Edward was to have a double portion of the estate, plus John's turning tools, if he became a turner. If not, son John was to have them, if he became a turner.
Joanna was left her widow's third, plus partial control of the estate until the children were old enough to receive their bequests. Edward, the oldest, was just 12 when his father died, and Sarah, the youngest, was just a year old. Joanna had her hand's full with six children, but remained single for 7 years, when she married William Dodge of Beverly, Massachusetts.
John left his family enough money to live on, so Joanna probably felt less pressure to remarry quickly than some other widows. John's estate was appraised with a value of over three hundred poounds, as nearly as I can tell. When it was re-appraised in 1691, so Edward could receive at least part of his inheritance, it was noted that there was a dwelling house, wharf and warehouse. There was also an old boat, which perhaps wasn't so old when John had it. The picture I have in my mind is that he was a turner, yes, but also a merchant of sorts. Whether he sold his own goods to other towns and villages, or whether he did some trading, I'm not sure as there is much of the inventory that I can't make out. However, this is not the inventory of someone just getting by. I was pleased to see that there was mention of books in the inventory, so he or someone in his family must have been literate.
It looks like the final settlement of the estate didn't occur until 1698, when some of the children petitioned to receive their share. Among the names on the document are David and Sarah Larkin Fay. Sarah, the youngest child, was now 21 and there was no legal reason why the estate could not be divided as John had planned. Joanna, John's widow, had died in 1694, between the time Edward claimed some of his inheritance and the time the estate was finally divided.
It's been fun to find this story. I love the father to son to son trade, and I love knowing that John was relatively successful. But most of all, with my hsuband really enjoying learning to "turn" on his new lathe, I love hearing it hum and thinking back to the way it would have been done when foot pedals were the means of turning. The sawdust probably smells the same!
The line of descent is:
John Larkin-Joanna Hale
Sarah Larkin-David Fay
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Euzebia or Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
John Fay, Immigrant
What in the world would an eight year old boy be doing, traveling by himself, on a trip across the Atlantic ocean in 1656? The Speedwell carried several other passengers who are our ancestors, but we can't prove that any of them knew the Fay family in England. After thinking about it for a while, perhaps inheritance had something to do with it. His presumed father is Henry Fay, with a death date, in Ipswich, Middlesex, Massachusetts of 1655. Maybe John was sent across the ocean to stake a claim to whatever his father had left him. A woman by the name of Dorothy Fay died in Ipswich on the same day as Henry. He name is listed next to Henry's in the register, but we don't know for sure that this was his wife. We don't even know for sure that Henry was John's father, but it appears likely. Many websites give the parents as David Fay and Elizabeth Coale, but it doesn't appear likely to me that a woman of almost 50 would give birth. These are more likely John's grandparents.
We don't know what happened to John when he arrived in America, alone as far as we can tell. He was eight years old, so unless a relative stepped forward to care for him, he would have been bound out. He may have been bound out anyway, as this was the frequent way to deal with children. They needed to learn a trade or skill.
John did grow up and married first Mary Brigham, by whom he had four children, and then Susannah Shattuck Morse, by whom he had four more children. He married Susannah on July 5, 1678 in Watertown, although it's not believed he ever lived there. Early in his life, but probably when he was an adult, John went to Marlboro, where he was made a freeman in 1669. He acquired land in Worcester, and was considered a proprietor there, but he apparently didn't live there. He stayed in Marlboro until the fury of King Philip's War forced the family to go to Watertown,
We wouldn't know much more about John except that he left his inventory. Actually, there are two inventories for him, one taken in 1691 (John died December 5, 1690) and one in 1695. The youngest child was born in 1686 so perhaps it was time to settle the estate. The older children, from his first marriage, may have been getting anxious to get "their share". The estate was valued at about 209 pounds in 1691. The 1695 inventory is not totaled but it appears to be very similar. From the items listed, it appears that John was a farmer; he had the usual animals including two oxen, and "husbandry tools", He also had a Bible and books, total value given as 1 pound and one shilling.
