Update: After consideration, I've re-worded a couple of sentences in the blog regarding the physical fights that this couple had. I may have given the impression, by using words from some of the records, that Mary may have brought some abuse on herself. I've been asked by someone I love and respect to remove that wording, and so I have tried to clarify each person's role in their lose-lose situation. Of course, without being in the room with them, we will never know all that went on in their home but it's fair to draw a picture without drawing a conclusion.
This blog post may or may not be something you want to read. If you imagine that all our ancestors were devout Christians who kept a civil tongue in their head and treated their families with great love and respect, you may not want to read this post. If, however, you are of the belief that it's a good thing to know about all our ancestors, warts and all, read on. And if you like scandal, this is the post for you!
Richard Pray is generally accepted to be the son of Quentin and Joan Valliance Pray, of Frant, Sussex, England, although these doesn't seem to be documentation for his birth. Likely this means he was baptized somewhere else, perhaps in an ancestral church elsewhere, but it sure would be nice to find his baptismal record. Actually, his baptism may be one of the few times he was ever in church, or maybe I'm not giving the man the breaks he deserves. We don't know for sure when he came to America but it was after 1635, as neither he nor his father is listed in those papers. Many websites say his place of birth was Kittery, York, Maine, but that seems unlikely.
According to his testimony in a court case in 1685, he was 55 years old at the time, so was likely born about 1630, give or take a year or two. We don't know for sure when he married, or whom, but her name was Mary and she was the mother of his children. This was not a loving couple, but she seems to have started as many fights as he did. She also seems to have suffered injuries more often and more serious than he did. At any rate, the two did not get along, and by 1671 one of them requested a divorce. It was granted, but a higher court nullified the decision. The request was made again in 1672 and denied. These two people, both of them apparently victims of both physical and verbal abuse, would have to live out their marriage vows, although not necessarily in the same location.
Locations are confusing for me, regarding Richard Pray. He was supposedly an early settler of Rhode Island, in 1645, but he would have been only about fifteen at the time. How did that happen? He was involved in several court cases in Salem, fined there for swearing, and appointed in 1655 by the court of commissioners to keep a house of entertainment, with a sign to be posted outside to advise strangers. I am not sure whether this was in Massachusetts, or in Rhode Island.
We know he was in Rhode Island in 1675-1676, as he is noted as being one of the few people to "stay and not go" during King Philip's War. This gave him some leverage when native Americans captured in the war were sold as slaves, as he received a share of the profits. (I know, I know, this is bad and unacceptable, but it's a fact so it needs to be told. Wife abuser, slave trader or slave holder, or both, I'm telling it like it is, but not liking it.)
In 1681, Mary, Richard's wife, was given a license (no location given) to keep a public house of entertainment for one year. Again, no location was given. Were they in the same town, or were they separated by many miles? Mary was dead when Richard married his second wife, Elizabeth White Hearnden, widow of Benjamin Hearnden. (Benjamin Hearnden and Elizabeth are also our ancestors, just to keep things interesting.) Did Richard finally find true love? Did Elizabeth go into this relationship with her eyes wide open? Enquiring minds want to know.
Richard died in Providence, Rhode Island sometime in 1693. He had sold or given his small amount of land to his son Ephraim before his death. We don't know how or if the other children were acknowledged, or what provisions were made for Elizabeth, since I've been unable to locate a copy of his will.
There is so much I'd like to know about Richard. Since his first marriage was such a disaster, what made his willing to try it again? Was Elizabeth a different kind of person than Mary had been? What about Mary? Did she find love, or at least friendship, with anyone? How did the children turn out, living in a home where the parents fought so much? Where was Richard from, and was his father really Quentin Pray? And why did he stay in Providence, having received warning that the natives were planning to burn that village? Maybe he wasn't the kind of ancestor we would want to claim, but here he is, folks, larger than life, warts, crimes, and all. If I ever learn that the records are mixed up and our Richard Pray was not the kind of man this blog post portrays, I sure will be happy to correct the record!
