Matthew Woodruff's beginnings are a mystery. There are at least three candidates for his parents. I am almost positive his parents are NOT Sir David Woodruffe and Lettice Dunscombe, which means I have a lot of deleting to do on my tree. There are, however, two additional candidates. One is David Woodruffe and Anne Rogerson, but I've not found anything to back that up. The other is Matthew Woodruff and Margaret Sanders.
Another problem is that we don't know his birth date. He died in 1682 and is termed then "a very old man". If that is true, the dates we have for his birth of 1612-1616 may not be correct. He may be older than that. The other possibility with the description of "a very old man" is that his health was poor and he appeared to be aged beyond his years. However, he didn't write his will until shortly before his death, which seems to indicate that he was reasonably healthy up to his final illness. So definitely, more research needs to be done about Matthew's origins.
The first we really know about Matthew is that he was generally in the area of Hartford, Connecticut in 1643, when he was a defendant in a law suit, the plaintiff being John Robinson. He was made a freeman at Hartford in 1657, but neither of these items prove that he actually lived in Hartford. He purchased land in Farmington in 1653, but he could have been there practically the whole time he was in America. Although I didn't find an official list of first founders of Farmington, it does appear that Matthew would have been considered one of the earliest settlers, if not a first founder.
Another puzzle about Matthew is the name of his wife. Her first name was Hannah, but her surname is variously given as Flagg, Baldwin, and Lambert. Baldwin seems to have the longest tradition about it, but I've not found evidence of that. Matthew and Hannah were married about 1642, and had six children together. I have conflicting information about Hannah. One source says she died in 1664, but Matthew's will, written in 1682, mentions his loving wife. If he remarried, perhaps that is one possible reason why there are varying names for his wife. Hannah joined the church in November of 1654 but Matthew didn't join until 1672. Presumably he had attended all along, but was not technically a part of the communion of believers until 1672.
Matthew wrote his will in September of 1682 and it was proven December 14, 1682, so he died sometime between those two dates. From his inventory, we can tell that Matthew was a farmer. His tools are described as tools for husbandry, so perhaps his status was that of husbandman. From coming to America as an unknown, perhaps as an indentured servant, he left an estate of about 250 pounds. He had not a lot of land, but his livestock carried a relatively high value, so he may have done more intensive livestock farming than some did. (Incidentally, the spelling used in the inventory is some of the most creative I have seen.) There were no books mentioned in his inventory. Son Samuel got the lion's share of the moveable goods, as well as some land, on the condition that he care for his mother.
Naturally I am not happy with this post. I'm writing it because half a loaf is better than none, but I would really like to determine Matthew's parentage, his age, and his hometown in England. He deserves that much.
The line of descent is:
Matthew Woodruff-Hannah possibly Baldwin
Hannah Woodruff-Richard Seymour
Hannah Seymour-Josepoh Pomeroy
Medad Pomeroy-Hannah Trumbull
Medad Pomeroy-Eunice Southwell
Eunice Pomeroy-Libbeus Stannard
Libbeus Stannard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
Beeks line: Mary Smith Dunham, one feisty lady
It's been awhile since I've had anything to say about any of the Beeks ancestors. But I came across one sentence about one lady that I think is noteworthy. Actually, finding anything about a woman in the 18th century is noteworthy, as for the most part women are hidden in their husband's identity. Ah, but what is husband dies at a young age? Remarriage was the norm, but sometimes a widow chose a different road.
Mary Smith was the daughter of Shubael and Prudence Fitzrandolph Smith. (The Fitzrandolph family traces back to English and Scottish royalty but that is a story for sometime in the future, if I decide to expand the scope of this blog.) She was born December 27, 1717, probably in Woodbridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey. She was one of eleven children, and that's about what I know of her childhood. I would love to know her religion, but I don't know that at this time.
Mary married Jonathan Dunham (sometimes spelled Donham), the son of Benjamin Dunham and Mary Rolph, probably in 1737 although I haven't pinned that date down yet. Their first son was born at the end of 1738, and they had five additional children. Unfortunately, Jonathan died in 1748, although I've not yet found records that mention a cause of death. This left Mary with 6 children under the age of 15. What's a widow to do?
Well, what she did not do was marry again. We are given a clue as to what she may have done because her name is found (along with some other people by the name of Fitzrandolph and Dunham) on a petition to the New Jersey House stating that the rate for housing soldiers had been 5 shillings, 4 pence but had been reduced to 4 shillings, and the petitioners asked that it be increased to the original level.