The other interesting thing about John I can't prove. It is said that he was of Huguenot parentage. Whether his parents were Huguenots or whether the connection is further back, I don't know. I don't even know if there is a connection. It's a possibility.
The line of descent is:
John Fay-Susannah Shattuck
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stannard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
We don't know what happened to John when he arrived in America, alone as far as we can tell. He was eight years old, so unless a relative stepped forward to care for him, he would have been bound out. He may have been bound out anyway, as this was the frequent way to deal with children. They needed to learn a trade or skill.
John did grow up and married first Mary Brigham, by whom he had four children, and then Susannah Shattuck Morse, by whom he had four more children. He married Susannah on July 5, 1678 in Watertown, although it's not believed he ever lived there. Early in his life, but probably when he was an adult, John went to Marlboro, where he was made a freeman in 1669. He acquired land in Worcester, and was considered a proprietor there, but he apparently didn't live there. He stayed in Marlboro until the fury of King Philip's War forced the family to go to Watertown,
We wouldn't know much more about John except that he left his inventory. Actually, there are two inventories for him, one taken in 1691 (John died December 5, 1690) and one in 1695. The youngest child was born in 1686 so perhaps it was time to settle the estate. The older children, from his first marriage, may have been getting anxious to get "their share". The estate was valued at about 209 pounds in 1691. The 1695 inventory is not totaled but it appears to be very similar. From the items listed, it appears that John was a farmer; he had the usual animals including two oxen, and "husbandry tools", He also had a Bible and books, total value given as 1 pound and one shilling.
The other interesting thing about John I can't prove. It is said that he was of Huguenot parentage. Whether his parents were Huguenots or whether the connection is further back, I don't know. I don't even know if there is a connection. It's a possibility.
The line of descent is:
John Fay-Susannah Shattuck
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stannard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, May 4, 2018
Holbrook Line: William Shattuck, Immigrant
William Shattuck was born in England, possibly Somerset, but perhaps Dorset, about 1622. That is as much as we can safely say about his origins. His parents are believed to be Samuel Shattuck and Damaris Sibley, but as far as I know, no documentation has been found for this. He did name a son Samuel, but there is no Damaris in the known family, so I think the jury is still out on his parentage.
The first we really know of Samuel is that he is in Watertown, a few miles west of Boston, by 1642. "The Pioneers of Massachusetts" states that he was a shoemaker. There was a loom in his inventory when he died, and there has been speculation that he was also a weaver. Many farmers, for that was also an occupation of his, did weaving in the winter time, but it's also possible that the output was for family needs only. So let's consider him a shoemaker and a farmer.
His wife's name and origins are also unknown. She was Susanna, and may have been either a Hayden or a Barnard, but again there is no proof that I can find. They were likely married about 1642 in England, and came almost immediately to Boston. I have also seen speculation that his father may have been with them, but died on the voyage. Again, I have not seen documentation.
His children present another mystery. I have names for 8 of them. One son has been described as "Samuel Church". I don't know whether this was a misreading of the will, or whether William had somehow adopted the boy, or whether there is another explanation. He mentioned the "ten younger children that are married" as well as several sons, so he may have had more children than we know of. The children that we have listed are Susanna, Mary, John, Philip, William, Rebecca, Abigail and Benjamin. Perhaps Susanna had brought children into the marriage whom William considered "his". We just don't know.
We do know a little of his life because of what was listed in the inventory at this death. His total appraised value was 434 pound, 2 shillings, which was not bad for a farmer, or a shoemaker. Among the interesting items are more linens and dinnerware than would be typical for the day, but perhaps made necessary by having a large family. He had 103 pounds and 17 shillings in money, cash on hand, which again is a larger amount than I typically see. Unless books were included among "some small things", I didn't see books on the list but I do see two pair of "cards". They are listed with some of the wooden and earthenware dishes, so I don't want to guess what the "cards" were. If these were playing cards, they would have caused a scandal so the likelihood is that they were something else. He had three guns, two "pistools", and a cutlash, so he may have been well armed, depending on how old these arms were. He also had crops in the ground, bushels of grain, and farm animals of every sort except goats, it seems.