The line of descent is:
Richard Pray-Mary
John Pray-Sarah Brown
Mary Pray-Richard Brown
Deborah Brown-Othniel Brown
Sarah Brown-Enos Eddy
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph Brown Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Friday, October 26, 2018
Holbrook line: John Perrin, Immigrant
John Perrin's origins are sketchy, but intriguing. Family stories say that he was of French Huguenot descent. His parents (but possibly these are grandparents, based on the birth date of "father John Perryn") were John Perryn and Anne Brunneau. His wife was Anne Hubert, daughter of Richard Hubert of France. The dates here almost work to say these families had likely escaped the French persecution of the Huguenots(Protestants) by fleeing to England. It's an exciting story, but one which seems to lack documentation at present. '
The first thing we know about John is that he was in Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1640. Family experts dispute whether or not he came in the Safety in 1635, but he was in Braintree in 1640. We don't know whether he had married Anne Hubert in England or whether they met on the ship or soon after arrival here. We do know that their daughter Mary was born at Braintree February 22, 1640/1. It's thought that she was the first born of their five known children, so that gives us an approximate marriage date of 1639, more or less.
John must have been well thought of in Braintree because he was one of the first men chosen, or allowed, to settle in a new town, Rehoboth, Plymouth Colony, so close to what became Rhode Island that some of his land was actually located there. He received several grants of land from the town, including home lot, woodland, fresh meadow, salt marsh, and new meadow. At various times, he was surveyor of highways, constable, townsman, and juror, so I'm thinking he had freeman status.
His estate was valued at 67 pounds in a 1643 settlement of town estates, but by the time of his death in 1674 his real estate was valued at 230 pounds and the total inventory at a little over 375 pounds. John was apparently a hard worker and a thrifty man. His will mentions his wife, two sons and two daughters. The first of two "Mary's" born to the couple had probably died young.
John died before King Philip's War, but the home he built in Rehoboth was apparently used as a garrison house during that conflict. His son John lived there at the time it was needed. A garrison house was generally built a little more stoutly than others in the vicinity, and usually had openings built into it that could be used to fire on any attackers. It may also have had a cellar or other hiding place on the grounds. I wonder if John built such a strong house with memories of the stories of his parents or grandparents and their trials in France in the back of his mind?
I wish I had more to say about John. Was he educated? What church did he attend, if any? Did he have a trade besides farming? There are always more questions, no matter what we are able to learn of the lives of these ancestors! Most of the material in this sketch came from Volume 96 of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, with bits and pieces found elsewhere. And as always, some of it is speculation.
The line of descent is:
John Perrin-Anne Hubert
John Perrin-Mary Polley
Samuel Perrin-Mehitable Child
John Perrin-Abigail Morris
Benjamin Perrin-Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Luceba Fay-Libberus Stannard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
The first thing we know about John is that he was in Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1640. Family experts dispute whether or not he came in the Safety in 1635, but he was in Braintree in 1640. We don't know whether he had married Anne Hubert in England or whether they met on the ship or soon after arrival here. We do know that their daughter Mary was born at Braintree February 22, 1640/1. It's thought that she was the first born of their five known children, so that gives us an approximate marriage date of 1639, more or less.
John must have been well thought of in Braintree because he was one of the first men chosen, or allowed, to settle in a new town, Rehoboth, Plymouth Colony, so close to what became Rhode Island that some of his land was actually located there. He received several grants of land from the town, including home lot, woodland, fresh meadow, salt marsh, and new meadow. At various times, he was surveyor of highways, constable, townsman, and juror, so I'm thinking he had freeman status.
His estate was valued at 67 pounds in a 1643 settlement of town estates, but by the time of his death in 1674 his real estate was valued at 230 pounds and the total inventory at a little over 375 pounds. John was apparently a hard worker and a thrifty man. His will mentions his wife, two sons and two daughters. The first of two "Mary's" born to the couple had probably died young.
John died before King Philip's War, but the home he built in Rehoboth was apparently used as a garrison house during that conflict. His son John lived there at the time it was needed. A garrison house was generally built a little more stoutly than others in the vicinity, and usually had openings built into it that could be used to fire on any attackers. It may also have had a cellar or other hiding place on the grounds. I wonder if John built such a strong house with memories of the stories of his parents or grandparents and their trials in France in the back of his mind?
I wish I had more to say about John. Was he educated? What church did he attend, if any? Did he have a trade besides farming? There are always more questions, no matter what we are able to learn of the lives of these ancestors! Most of the material in this sketch came from Volume 96 of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, with bits and pieces found elsewhere. And as always, some of it is speculation.