This was during the French and Indian War. Woodbridge may have been close enough to the frontier that the citizens felt threatened, and apparently at least a few soldiers were stationed there or near there to protect civilians. My strong suspicion is that Mary ran a boarding house or inn to support her family. That would explain why some of her late husband's relatives would have signed the same petition. They wanted her to be able to support herself, so they would not be obliged to do so.
I've not learned whether the petition was successful or not. I don't know what Mary looked like, whether she was short or tall, plain or attractive, but I can imagine the determination in her mind and body that showed her a way to support her family without re-marrying. Signing a petition to the state was not a common thing for a woman to do. I think she was a feisty lady.
Mary died in 1791. Her will, written in 1784, disposed of mostly personal property, but she made cash bequests to two sons. Samuel, the Beeks ancestor (and also Barack Obama's ancestor) was absent from home and if he did not return within ten years, his son Jacob was to receive 10 pounds with the remainder of Samuel's share to be divided among her three children. It's possible that Samuel was already in what became West Virginia at that time, making a life for himself and his several children.
One other detail. One of her sons, Asher, was a Tory and fought on the British side in the Revolutionary war. Daniel Dunham followed the same path. He may or may not be Mary's son. Her birth date is given as 1717 and Daniel's as 1730. I suspect Daniel belongs to another Dunham, or might just possibly be Jonathan's from an earlier relationship. He would have been family of some kind, however. Asher seems to have returned to New Jersey by the time Mary wrote her will. Samuel may have stayed away because his were not Tory views.
That's what is known about Mary, plus I've thrown in some speculation that may or may not be accurate (that she ran an inn or boarding house of some sort). I like Mary. I admire her spunk and her grit that allowed her to raise five children without the benefit of a husband. I like that she was willing to sign a petition. I like that she wanted Samuel to return home, as most parents would. I just like Mary, and I hope you do, too.
The line of descent is:
Jonathan Dunham-Mary Smith
Samuel Dunham-Hannah probably Ruble
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel G. Dunham-Eliza Matilda Reese
Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Gretta Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendants
Mary Smith was the daughter of Shubael and Prudence Fitzrandolph Smith. (The Fitzrandolph family traces back to English and Scottish royalty but that is a story for sometime in the future, if I decide to expand the scope of this blog.) She was born December 27, 1717, probably in Woodbridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey. She was one of eleven children, and that's about what I know of her childhood. I would love to know her religion, but I don't know that at this time.
Mary married Jonathan Dunham (sometimes spelled Donham), the son of Benjamin Dunham and Mary Rolph, probably in 1737 although I haven't pinned that date down yet. Their first son was born at the end of 1738, and they had five additional children. Unfortunately, Jonathan died in 1748, although I've not yet found records that mention a cause of death. This left Mary with 6 children under the age of 15. What's a widow to do?
Well, what she did not do was marry again. We are given a clue as to what she may have done because her name is found (along with some other people by the name of Fitzrandolph and Dunham) on a petition to the New Jersey House stating that the rate for housing soldiers had been 5 shillings, 4 pence but had been reduced to 4 shillings, and the petitioners asked that it be increased to the original level.
This was during the French and Indian War. Woodbridge may have been close enough to the frontier that the citizens felt threatened, and apparently at least a few soldiers were stationed there or near there to protect civilians. My strong suspicion is that Mary ran a boarding house or inn to support her family. That would explain why some of her late husband's relatives would have signed the same petition. They wanted her to be able to support herself, so they would not be obliged to do so.
I've not learned whether the petition was successful or not. I don't know what Mary looked like, whether she was short or tall, plain or attractive, but I can imagine the determination in her mind and body that showed her a way to support her family without re-marrying. Signing a petition to the state was not a common thing for a woman to do. I think she was a feisty lady.
Mary died in 1791. Her will, written in 1784, disposed of mostly personal property, but she made cash bequests to two sons. Samuel, the Beeks ancestor (and also Barack Obama's ancestor) was absent from home and if he did not return within ten years, his son Jacob was to receive 10 pounds with the remainder of Samuel's share to be divided among her three children. It's possible that Samuel was already in what became West Virginia at that time, making a life for himself and his several children.
One other detail. One of her sons, Asher, was a Tory and fought on the British side in the Revolutionary war. Daniel Dunham followed the same path. He may or may not be Mary's son. Her birth date is given as 1717 and Daniel's as 1730. I suspect Daniel belongs to another Dunham, or might just possibly be Jonathan's from an earlier relationship. He would have been family of some kind, however. Asher seems to have returned to New Jersey by the time Mary wrote her will. Samuel may have stayed away because his were not Tory views.
That's what is known about Mary, plus I've thrown in some speculation that may or may not be accurate (that she ran an inn or boarding house of some sort). I like Mary. I admire her spunk and her grit that allowed her to raise five children without the benefit of a husband. I like that she was willing to sign a petition. I like that she wanted Samuel to return home, as most parents would. I just like Mary, and I hope you do, too.