The inventory is signed by John Coolege, John Livermore, and Thomas Hastings. William died August 14, 1672 and the will was entered into probate on August 23, when the inventory was completed. Susannah remained a single woman for about 15 months, and then married Richard Norcross They stayed in Watertown, where she died December 11, 1686.
We actually have two lines through William and Susanna, both through their daughter Susannah. One line is:
William Shattuck-Susanna
Susannah Shattuck-John Fay
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary or Mercy Perrin
Euzebia (Luceba) Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The other line is
William Shattuck-Susanna
Susanna Shattuck-Joseph Morse
Esther Morse-Nathaniel Joslin
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
and as per above
The first we really know of Samuel is that he is in Watertown, a few miles west of Boston, by 1642. "The Pioneers of Massachusetts" states that he was a shoemaker. There was a loom in his inventory when he died, and there has been speculation that he was also a weaver. Many farmers, for that was also an occupation of his, did weaving in the winter time, but it's also possible that the output was for family needs only. So let's consider him a shoemaker and a farmer.
His wife's name and origins are also unknown. She was Susanna, and may have been either a Hayden or a Barnard, but again there is no proof that I can find. They were likely married about 1642 in England, and came almost immediately to Boston. I have also seen speculation that his father may have been with them, but died on the voyage. Again, I have not seen documentation.
His children present another mystery. I have names for 8 of them. One son has been described as "Samuel Church". I don't know whether this was a misreading of the will, or whether William had somehow adopted the boy, or whether there is another explanation. He mentioned the "ten younger children that are married" as well as several sons, so he may have had more children than we know of. The children that we have listed are Susanna, Mary, John, Philip, William, Rebecca, Abigail and Benjamin. Perhaps Susanna had brought children into the marriage whom William considered "his". We just don't know.
We do know a little of his life because of what was listed in the inventory at this death. His total appraised value was 434 pound, 2 shillings, which was not bad for a farmer, or a shoemaker. Among the interesting items are more linens and dinnerware than would be typical for the day, but perhaps made necessary by having a large family. He had 103 pounds and 17 shillings in money, cash on hand, which again is a larger amount than I typically see. Unless books were included among "some small things", I didn't see books on the list but I do see two pair of "cards". They are listed with some of the wooden and earthenware dishes, so I don't want to guess what the "cards" were. If these were playing cards, they would have caused a scandal so the likelihood is that they were something else. He had three guns, two "pistools", and a cutlash, so he may have been well armed, depending on how old these arms were. He also had crops in the ground, bushels of grain, and farm animals of every sort except goats, it seems.
The inventory is signed by John Coolege, John Livermore, and Thomas Hastings. William died August 14, 1672 and the will was entered into probate on August 23, when the inventory was completed. Susannah remained a single woman for about 15 months, and then married Richard Norcross They stayed in Watertown, where she died December 11, 1686.
We actually have two lines through William and Susanna, both through their daughter Susannah. One line is:
William Shattuck-Susanna
Susannah Shattuck-John Fay
David Fay-Sarah Larkin
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary or Mercy Perrin
Euzebia (Luceba) Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The other line is
William Shattuck-Susanna
Susanna Shattuck-Joseph Morse
Esther Morse-Nathaniel Joslin
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
and as per above
Friday, April 6, 2018
Holbrook line: Robert Hale, Deacon, Ensign, and Immigrant
It's always a joy to find information about an ancestor, already written and even with the will transcribed. Much of the information on this post came from the geni website, which in turn used a lot of information from Robert Charles Anderson's Great Migration project. If you've been following this blog, you'll recognize that Robert Hale was an early immigrant to New England, specifically to Massachusetts.