The line of descent is:
John Perrin-Anne Hubert
John Perrin-Mary Polley
Samuel Perrin-Mehitable Child
John Perrin-Abigail Morris
Benjamin Perrin-Mary
Mary Perrin-David Fay
Luceba Fay-Libberus Stannard
Hiram Stanard-Susan Eddy
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Holbrook line: John Johnson of Roxbury, Immigrant
It doesn't help matters at all that we have at least two ancestors named John Johnson on our tree. For a long time, I've been reluctant to write about this one because I thought it was possible that I had the two men confused on my tree. However, I've been thrilled to find, and finally read, a book called "The Biography and Genealogy of Captain John Johnson from Roxbury, Massachusetts: An Uncommon Man in the Commonwealth of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 1630-1659" by Gerald Garth Johnson, whom I assume would be a distant cousin of ours. The book was published by Heritage Books in 2008, so the scholarship is recent. As my son and my sister would say "Cool beans!"
To give the bare facts, we don't know for sure where John Johnson was born nor whom his parents were, but it appears likely that he was from the area of Great Amwell or Ware, Hertfordshire, England. He married his first wife, Mary Heath, at Ware in 1613, so he was likely born sometime around 1590, give or take a few years. He seems to have learned to read, write, and "cipher" as a child but there is no evidence for that except that he possessed these skills in his adult life. He was a Puritan, probably deeply religious, and he had ten children before he came to America, unfortunately without Mary. She died in 1629 and John Johnson came to Massachusetts on the Arabella, with the Winthrop Fleet in 1630. He was the quartermaster for the ship, meaning he was responsible for providing and rationing food for the trip across the ocean, and perhaps for a time when the ship landed. Only six or perhaps seven of the children were still living, and we don't know whether all of the children came with him or whether some were on other ships of the same fleet, Mary, the oldest, would have been just sixteen, which perhaps was considered old enough to watch over the other children while on the trip.
Not much is known of Johnson's life in England but somewhere he must have acquired the skills and abilities that allowed him to become prominent in the life of Roxbury. He apparently went to the new village as soon as he landed, and was part of the town's development for the rest of his life. He was referred to as a yeoman, so he had little status coming to town but soon was respected by all Among his accomplishments, he was a selectman for most of his life there. He served as constable for many, many years. He was "Surveyor-General of the Arms" for the entire Massachusetts Bay Colony , as well as Captain of the Roxbury Military Company and clerk of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. (He had likely been a member of the Honourable Artillery Company of London, but the identification is not certain).
Johnson was frequently called on to witness wills or to inventory estates, as well as to represent townspeople as attorney or power of attorney. As a Puritan in a Puritan town, he helped found the first church and may have helped to construct the first meeting house. He donated toward the establishment of the first school in Roxbury. As Surveyor-General, he helped build bridges and decide boundaries, including settling disputes, or what could have become disputes, between neighboring towns.
Are you impressed yet? He did all this while raising his family, running a farm, and owning a tavern in Roxbury. He was a land owner and a land dealer, providing for farms for two sons as well as selling land for profit. John did have some help. He married for the second time, to a woman named Margery, probably about 1633. but possibly before coming to America to 1630. Margery died and Johnson then married Grace Negus Fawer before October 14, 1656. (She was either childless or had no surviving children when she died in 1671, since she left her estate to her two brothers). So on top of all that he did for the community, the church, and the colony, Johnson was also a family man. He may have had step children, although none were mentioned in his will.
John Johnson died September 30, 1659. The book I referred to earlier gives his complete will and an inventory several pages in length. His estate was valued at about 668 pounds, and the inventory shows many more items than were typical in a New England household in 1659. This is even more remarkable because Johnson's house, including town and military records and the town's ammunition, burned to the ground in 1645. Johnson had quickly replaced everything of the household that was destroyed, and possibly more besides.
The author is certainly proud of John Johnson and I think we should be, too. He was respected in his time both for the work he did and for the results, as he was regarded as successful. I'd love to learn more about him but this is so much more than I expected to find, that I am truly grateful for this book. If you want to learn more about John Johnson, or about Puritans in general, you couldn't do better than to read this book!