The line of descent is:
Jonathan Dunham-Mary Smith
Samuel Dunham-Hannah probably Ruble
Jacob Dunham-Catherine Goodnight
Samuel G. Dunham-Eliza Matilda Reese
Margaret Catherine Dunham-Harvey Aldridge
Gretta Cleo Aldridge-Wilbur Beeks
Mary Margaret Beeks-Cleveland Harshbarger
Their descendants
Friday, October 5, 2018
Holbrook line: John/Johan/Hans Michael Reyer, Immigrant
No one seems to be sure of his first name, which doesn't really matter much because he would have gone by the name of Michael, anyway. Hans Michael Reyer (also various spelling for the last name, such as Reiher) was born in 1686 or 1689 in Schwabbach, Wurtemburg, in what is now Germany. His parents were Johannes Michel Reiher, from Paris, France (or possibly Metz) and Anna Caatharina last name as yet unknown. They married in Wurtemburg.
This man, whom I will refer to as Michael, led a fascinating life. He was a part of the Huguenot movement, the French Protestants who were persecuted by the Catholics in France, if we are to believe what we read. He lived to be about 83 years old, some say 86. He was married three different times, and had 24 children, as reported in "The Perkiomen Region volume 1, printed in 1895). I have found names and approximate birth dates for "only" eleven of them.
I've not found anything yet about his early life, or even his early married life, but he emigrated in 1732 when he gave his age as 45, and arrived at Philadelphia on a ship called the Loyal Judith. Two sons arrived with him but we don't know how many of the rest of his family may have come, or when, except that his wife and at least one daughter arrived here also. They may have traveled on the same ship and simply not been listed, because they were women. At least two and more likely more of the children were born in America. There was a huge age different in the children, with birth years from about 1711 to at least 1752. His first wife, our ancestor, Anna Maria Seeland, died in 1742 in Upper Salford Township, in what is now Montgomery County, Philadelphia.
As of yet, I don't know much about Michael's life here except that he was a member of the Old Goshenhoppen church, which was Lutheran. He was one of the church wardens and as such, along with representatives from the Reformed church, bought jointly thirty eight and a quarter acres for the use of the two congregations in 1737. The first mention I've found of a church building was 1744, so it may have taken a while to raise the funds to erect the building. Micheal is believed to be buried at the cemetery there but I didn't locate records on Find A Grave.
He wrote his will on November 1, 1771 and died January 3, 1772. A son, John, filed a petition that the estate not be probated until another son, Charles, was present. There may be a family dynamic indicated that we don't understand. In the petition, he refers to his father as "yeoman", meaning he owned land. The inventory of personal property was valued at 79 pounds, 18 shillings, and one pence, including a large Bible, several books, and an almanac. He could read, but we don't know whether these were written in English or in German. He must have owned a good deal of land because it sold for 790 pounds, 14 shillings. Michael had done well for his family. This was not a huge estate but it was more than many of his neighbors.
I wonder how many of his children were still living, and were still in the same general area. I wonder how he managed to support such a large family. Did his older children postpone their own marriages and families in order to help raise the younger ones? What sort of problems did this area have with the native Americans during the French and Indian war? Michael was already relatively old when the conflict started. Did he serve? Did he take his family to a safer area, or a fort? What else could Michael tell us about if we could sit down and ask him about his life?
I'd like to do more research about Michael, and if I find more information, I will post updates or a new blog. In the meantime, it's good to know more about this French or German ancestor, who took a big risk in coming to America.
Our line of descent is
Hans Michael Reyer-Anna Maria Seeland
Anna Maria Reyer-Johan Jacob Nuss
Anna Elizabeth Nuss-Johan Jacob Hetrick
Abraham Hetrick-Sarah Lemmon
Isaac Hetrick-Elizabeth Black
Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
This man, whom I will refer to as Michael, led a fascinating life. He was a part of the Huguenot movement, the French Protestants who were persecuted by the Catholics in France, if we are to believe what we read. He lived to be about 83 years old, some say 86. He was married three different times, and had 24 children, as reported in "The Perkiomen Region volume 1, printed in 1895). I have found names and approximate birth dates for "only" eleven of them.
I've not found anything yet about his early life, or even his early married life, but he emigrated in 1732 when he gave his age as 45, and arrived at Philadelphia on a ship called the Loyal Judith. Two sons arrived with him but we don't know how many of the rest of his family may have come, or when, except that his wife and at least one daughter arrived here also. They may have traveled on the same ship and simply not been listed, because they were women. At least two and more likely more of the children were born in America. There was a huge age different in the children, with birth years from about 1711 to at least 1752. His first wife, our ancestor, Anna Maria Seeland, died in 1742 in Upper Salford Township, in what is now Montgomery County, Philadelphia.
