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

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

George Chappell, Immigrant and minor rascal

George Chappell was born somewhere.  Apparently the "accepted" parents and location are no longer "accepted" and his origin is considered unknown.  There is a man of about the right age who married in 1597 in Horncastle, Lincolnshire, England, but at this point it's merely a suggestion for research and not in any way, shape or form a documentable connection.  When I win the lottery, I would certainly like to look into this possibility. 

The first thing that is really known about George is that in 1635, when he was aged 20,  he, along with about 20 other yong men, were sent to New England, specifically Windsor, Connecticut, to build homes and structures required by Sir Richard Saltonstall and other Connecticut patentees.  George was in Wetherfield for about two years, where he was trained as a carpenter but also most probably served in the Pequot war.  This was not the colony's finest hour in terms of what they did (the English massacred several hundred natives during the course of the war, among other things) but the soldiers following orders, must have thought they were doing the right thing.  After the war, George was granted a house and lotinWethersfield.  While living in Wethersfield, probably about 1642, George married Christian, possibly Bell.  They had five children todether before Christian apparently died in the early 1650's. 

In 1653, George married Margaret and the family moved to New London.  We don't know whether he continued the trade he learned of carpentry, or whether he had another occupation.  He apparently still was doing some farming, based on land records.  George and Margaret also had five children together. 

I mentioned that George may have been a bit of a minor rascal.  He was often in court over debts, some that he owed and some that he felt he was owed.  He also was charged more than once with "excess in drinking" and with "abusing the constable". As far as the records show, he was never placed on a jury or selected for any kind of public office, so he may not have had the good reputation of our other immigrant ancestors.  He also was apparently illiterate, as he had a certain"mark" he used when signing legal documents. 

When he died, about 1682, he left goods to his wife to help in the upbringing of the younger children, and mentioned several of the children by name.  I have not been able to find a copy of the estate records, but I will keep looking.  I love to look at the inventories to see what they might suggest about our ancestor. 

The line of descent is:

George Chappell-Christian possibly Bell
Rachel Chappell-Thomas Crocker
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants

Holbrook line: Francis Sprague, Immigrant of 1623

Goodness!  It's hard to imagine what the Saints, and even the Sinners, thought when Francis Sprague arrived at Plymouth Colony in 1623.  He and at least two of his family arrived on the ship Anne.  Francis was still a young man, having been born sometime in the 1590's, and he was evidently a free spirit.  Nevertheless, he probably had to sign something that said he would abide by the rules of the Colony, even though he was not of their (or, probably, any) religious persuasion.  Let's just say he was likely one of those people who thought the laws didn't apply to him  That makes him a fun ancestor to write about. 

We don't know much about his family, although his parents are frequently given as Edward Sprague and Christiana or Margaret Holland.  This couple was from Dorset, England but I am not aware of any documentation that shows Francis as a son of theirs.  Still, it may be true.

There is also considerable confusion about his first wife, and whether or not she accompanied him to New England.  Her name is now believed to be Lydia, possibly Archer, and she may have been an interesting person herself.  If she encouraged Francis to come to America, perhaps she lived to regret that encouragement, or perhaps life for the Spragues in England was so difficult that living on the frontier was not harder, just different.  Certainly the family had cause to wonder whether they had done the right thing when the left the ship "Anne" in 1623 and saw the condition of the settlers who had been at Plymouth Colony for two or three years.  However, they didn't return to the ship but stayed to make their new home in the New World.

Because Francis was here in 1623, he received land in the division of 1623 and was part of the next  division of land and cattle in 1627, receiving 15 acres of land plus cattle, sheep, and goats.  About this time he also made an agreement with William Bradford to become a recognized fur trader.  This job would not have been easy, as it meant going into lands occupied by the natives and taking pelts and animals that the natives had relied on for years.  It was what we would consider a high risk occupation. 

By 1637, a few years after his second marriage, Francis was ready to settle down a little more, and he was approved by the courts to become an innkeeper.  Innkeeper is really a misnomer, for the main attraction of his establishment seems to have been liquor, although "hard" liquor was not officially permitted. This was in Duxbury, a newer settlement of the Colony, .He joined the militia under Captain Myles Standish (another Holbrook ancestor) in 1638.  He was cited by the courts several times through the years for various infractions regarding dispensing of liquor, and appears to have had his license suspended for as long as 6 years, from 1640-1646. He was also made a freeman in 1637, and later was a constable for the town.

The tavern business was good to him for he was able to make other real estate investments, and was regarded as rather wealthy and somewhat respectable when he died in 1676.  By then, he had deeded much of his land to his son John.  Considering the hardships he faced and lived through, he had quite a long life.  He's an interesting addition to the family. 