The line of descent is:
John Johnson-Mary Heath
Mary Johnson-Roger Mowry
Nathaniel Mowry-Joanna Inman
Joanna Mowry-Walter Phetteplace
Sarah Phetteplace-Elisha Eddy
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph B Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
To give the bare facts, we don't know for sure where John Johnson was born nor whom his parents were, but it appears likely that he was from the area of Great Amwell or Ware, Hertfordshire, England. He married his first wife, Mary Heath, at Ware in 1613, so he was likely born sometime around 1590, give or take a few years. He seems to have learned to read, write, and "cipher" as a child but there is no evidence for that except that he possessed these skills in his adult life. He was a Puritan, probably deeply religious, and he had ten children before he came to America, unfortunately without Mary. She died in 1629 and John Johnson came to Massachusetts on the Arabella, with the Winthrop Fleet in 1630. He was the quartermaster for the ship, meaning he was responsible for providing and rationing food for the trip across the ocean, and perhaps for a time when the ship landed. Only six or perhaps seven of the children were still living, and we don't know whether all of the children came with him or whether some were on other ships of the same fleet, Mary, the oldest, would have been just sixteen, which perhaps was considered old enough to watch over the other children while on the trip.
Not much is known of Johnson's life in England but somewhere he must have acquired the skills and abilities that allowed him to become prominent in the life of Roxbury. He apparently went to the new village as soon as he landed, and was part of the town's development for the rest of his life. He was referred to as a yeoman, so he had little status coming to town but soon was respected by all Among his accomplishments, he was a selectman for most of his life there. He served as constable for many, many years. He was "Surveyor-General of the Arms" for the entire Massachusetts Bay Colony , as well as Captain of the Roxbury Military Company and clerk of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts. (He had likely been a member of the Honourable Artillery Company of London, but the identification is not certain).
Johnson was frequently called on to witness wills or to inventory estates, as well as to represent townspeople as attorney or power of attorney. As a Puritan in a Puritan town, he helped found the first church and may have helped to construct the first meeting house. He donated toward the establishment of the first school in Roxbury. As Surveyor-General, he helped build bridges and decide boundaries, including settling disputes, or what could have become disputes, between neighboring towns.
Are you impressed yet? He did all this while raising his family, running a farm, and owning a tavern in Roxbury. He was a land owner and a land dealer, providing for farms for two sons as well as selling land for profit. John did have some help. He married for the second time, to a woman named Margery, probably about 1633. but possibly before coming to America to 1630. Margery died and Johnson then married Grace Negus Fawer before October 14, 1656. (She was either childless or had no surviving children when she died in 1671, since she left her estate to her two brothers). So on top of all that he did for the community, the church, and the colony, Johnson was also a family man. He may have had step children, although none were mentioned in his will.
John Johnson died September 30, 1659. The book I referred to earlier gives his complete will and an inventory several pages in length. His estate was valued at about 668 pounds, and the inventory shows many more items than were typical in a New England household in 1659. This is even more remarkable because Johnson's house, including town and military records and the town's ammunition, burned to the ground in 1645. Johnson had quickly replaced everything of the household that was destroyed, and possibly more besides.
The author is certainly proud of John Johnson and I think we should be, too. He was respected in his time both for the work he did and for the results, as he was regarded as successful. I'd love to learn more about him but this is so much more than I expected to find, that I am truly grateful for this book. If you want to learn more about John Johnson, or about Puritans in general, you couldn't do better than to read this book!
The line of descent is:
John Johnson-Mary Heath
Mary Johnson-Roger Mowry
Nathaniel Mowry-Joanna Inman
Joanna Mowry-Walter Phetteplace
Sarah Phetteplace-Elisha Eddy
Enos Eddy-Sarah Brown
Enos Eddy-Deborah Paine
Joseph B Eddy-Susan Lamphire
Susan Eddy-Hiram Stanard
Louis Stanard-Mary Alice Hetrick
Etta Stanard-Loren Holbrook
Gladys Holbrook-Richard Allen
Their descendants
Friday, October 19, 2018
Holbrook line: Thomas Cole, Immigrant
Thomas Cole is believed to be the son of Humphrey Cole and May Mott. Humphrey must have been a person of some means because a son and a son in law were each rectors, and that would probably indicate a certain degree of schooling. Humphrey himself had a BA from Pembroke College (part of Cambridge University) in 1593 and an MA in 1598. The family was oriented toward education.
Thomas Cole was born about 1603 in Essex, England and had arrived in Virginia on July 4, 1635. It's possible that he came in 1632, had returned to England for some reason and then come back to Virginia. Either date would put him in Virginia early. He married a woman named Priscilla, who may or may not be Priscilla Godfrey, the daughter of John Godfrey.