As of yet, I don't know much about Michael's life here except that he was a member of the Old Goshenhoppen church, which was Lutheran. He was one of the church wardens and as such, along with representatives from the Reformed church, bought jointly thirty eight and a quarter acres for the use of the two congregations in 1737. The first mention I've found of a church building was 1744, so it may have taken a while to raise the funds to erect the building. Micheal is believed to be buried at the cemetery there but I didn't locate records on Find A Grave.
He wrote his will on November 1, 1771 and died January 3, 1772. A son, John, filed a petition that the estate not be probated until another son, Charles, was present. There may be a family dynamic indicated that we don't understand. In the petition, he refers to his father as "yeoman", meaning he owned land. The inventory of personal property was valued at 79 pounds, 18 shillings, and one pence, including a large Bible, several books, and an almanac. He could read, but we don't know whether these were written in English or in German. He must have owned a good deal of land because it sold for 790 pounds, 14 shillings. Michael had done well for his family. This was not a huge estate but it was more than many of his neighbors.
I wonder how many of his children were still living, and were still in the same general area. I wonder how he managed to support such a large family. Did his older children postpone their own marriages and families in order to help raise the younger ones? What sort of problems did this area have with the native Americans during the French and Indian war? Michael was already relatively old when the conflict started. Did he serve? Did he take his family to a safer area, or a fort? What else could Michael tell us about if we could sit down and ask him about his life?
I'd like to do more research about Michael, and if I find more information, I will post updates or a new blog. In the meantime, it's good to know more about this French or German ancestor, who took a big risk in coming to America.
Our line of descent is
Hans Michael Reyer-Anna Maria Seeland
Anna Maria Reyer-Johan Jacob Nuss
Anna Elizabeth Nuss-Johan Jacob Hetrick
Abraham Hetrick-Sarah Lemmon
Isaac Hetrick-Elizabeth Black
Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Holbrook line: Dethmarus Sternberg, Immigrant
I've been waiting for several years for the facts about this ancestor to come out. I think I've waited in vain, and it will be some time, if ever, before the origins of this man are determined. We know where he was baptized, and we know his parents' names and when and where they were baptized. But after that, it gets confusing. Was Detmar's father a German count, or a Dutch count, or an Englishman named Stansbury who decided to stay in the area of the Low countries after spending time there during one or another of the many wars those countries had? Was his mother some relation to William of Orange? All these theories are mentioned on various internet sites but no one seems to really have documents that show anything for sure. The one exception is a crude drawing of heraldry, with a 1609 date, and the name Sternberg written on it. It's written in a foreign language so I have no idea what the sketch actually says.
Detmar was the son of Dethmarus and Catherine Morske Sternberge, and was baptized in the Protestant church honoring St. Rainaldi in Dortmund, Prussia in 1628. He was probably born shortly before that. He married Catherine (Renske was her nickname but we don't know her given name) probably about 1650. Their first and perhaps only son was named Tobias. The three of them came to Maryland in 1658 according to Detmar's claim for headrights, and he had also transported a man by the name of John Dowlin. So he had 200 acres, or at least the right to 200 acres.
I wish I knew more about Detmar. He arrived in 1658 and was in 1663 selling land. Why? Did he acquire other land? Did he originally acquire unsuitable land? What crop was he trying to raise? Did he actually work the land, or was that done by servants and slaves? Did he have another trade or way to support himself? What was his religion? We know he was living in 1678 but we don't know when after that he died. And most certainly, I'd love to know more about his origins. Did he find fellow Germans in the area, or Dutch, or English? What was his relationship with his neighbors? Could he speak English at all? Since we don't know the answers to these questions, this post is not a story of his life but just a beginning, hoping to point us toward a fuller understanding of our ancestor with the strange sounding name.
Two generations after Detmar arrived, the family, or at least some of it, changed its name to Stansbury, and that is the name our line is using today.
Here's the line of descent:
Detmar Sternberg-Catherine (renske)
Tobias Starnborough-Sarah Raven
Thomas Stansbury-Jean Dixon Hayes
Thomas Stansbury-Hannah Gorsuch
Rachel Stansubry-Alexis Lemmon
Sarah Lemmon-Abraham Hetrick
Isaac Hetrick-Elizabeth Black
Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Detmar was the son of Dethmarus and Catherine Morske Sternberge, and was baptized in the Protestant church honoring St. Rainaldi in Dortmund, Prussia in 1628. He was probably born shortly before that. He married Catherine (Renske was her nickname but we don't know her given name) probably about 1650. Their first and perhaps only son was named Tobias. The three of them came to Maryland in 1658 according to Detmar's claim for headrights, and he had also transported a man by the name of John Dowlin. So he had 200 acres, or at least the right to 200 acres.