However, we still don't know some of the most basic information about Robert, such as who his parents were and where he was from. We know that his wife was "Jone" but her maiden name and origins have also not been proven, although I've read in several places that her name was Jone or Joanne Cutter or Cutler.
Robert is said to have been born in 1606, possibly in Canterbury, Kent, England. However, the first thing we're able to say with certainty is that he arrived in Salem, Massachusetts in 1630 with the Winthrop Fleet. He was a carpenter, and carpentry was in high demand since those 1000 people who landed with the fleet needed shelters to get them through the first winter, and homes to live in as they put down roots.
Robert and Joan may have been married in England or more probably in Boston soon after Robert's arrival, although so far no one seems to have found records. Robert was admitted to the Boston church as member number 18, in the fall of 1630. Two years later, Robert and Joan were dismissed to church at Charlestown, where they were founding members of the Charlestown church. They were probably already living closer to Charlestown than to Boston. He became a deacon of the church, and was made a freeman on May 14, 1634. Apparently their first child arrived in 1636.
Robert soon acquired several parcels of land (13 parcels by 1638), as an early settler of the town, and was a selectman for at least the early years of the town. He also assisted in surveying and laying out lands in "the wilderness" and helped settle land disputes, so his talents were not limited to carpentry. Most if not all men in the town were required to join the "Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company", which I think was the same thing as the training band, and Robert joined in 1644. He was chosen as sergeant by 1652, and ensign by 1658, so he showed leadership abilities.
We don't know a lot about his educational level but he did have books in his inventory valued at two pounds. We could speculate whether these were practical books of use in the carpentry trade, or whether they were religious books, or whether there were some of each. We could also wonder how many of the couple's children were taught to read, or write.
Robert Hale, carpenter, deacon, and ensign died May 5, 1659. He may have had an illness or suffered an injury earlier because his will was dated June 26, 1647, and most wills in that time period were written when death seemed to be imminent. His inventory totaled 407 pounds, 18 shillings and 3 pence, of which about 241 pounds was real estate. Joan was given about a third of the estate and the children (four surviving) mostly got land and cash.
Joan married Richard Jacob on September 24, 1662, and there was apparently some sort of pre-nuptial agreement, because she was able to dispose of land to her children, grandchildren, and step children in her will which was dated July 30, 1679 and proved December 20, 1681. Her inventory was valued at 264 pounds, 4 shillings and 6 pence, so she was a good steward of what she was given, it would seem. (She was a widow at the time she wrote her will so she had probably inherited also from her second husband).
I have a mental picture of Robert as a good, hard working man, who was probably "good with money" and who also likely loved the Lord his God. He was respected in his community and was another ancestor we can respect, too.
The line of descent is:
Robert Hale-Joan
Joanna Hale-John Larkin
Sarah Larkin-David Fay
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary or Mercy Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Etta Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
However, we still don't know some of the most basic information about Robert, such as who his parents were and where he was from. We know that his wife was "Jone" but her maiden name and origins have also not been proven, although I've read in several places that her name was Jone or Joanne Cutter or Cutler.
Robert is said to have been born in 1606, possibly in Canterbury, Kent, England. However, the first thing we're able to say with certainty is that he arrived in Salem, Massachusetts in 1630 with the Winthrop Fleet. He was a carpenter, and carpentry was in high demand since those 1000 people who landed with the fleet needed shelters to get them through the first winter, and homes to live in as they put down roots.
Robert and Joan may have been married in England or more probably in Boston soon after Robert's arrival, although so far no one seems to have found records. Robert was admitted to the Boston church as member number 18, in the fall of 1630. Two years later, Robert and Joan were dismissed to church at Charlestown, where they were founding members of the Charlestown church. They were probably already living closer to Charlestown than to Boston. He became a deacon of the church, and was made a freeman on May 14, 1634. Apparently their first child arrived in 1636.