The line of descent is:

Francis Sprague-Lydia
Mercy Sprague-William Tubbs
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants

Holbrook line:: Thomas Crocker 1633-1715/16 Immigrant

I can say Thomas Crocker was an immigrant only because I know he died here and was born in England.  He is often said to have been born in 1633 and to have been the son of Hugh Crocker and Elizabeth Colleton, and to have been christened at St Olave, Exeter, Devonshire, England.  Some of those facts may be true, none of them may be true, or all of them may be true, but many family historians are leaving his parentage blank.  So we will simply say he was born in England. 

It seems that he was in New London, Connecticut by 1667, when he married Rachel Chappell, daughter of George Chappell and Christian possibly Bell Chappell.  I've not found speculation as to when he emigrated to America, or why.  If indeed he was the son of Hugh and Elizabeth, he may have come at a young age with his brothers, or followed soon after.  Perhaps his parents had the foresight to send him out of the country before the Civil War broke out.  Hugh, mayor of Exeter, if this is the correct Hugh) was a Royalist but his sons seem to have tried not to take sides in America.  Or it may be that he didn't come until later.  He seems to have bought a house in New Street in New London, Connecticut in 1660, although other sources say he didn't arrive until a few years later, and was named in a land grant of 1663 and again in 1704. 

He and Rachel had at least eight children, born between 1669 and 1685 (none named Hugh!).  We don't know what he did for a living but perhaps he worked in the maritime trades.  His father in law was a carpenter, so perhaps he learned that, or a similar, trade.  I've not yet located a will for him, which could probably tell us a good deal more than we know now.  Thomas Crocker died January 18, 1715/16 and it appears that Rachel lived until 1728.  Once Thomas arrived in New London, that is where he stayed (unless he made trips for trade purposes, for which there is no indication). 

Thomas may or may not have left other records, showing land or court records, church affiliation, and town offices or responsibilities.  So far, I haven't found them.  He is pretty much a mystery, but he is one of the men who, however low their social status may (or may not) have been, made America. 

The line of descent is

Thomas Crocker-Rachel Chappell
John Crocker-Mercy Tubbs
Rachel Crocker-Kingsland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Harriet Eames-James Lamphire the missing
Susan Lamphire-Joseph B Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants

Holbrook line: William Tubbs abt 1611-1688 Immigrant, Shoemaker, and Wronged Husband

I can't believe I haven't written about William Tubbs in the almost three years I've been doing these blog posts.  He is really an interesting ancestor, and there's a lot of information about him.  There's a great write up in Robert Charles Anderson's The Great Migration, and also other information primarily authored by Louis McCartney, which are worth looking at if this just whets your curiosity.

Once again, the sources disagree on when and where William was born.  McCartney thinks about 1617 but Mr. Anderson thinks about 1611.  If it was 1611, there is a William Tubbes who was christened September 1, 1611, in Sutton, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, England.  The father's name was William Tubbes.  Many family historians are accepting this as his birthplace and father.  Anderson doesn't go that far, but accepts a birthdate of about 1611 due to William's marriage date.

William Tubbs was a shoemaker and a planter, but it's possible that he started out in the New World as a servant or indentured servant.  He was illiterate and as either a servant or a tradesman, would have had a lower social status than some of our other ancestors from this time period.  As a shoemaker, William was probably kept as busy as he wanted to be.  This was not a bad job, as far as trades go.  He could work inside in the winter and outside, if he wished, in the warmer months because his only equipment was his shoemaker's bench, which usually also included a box for his tools.  It was also a good time to be a shoemaker, because it was only necessary to make one pattern or last for each person.  Left and right shoes were still 150 years in the future.

Various dates are given for William's arrival in Plymouth but we know he was there in January of 37/38, when he was admitted a freeman.  This likely meant he had been in the colony for a while.  He volunteered in June of 1637 to serve in the Pequot War. This was a particularly nasty war with the Puritans murdering hundreds of Indians in their village, along with assorted battles.  It did, however, help take the pressure off of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies so the English could continue to expand and start more towns and villages.

As the war wound down, William found love, or we like to think that's what happened.  He married Mercy Sprague, daughter of Francis Sprague who had arrived in Plymouth in 1623.  The couple had  three children together, Bethiah, Samuel, and William.   William referred to his two youngest children, Benjamin and Joseph, in his will.  These were his children with his second wife, Dorothy.

William and Mercy moved to Duxbury in 1638 or 1639, one of the first towns that Plymouth Colony established.  Some of the inhabitants of Duxbury moved there because they found Plymouth to be too strict and they hoped Duxbury would be a little freer.  Others moved to Duxbury because they were promised land there.  The family may have moved for both of these reasons, or it may have been that it looked like Duxbury would grow and business would be good there. He was granted various pieces of land at Duxbury, and by 1653 sold some of his property, including his "now dwelling house and orchard with housing and whatever appurtenances thereunto..." so apparently he had been busy during the 15 years he had been there.  He acquired more property in 1655,1659, and 1662, and in 1658 had to have "Goodwife Thomas, a Welsh woman" removed from his land through court proceedings.