I wish I knew more about Detmar. He arrived in 1658 and was in 1663 selling land. Why? Did he acquire other land? Did he originally acquire unsuitable land? What crop was he trying to raise? Did he actually work the land, or was that done by servants and slaves? Did he have another trade or way to support himself? What was his religion? We know he was living in 1678 but we don't know when after that he died. And most certainly, I'd love to know more about his origins. Did he find fellow Germans in the area, or Dutch, or English? What was his relationship with his neighbors? Could he speak English at all? Since we don't know the answers to these questions, this post is not a story of his life but just a beginning, hoping to point us toward a fuller understanding of our ancestor with the strange sounding name.
Two generations after Detmar arrived, the family, or at least some of it, changed its name to Stansbury, and that is the name our line is using today.
Here's the line of descent:
Detmar Sternberg-Catherine (renske)
Tobias Starnborough-Sarah Raven
Thomas Stansbury-Jean Dixon Hayes
Thomas Stansbury-Hannah Gorsuch
Rachel Stansubry-Alexis Lemmon
Sarah Lemmon-Abraham Hetrick
Isaac Hetrick-Elizabeth Black
Mary Alice Hetrick-Louis Stanard
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, September 28, 2018
Holbrook line: Thomas King, Immigrant
This is another case of "Will the real Thomas King please stand up?" Many people are identifying him as the Thomas King who was born at Taunton, Dorset, England before April 20, 1676 and he was then believed to be about 71 years old. So wew have a nine to ten year discrepancy on his birthdate, or location, or both.
We also don't know the name of his wife, other than Ann or Anne. It is possible that he had two wives named Ann, since the first one died in 1642 and he didn't marry Bridget Loker until 1655. However, Ann #1 is believed to be the mother of all his children, since all known children were born before she died. Thomas and Ann are believed to have come to America about 1638, so some of the possibly as many as nine children were born here.
It is likely that Ann died of complications of childbirth because the last son, Thomas, was born December 4, 1642 and Ann #1 died December 24, 1642. Sadly, their infant son followed within a few days and died on January 3, 1643. So there Thomas was in Sudbury, Massachusetts, a widower with as many as nine children, and it's hard to imagine that he didn't marry again, quickly. Unless he had a sister or other close relative who could live in the home and help out, Thomas would have needed a wife, quickly. The other possibility is that all the children who were underage were bound out, or sent to live with relatives. As far as I know, there is no documentation for this; it's just speculation on my part.
Thomas and family seem to have spent their first two or three years in Watertown and then moved on to Sudbury. The Kings stayed there for several years, even after Ann had died. After he had married Bridget, he was found in Marlborough. This had been considered part of Sudbury until it was partitioned so I'm not sure whether he actually moved or not. In Marlborough, he was a selectman, a town constable, and responsible for laying out the highways in town. He received several grants of land in the divisions that were made to the settlers.
When King Philip's War came in 1675-76, Thomas was counted in the household of his son-in-law, William Kerley. He may have gone there, temporarily, for protection. Or, as a seventy year old man (or older, depending on birth date), he may have been ready to live with a younger member of his family.
He wrote his will on 3/21/1675 and added a codicil January 15, 1676. The inventory showed a valuation of 295 pounds, 10 shillings.
This is what we know. We don't know what his occupation was, or what religion he professed. We don't know whether he was literate. We don't know about his life during the thirteen years between the death of Ann #1 and Bridget. We don't know what the exact circumstances were that had him living with his son in law in 1675-76, and we don't know whether Bridget was with him then or not.
But we do know he was an immigrant here during the end of the Great Migration, and we know he contributed to the growth of America. He wasn't rich but he wasn't poor, either. He had probably improved his family's fortune by coming to America, so it was a win for him and a win for us.
The line of descent is:
Thomas King-Ann
Sarah King-Nathaniel Joslin
Nathaniel Joslin-Esther Morse
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba (Euzebia) Fay-Libbeus Stannard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
We also don't know the name of his wife, other than Ann or Anne. It is possible that he had two wives named Ann, since the first one died in 1642 and he didn't marry Bridget Loker until 1655. However, Ann #1 is believed to be the mother of all his children, since all known children were born before she died. Thomas and Ann are believed to have come to America about 1638, so some of the possibly as many as nine children were born here.