Robert soon acquired several parcels of land (13 parcels by 1638), as an early settler of the town, and was a selectman for at least the early years of the town. He also assisted in surveying and laying out lands in "the wilderness" and helped settle land disputes, so his talents were not limited to carpentry. Most if not all men in the town were required to join the "Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company", which I think was the same thing as the training band, and Robert joined in 1644. He was chosen as sergeant by 1652, and ensign by 1658, so he showed leadership abilities.
We don't know a lot about his educational level but he did have books in his inventory valued at two pounds. We could speculate whether these were practical books of use in the carpentry trade, or whether they were religious books, or whether there were some of each. We could also wonder how many of the couple's children were taught to read, or write.
Robert Hale, carpenter, deacon, and ensign died May 5, 1659. He may have had an illness or suffered an injury earlier because his will was dated June 26, 1647, and most wills in that time period were written when death seemed to be imminent. His inventory totaled 407 pounds, 18 shillings and 3 pence, of which about 241 pounds was real estate. Joan was given about a third of the estate and the children (four surviving) mostly got land and cash.
Joan married Richard Jacob on September 24, 1662, and there was apparently some sort of pre-nuptial agreement, because she was able to dispose of land to her children, grandchildren, and step children in her will which was dated July 30, 1679 and proved December 20, 1681. Her inventory was valued at 264 pounds, 4 shillings and 6 pence, so she was a good steward of what she was given, it would seem. (She was a widow at the time she wrote her will so she had probably inherited also from her second husband).
I have a mental picture of Robert as a good, hard working man, who was probably "good with money" and who also likely loved the Lord his God. He was respected in his community and was another ancestor we can respect, too.
The line of descent is:
Robert Hale-Joan
Joanna Hale-John Larkin
Sarah Larkin-David Fay
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mary or Mercy Perrin
Luceba Fay-Libbeus Stanard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Etta Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, January 23, 2015
Holbrook line: Edward Larkin, another immigrant abt 1610-1652
Edward Larkin has as many unanswered questions as do most of our other immigrant ancestors. It's not sure where he was born, although 1610 seems to be a reasonable guess, and Kent, England may have been his birthplace. Some trees are showing a birth date of June 2, 1615 in Berkhampsted, Sussex, England, but I am not locating the documentation for that. Neither is it known when he came to the New World. I've found an undocumented statement that he came with his mother in 1629, and another that he came in 1634. I am not sure that either of these statements are correct, because he is not featured in the Early Migrations or The Great Migration Begins, as far as I can tell.
We do know that he was in the New World by 1638, when he married Joanna Butler, or possibly Cutter. He and Joanna settled in Charlestown, Massachusetts, (which was across the river from Boston, and in those days, a few miles away) and joined the church there in 1639. Edward became a free man in 1640, signifying that he had joined the church and owned property. This of course gave him a right to vote in matters that might come up. We know he could read and write because he signed his will, and because there were books in his inventory.
By occupation, he was a turner and a wheelwright, and a husbandman. As a turner, he would have formed the spindles used in the wheels he made. This was likely a valued occupation in early New England, so repairs and replacements could be made quickly instead of having to wait for goods from England. As a husbandman, he probably grew enough food or animals to help feed his family, but perhaps no more than that. He was also a member of the local artillery, as was every able-bodied man. Edward and Joanna had at least six children-John, Elizabeth, Hannah, Thomas, Edward, and Sarah, and probably Increase who was born in 1652. Edward had described his wife as "bigg with childe" in his will.
If he was born in either 1610 or 1615, or at some point in between, he was not an old man when he died, and perhaps was not even 40. His children were still young and he left his wife control of everything until his oldest son was 21. The Larkin's daughter, Hannah, had been adopted by Edward's sister, Joanna and her husband, John Penticost, who were childless. Hannah was not given money in her father's will, except for 10 shillings with which she was to buy books, at the age of 18. This shows that books were valued in the Larkin household, since her father wanted her to have them above all else, to remember him.