Thomas and Priscilla were in Maryland by 1649, and were acknowledged Quakers a few years later. Perhaps they left Virginia because they felt persecuted there, but that is speculation. In 1666, he was voted 1000 pounds of tobacco in recompense for the loss of his stock, killed or stolen in raids by the native Americans. John owned 550 acres of land, called Cole's Harbor in 1668. This was in what is now the Inner Harbor of Baltimore, and even then may have been considered valuable. It may also have been marshy, because we don't know that Thomas and Priscilla actually lived there. He also patented 450 acres called Mayden's Choice in 1674, and a 200 acre tract called Saint Mary Borne in 1675.
They seem to have settled in what is now Anne Arundel County, then called Providence County. Thomas and Priscilla had just one known child, or at least one child who lived to adulthood. There may have been a son, John, but nothing more is known of him. Sarah and her husband, Charles Gorsuch, sold the three Baltimore County tracts on December 8, 1679, Sarah being described as the sole heiress of Thomas Cole. Priscilla therefore must have been gone by then, and Thomas also, although we don't have dates for either of them. They may well have been buried in the early Quaker fashion, which was in unmarked graves, with only a flagstone to indicate the place of burial.
I wish we knew more about Thomas. For instance, during the Indian attack when his stock was stolen, where was he and where was his family? Did the family suffer other losses, or was this a one time thing? As a Quaker, he probably wasn't part of the militia but I'd like to confirm that. Was he a slave owner? Was he educated, or at least literate? (I think yes, because his father and brother were educated, and because his daughter married into an influential family, but I'd like to know for sure). What words of wisdom could he share with us, if we could talk face to face?
The line of descent is :
Thomas Cole-Priscilla
Sarah Cole-Charles Gorsuch
Charles Gorsuch Jr-Sarah Cole (it appears that these two were cousins)
Hannah Gorsuch-Thomas Stansbury
Rachel Stansbury-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
Thomas Cole was born about 1603 in Essex, England and had arrived in Virginia on July 4, 1635. It's possible that he came in 1632, had returned to England for some reason and then come back to Virginia. Either date would put him in Virginia early. He married a woman named Priscilla, who may or may not be Priscilla Godfrey, the daughter of John Godfrey.
Thomas and Priscilla were in Maryland by 1649, and were acknowledged Quakers a few years later. Perhaps they left Virginia because they felt persecuted there, but that is speculation. In 1666, he was voted 1000 pounds of tobacco in recompense for the loss of his stock, killed or stolen in raids by the native Americans. John owned 550 acres of land, called Cole's Harbor in 1668. This was in what is now the Inner Harbor of Baltimore, and even then may have been considered valuable. It may also have been marshy, because we don't know that Thomas and Priscilla actually lived there. He also patented 450 acres called Mayden's Choice in 1674, and a 200 acre tract called Saint Mary Borne in 1675.
They seem to have settled in what is now Anne Arundel County, then called Providence County. Thomas and Priscilla had just one known child, or at least one child who lived to adulthood. There may have been a son, John, but nothing more is known of him. Sarah and her husband, Charles Gorsuch, sold the three Baltimore County tracts on December 8, 1679, Sarah being described as the sole heiress of Thomas Cole. Priscilla therefore must have been gone by then, and Thomas also, although we don't have dates for either of them. They may well have been buried in the early Quaker fashion, which was in unmarked graves, with only a flagstone to indicate the place of burial.
I wish we knew more about Thomas. For instance, during the Indian attack when his stock was stolen, where was he and where was his family? Did the family suffer other losses, or was this a one time thing? As a Quaker, he probably wasn't part of the militia but I'd like to confirm that. Was he a slave owner? Was he educated, or at least literate? (I think yes, because his father and brother were educated, and because his daughter married into an influential family, but I'd like to know for sure). What words of wisdom could he share with us, if we could talk face to face?
The line of descent is :
Thomas Cole-Priscilla
Sarah Cole-Charles Gorsuch
Charles Gorsuch Jr-Sarah Cole (it appears that these two were cousins)
Hannah Gorsuch-Thomas Stansbury
Rachel Stansbury-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
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
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Matthew Woodruff, Immigrant
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)