It is likely that Ann died of complications of childbirth because the last son, Thomas, was born December 4, 1642 and Ann #1 died December 24, 1642. Sadly, their infant son followed within a few days and died on January 3, 1643. So there Thomas was in Sudbury, Massachusetts, a widower with as many as nine children, and it's hard to imagine that he didn't marry again, quickly. Unless he had a sister or other close relative who could live in the home and help out, Thomas would have needed a wife, quickly. The other possibility is that all the children who were underage were bound out, or sent to live with relatives. As far as I know, there is no documentation for this; it's just speculation on my part.
Thomas and family seem to have spent their first two or three years in Watertown and then moved on to Sudbury. The Kings stayed there for several years, even after Ann had died. After he had married Bridget, he was found in Marlborough. This had been considered part of Sudbury until it was partitioned so I'm not sure whether he actually moved or not. In Marlborough, he was a selectman, a town constable, and responsible for laying out the highways in town. He received several grants of land in the divisions that were made to the settlers.
When King Philip's War came in 1675-76, Thomas was counted in the household of his son-in-law, William Kerley. He may have gone there, temporarily, for protection. Or, as a seventy year old man (or older, depending on birth date), he may have been ready to live with a younger member of his family.
He wrote his will on 3/21/1675 and added a codicil January 15, 1676. The inventory showed a valuation of 295 pounds, 10 shillings.
This is what we know. We don't know what his occupation was, or what religion he professed. We don't know whether he was literate. We don't know about his life during the thirteen years between the death of Ann #1 and Bridget. We don't know what the exact circumstances were that had him living with his son in law in 1675-76, and we don't know whether Bridget was with him then or not.
But we do know he was an immigrant here during the end of the Great Migration, and we know he contributed to the growth of America. He wasn't rich but he wasn't poor, either. He had probably improved his family's fortune by coming to America, so it was a win for him and a win for us.
The line of descent is:
Thomas King-Ann
Sarah King-Nathaniel Joslin
Nathaniel Joslin-Esther Morse
Israel Joslin-Sarah Cleveland
Sarah Joslin-Edward Fay
David Fay-Mary Perrin
Luceba (Euzebia) Fay-Libbeus Stannard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Holbrook line: George Langton, Immigrant
George Langton (also spelled Langdon, and perhaps Landon and Lanckton) is a Holbrook ancestor twice, since we descend through two of his daughters. It would be nice to know more about his story, but so far we have been told by one secondary source or another that he was from Cornwall, or Herefordshire, or was a French Huguenot. If Landon and his family was French, and if they were Huguenots, his parents were likely not Jaques and Mademoiselle Le Duc, as their birth dates were too early to make it possible for them to be George's parents. Since we don't know for sure when George was born, that makes it harder yet to identify his parents. I've seen birth dates of from about 1598 to about 1605. DNA results reported on George's Wiki Tree page seem to show that he most likely came from the area around Langton by Malton, Yorkshire, England. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that records survive from our period of interest.
We don't know much of anything about George until, at the age of somewhere between 30 and 40, he is found in Wethersfield, Connecticut about 1636. He is believed to have married in England, about 1629, a woman named Sarah, and four children were born to them in England, with possibly others born in Wethersfield. Sarah died in Wethersfield and George and family moved on to Springfield, Massachusetts Bay Colony, where George married Hannah Lambe, the widow of Edmund Haynes. George and Hannah had one child, Esther or Hester.
In Springfield, George was a town officer for at least one term. He and Hannah both testified in a witchcraft trial against Hugh Parsons, in 1652, and sometime between 1653 and 1656 moved to Northampton, Massachusetts, where he spent the remainder of his life. (Hugh and his wife Mary were each found guilty of witchcraft. Mary is believed to have died in prison, before she could be executed. Hugh's sentence was rescinded and we don't know what became of him, but likely he didn't stay around Springfield, either.)
He may have been a master carpenter who helped build the Springfield church. He contributed several acres for the upkeep of a pastor in Northampton, and also two bushels of wheat for Harvard College, so he also grew crops, as did most of the families in these small villages. George died December 29, 1676. He was certainly old enough to have died a natural death, but this was also the time of King Philip's war. It is possible that the stress of that conflict led to an early death. (He is not listed as having been buried at the Old Burying Ground, so perhaps death occurred elsewhere, with a family member.)
Life was never easy for our immigrant ancestors.
One line of descent is:
George Langton-Sarah
Hannah Langton-William Pritchard
Esther Pritchard-John Hanchett
John Hanchett-Lydia Hayward
Hannah Hanchett-John Stannard
Libbeus Stannard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stannard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The second line is
George Langton-Sarah
Deliverance Langton-Thomas Hanchett
John Hanchett-Esther Pritchard
So yes, John Hanchett and Esther Pritchard were first cousins. It wasn't unusual in small villages on the frontier.