Edward wrote his will on July 15, 1651 and it was proved February 6, 1652, probably shortly after his death. Joanna would have needed to have control of the assets, since she had hungry mouths to feed and the new baby to care for. The estate was valued at just over 123 pounds. Joanna is believed to have married a second time, but there are too many Joanna's in this family to keep straight, and none of the marriage dates, and births of subsequent children that I am finding make chronological sense. Although her death date is given as 1686, this appears to be the death date of another Joanna Larkin who married a Dodge. I'd sure be glad if someone could straight this out for me!
The line of descent is:
Edward Larkin-Joanna possibly Butler
John Larkin-Joanna Hale
Sarah Larkin-David Fay
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mercy Perrin
Euzebia (Luceba) Fay-Libbeus Stanard Jr.
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendents
Fun fact: I don't know where this came from, but there is a story "out there on the web" that is pretty ludicrous. It purports that Edward Larkin did not die, but simply disappeared and showed up in Providence, Rhode Island, where he married a woman named Lydia and had a second family. Obviously, there were two Edward Larkins and some one down through the ages has confused the two. Our New England Puritans were quite conscientious and it is not possible that the witnesses of the will, who would have had to swear in court, would have covered up such an event.
We do know that he was in the New World by 1638, when he married Joanna Butler, or possibly Cutter. He and Joanna settled in Charlestown, Massachusetts, (which was across the river from Boston, and in those days, a few miles away) and joined the church there in 1639. Edward became a free man in 1640, signifying that he had joined the church and owned property. This of course gave him a right to vote in matters that might come up. We know he could read and write because he signed his will, and because there were books in his inventory.
By occupation, he was a turner and a wheelwright, and a husbandman. As a turner, he would have formed the spindles used in the wheels he made. This was likely a valued occupation in early New England, so repairs and replacements could be made quickly instead of having to wait for goods from England. As a husbandman, he probably grew enough food or animals to help feed his family, but perhaps no more than that. He was also a member of the local artillery, as was every able-bodied man. Edward and Joanna had at least six children-John, Elizabeth, Hannah, Thomas, Edward, and Sarah, and probably Increase who was born in 1652. Edward had described his wife as "bigg with childe" in his will.
If he was born in either 1610 or 1615, or at some point in between, he was not an old man when he died, and perhaps was not even 40. His children were still young and he left his wife control of everything until his oldest son was 21. The Larkin's daughter, Hannah, had been adopted by Edward's sister, Joanna and her husband, John Penticost, who were childless. Hannah was not given money in her father's will, except for 10 shillings with which she was to buy books, at the age of 18. This shows that books were valued in the Larkin household, since her father wanted her to have them above all else, to remember him.
Edward wrote his will on July 15, 1651 and it was proved February 6, 1652, probably shortly after his death. Joanna would have needed to have control of the assets, since she had hungry mouths to feed and the new baby to care for. The estate was valued at just over 123 pounds. Joanna is believed to have married a second time, but there are too many Joanna's in this family to keep straight, and none of the marriage dates, and births of subsequent children that I am finding make chronological sense. Although her death date is given as 1686, this appears to be the death date of another Joanna Larkin who married a Dodge. I'd sure be glad if someone could straight this out for me!
The line of descent is:
Edward Larkin-Joanna possibly Butler
John Larkin-Joanna Hale
Sarah Larkin-David Fay
Edward Fay-Sarah Joslin
David Fay-Mercy Perrin
Euzebia (Luceba) Fay-Libbeus Stanard Jr.
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendents
Fun fact: I don't know where this came from, but there is a story "out there on the web" that is pretty ludicrous. It purports that Edward Larkin did not die, but simply disappeared and showed up in Providence, Rhode Island, where he married a woman named Lydia and had a second family. Obviously, there were two Edward Larkins and some one down through the ages has confused the two. Our New England Puritans were quite conscientious and it is not possible that the witnesses of the will, who would have had to swear in court, would have covered up such an event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)