During this same time period, William Tubbs' marriage was coming apart.  We don't know the ins and outs or who did what when, but this situation seems to have come right out of the tabloids.  Mercy may have been a free spirit, one who was not suited to matrimony in a Puritan culture.  She was admonished in 1651/52 against mixed dancing, or which she was cleared but admonished.  Ten years later there were charges involving Josepth Rogers, that he had been "lying under a blanket" with Mercy Tubbs.  About this time, William started asking for a divorce.  In fact, he tried to divorce Mercy in the Old Testament fashion, by giving her a written divorce signed by witnesses.  Of course, this was not legally binding, and there were other reports of the misbehavior or Mercy and Josepth.  Finally, in 1668, William was able to obtain his divorce from the courts.  "Marcye" is referred to"being a woman of ill fame and light behavior apparently manifest, hath for the space of four years and upwards absented and withdrawn herself from the husband into another colony, pretending she is at liberty..."  Apparently Mercy regarded the "Old Testament" decree as being good enough for her. 

William stayed single for about three years, and then married Dorothy widow Soanes, who had two children.  William tried to be careful in this marriage, giving a kind of pre-nuptial agreement so Dorothy would have the use of a house and land that was to return to his heirs upon Dorothy's death. 
William and Dorothy got themselves in trouble and were sued for 15 pounds in one case and 100 pounds in another case, for slander and defamation of character.  One case was withdrawn, the second was found for the defendant (Tubbs).  Dorothy was fined  for breaking the King's peace in October of 1674. 

William died March 2, 1688, leaving an estate of only 14 pounds, with no real estate included.  Some he had already given or sold to a son, but we don't no what became of the rest of his land.  He was an interesting character, showing up in court records and in land records, and not much else.  It must have been difficult for him to hold his head up high, when his wife was causing such dishonor that a divorce was necessary.  We can hope he found some degree of happiness with Dorothy.

The line of descent is:

William Tubbs-Mercy Sprague
Samuel Tubbs-Mary Willey
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Elizabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
 

Holbrook line: Isaac Willey 1614-1685 Immigrant

I would not have wanted to carry the surname "Willey".  I'm guessing young children made fun of the name, rhyming it with Silly and tormenting him with their teasing.  I hope as he got older the teasing stopped.

Unfortunately we don't know for sure where the teasing would have taken place.  Isaac was born in or about 1614, in either Wiltshire or Yorkshire, England, depending on which sites you believe.  It appears that there no documentation has yet been found for his birth.

We know that he was in Boston by 1637, when he married Joanna Lutten, who was aged 19 and is described as a "serving woman."  The definition I found on Google would be that she was a servant or an attendant.  I wonder who she worked for, and how she got that position.  We don't have a formal occupation for Isaac, but we know he farmed later in life, so perhaps that is what he was doing about the time he was married.

By 1644 he was in Charlestown, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and the next year he was one of five original settlers on the Nameaug "plantation" that eventually became New London, Connecticut.  He was chosen a selectman in 1647, and possibly served other terms also.  He acquired land and by 1658 was shown as owning 3 cows, 6 calves, a litter of swine and a share in 2 or 3 sheep.

It doesn't appear that Isaac was a supporter of the Puritan church, although I hesitate to state that as fact. Joanna had joined the church, but there doesn't appear to be mention of Isaac having done the same.  New Haven was a very strict Puritan area, so it's hard to imagine that Isaac wasn't a church member.

In 1667, Joanna was brought before the court and charged with "not attending public worship, and bringing her children hither" and was fined five shillings.  We don't know what the reason was that she had missed several church services, but it is revealing that she was charged, and not Isaac.

Isaac may have had a temper, or he may have had some issues with the authorities.  In 1649, he was charged with resisting a constable and with letting an Indian go that was in "their" charge.  in 1671, he was charged over a land disupte for "attempts by violence to drive Mr. Griswold and Lt. Waller off their land, and resistance to authority, and assault."  I've been unable to determine the results of either of those charges.

Isaac is reported to have died in 1682 in Haddam, Middlesex, Connecticut.  Mary had died earlier and he had remarried to Hannah Brooks and it is possible that he had moved there when they married.

I'd love to know more about Isaac's origins and about his life in New England.  Why did he go to Nameaug Plantation, and did he realize that he would be living with people of such stern beliefs?  Was the promise of land enough to make him go?  And why did he come to New England in the first place?  How did he support himself? Was he involved in any of the Indian wars of the time?

This post is short and thin on information.  Isaac is another ancestor that needs more research.  In the meantime, we can honor him for being part of the formative period of New England and particularly New London.

The line of descent is:

Isaac Willey-Joanna Lutten
Mary Willey-Samuel Tubbs
Mercy Tubbs-John Crocker
Rachel Crocker-Kingland Comstock
Rachel Comstock-John Eames
John Eames-Eliabeth Longbottom
Hannah Eames-James Lamphire
Susan Lamphire-Joseph Eddy
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook=Richard Allen
Their descendants