We don't know much of anything about George until, at the age of somewhere between 30 and 40, he is found in Wethersfield, Connecticut about 1636. He is believed to have married in England, about 1629, a woman named Sarah, and four children were born to them in England, with possibly others born in Wethersfield. Sarah died in Wethersfield and George and family moved on to Springfield, Massachusetts Bay Colony, where George married Hannah Lambe, the widow of Edmund Haynes. George and Hannah had one child, Esther or Hester.
In Springfield, George was a town officer for at least one term. He and Hannah both testified in a witchcraft trial against Hugh Parsons, in 1652, and sometime between 1653 and 1656 moved to Northampton, Massachusetts, where he spent the remainder of his life. (Hugh and his wife Mary were each found guilty of witchcraft. Mary is believed to have died in prison, before she could be executed. Hugh's sentence was rescinded and we don't know what became of him, but likely he didn't stay around Springfield, either.)
He may have been a master carpenter who helped build the Springfield church. He contributed several acres for the upkeep of a pastor in Northampton, and also two bushels of wheat for Harvard College, so he also grew crops, as did most of the families in these small villages. George died December 29, 1676. He was certainly old enough to have died a natural death, but this was also the time of King Philip's war. It is possible that the stress of that conflict led to an early death. (He is not listed as having been buried at the Old Burying Ground, so perhaps death occurred elsewhere, with a family member.)
Life was never easy for our immigrant ancestors.
One line of descent is:
George Langton-Sarah
Hannah Langton-William Pritchard
Esther Pritchard-John Hanchett
John Hanchett-Lydia Hayward
Hannah Hanchett-John Stannard
Libbeus Stannard-Eunice Pomeroy
Libbeus Stannard-Luceba Fay
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The second line is
George Langton-Sarah
Deliverance Langton-Thomas Hanchett
John Hanchett-Esther Pritchard
So yes, John Hanchett and Esther Pritchard were first cousins. It wasn't unusual in small villages on the frontier.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Allen line: Isaac McCoy, Missionary and more
I've wanted to write about Isaac McCoy for a long time. I knew that most of his personal papers were at Kansas State Historical Society library, and I know that I am unlikely to ever get to go there to read them myself. I found the next best thing, a book written by a remarkable woman, Carol Spurlock Layman, who spent many years getting to "know" Isaac McCoy, my third great grand uncle, and now on my hero list. The book is "Isaac McCoy and the American Indians". I recommend reading the book, but if you're not ready to do that yet, this post might give you some insight into his life and times.
Isaac was the son of William and Elizabeth Royse McCoy, one of at least eight children. We might think he grew up in poverty, but he had the huge advantage of having two religious parents who prayed for all their children. He was rich in the spiritual heritage he had, and it showed throughout his life. Isaac was born in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, and "enjoyed" the trip to near Louisville that the family made together on the Ohio River, in 1789. The family settled in Kentucky but eventually moved to Silver Creek in southern Indiana, where William founded a church and pastored it for several years.
Isaac was called to the ministry and in 1808 he and his wife, Christiana Polke (related to President James Polk but I'm not sure how) went to a settlement at Maria Creek in Knox County, Indiana and started a church there. Isaac learned pastoring skills there, but he felt the call to do more, and knew that meant ministering to the native Americans. In 1817, the McCoys decided to accept this call on their lives, and they were never the same.
I could write for hours about what they did and how they suffered, but that is all in the book. They lived for a while at Fort Wayne, and then went north where they settled among the Pottawatomi and Ottawa tribes, starting a mission station, school, and church that both natives and whites attended. As time went on, Isaac became convinced that the natives would have to leave the lands they were on and travel west, across the Mississippi and beyond, to settle there away from the white men who were destroying them by providing whiskey and other alcohol. Eventually some of the natives did go to the Indian territory he had located and surveyed for them, and Isaac and Christiana continued their missionary work there.
Two things stand out to me about this man and his wife. Isaac was typically gone for a good part of each year, either working with other natives or traveling for supplies or going on political trips. Fourteen times he went to Washington, D.C., often traveling by horseback and camping out if there were no nearby homes or taverns to offer shelter. Sometimes he took a son, or a native American, but sometimes he went alone, and he was never able to take his wife. She was too busy taking care of the family and the mission to go along. So the couple was often separated in distance.
The other thing that strikes me is the sadness they often faced. They had fourteen children together, but by the time Christiana died about 1851, only two were living. I cannot imagine losing that many children. They also lost many native children who were staying at the mission, and many friends among the natives. It seems that it must have been unbearable to face so many sorrows, but Isaac and Christiana continued their service to the natives. Isaac himself was ill for much of his life, from fevers and other illnesses. Sometimes when it looks like he stayed at the mission for several months, it was because he spent two months or more in bed, recovering from a bout with malaria or whatever it was that had him down. Isaac died in Louisville in 1846
The sad thing is that Isaac wasn't really successful in providing a new home for the natives. Many went to other locations, many died from disease, a few stayed behind in Indiana and Michigan, and of course they did not get the lands they were promised. However, he seems to have been an early supporter, almost a founder of the Southern Baptist church (as opposed to the Baptist church he always had belonged to, despite their lack of official financial support for his cause), who were willing to do more for the natives as far as missionary work goes.
He is a hero in my eyes because of all the sacrifices he made, because of all the good he did, and because he was able to explain God to the natives in terms they understood. He wasn't perfect, he made some bad choices in how he approached certain things, but I know that when the crowns are passed out, he will have one that is extra shiny and crowded with jewels. I sure wish I had known this man!
If you'd like to see a picture of Isaac, there is one on his Find a Grave listing, and also on his Wikipedia story. Both sites give more information than I've included here. I hope I've given you a sense of who the man was and why he deserves honor. I also hope you'll go to these sites and read more, even if you're not going to read the book right now.
Isaac was the son of William and Elizabeth Royse McCoy, one of at least eight children. We might think he grew up in poverty, but he had the huge advantage of having two religious parents who prayed for all their children. He was rich in the spiritual heritage he had, and it showed throughout his life. Isaac was born in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, and "enjoyed" the trip to near Louisville that the family made together on the Ohio River, in 1789. The family settled in Kentucky but eventually moved to Silver Creek in southern Indiana, where William founded a church and pastored it for several years.
Isaac was called to the ministry and in 1808 he and his wife, Christiana Polke (related to President James Polk but I'm not sure how) went to a settlement at Maria Creek in Knox County, Indiana and started a church there. Isaac learned pastoring skills there, but he felt the call to do more, and knew that meant ministering to the native Americans. In 1817, the McCoys decided to accept this call on their lives, and they were never the same.
I could write for hours about what they did and how they suffered, but that is all in the book. They lived for a while at Fort Wayne, and then went north where they settled among the Pottawatomi and Ottawa tribes, starting a mission station, school, and church that both natives and whites attended. As time went on, Isaac became convinced that the natives would have to leave the lands they were on and travel west, across the Mississippi and beyond, to settle there away from the white men who were destroying them by providing whiskey and other alcohol. Eventually some of the natives did go to the Indian territory he had located and surveyed for them, and Isaac and Christiana continued their missionary work there.
Two things stand out to me about this man and his wife. Isaac was typically gone for a good part of each year, either working with other natives or traveling for supplies or going on political trips. Fourteen times he went to Washington, D.C., often traveling by horseback and camping out if there were no nearby homes or taverns to offer shelter. Sometimes he took a son, or a native American, but sometimes he went alone, and he was never able to take his wife. She was too busy taking care of the family and the mission to go along. So the couple was often separated in distance.
The other thing that strikes me is the sadness they often faced. They had fourteen children together, but by the time Christiana died about 1851, only two were living. I cannot imagine losing that many children. They also lost many native children who were staying at the mission, and many friends among the natives. It seems that it must have been unbearable to face so many sorrows, but Isaac and Christiana continued their service to the natives. Isaac himself was ill for much of his life, from fevers and other illnesses. Sometimes when it looks like he stayed at the mission for several months, it was because he spent two months or more in bed, recovering from a bout with malaria or whatever it was that had him down. Isaac died in Louisville in 1846
The sad thing is that Isaac wasn't really successful in providing a new home for the natives. Many went to other locations, many died from disease, a few stayed behind in Indiana and Michigan, and of course they did not get the lands they were promised. However, he seems to have been an early supporter, almost a founder of the Southern Baptist church (as opposed to the Baptist church he always had belonged to, despite their lack of official financial support for his cause), who were willing to do more for the natives as far as missionary work goes.
He is a hero in my eyes because of all the sacrifices he made, because of all the good he did, and because he was able to explain God to the natives in terms they understood. He wasn't perfect, he made some bad choices in how he approached certain things, but I know that when the crowns are passed out, he will have one that is extra shiny and crowded with jewels. I sure wish I had known this man!
If you'd like to see a picture of Isaac, there is one on his Find a Grave listing, and also on his Wikipedia story. Both sites give more information than I've included here. I hope I've given you a sense of who the man was and why he deserves honor. I also hope you'll go to these sites and read more, even if you're not going to read the book right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)