Part 6.1 The Virginia Company of London Early settlement to North America

The Virginia Company

The Virginia Company of London was a joint-stock company chartered by King James I in 1606 to establish a colony in North America. Such a venture allowed the Crown to reap the benefits of colonization—natural resources, new markets for English goods, leverage against the Spanish—without bearing the costs. Investors, meanwhile, were protected from catastrophic losses in the event of the project's failure. The company established a settlement at Jamestown in 1607, and over the next eighteen years, the Crown granted the company two new charters, democratizing its governance and reforming its financial model. What began as an enterprise of investors seeking a dividend was funded a decade later almost exclusively by a public lottery.

 By 1618 the company had found a way to use its most abundant resource—land—to tempt settlers to pay their own passage from England to the colony and then, after arrival, to pay the company a quitrent, or fee, to use the land. Still, the Virginia Company and the colony it oversaw struggled to survive.

Disease, mismanagement, Indian attacks, and factionalism in London all took a toll until, in 1623, the Privy Council launched an investigation into the company's finances. A year later, the company's charter was revoked and the king assumed direct control of Virginia.

Smythe was an early investor in the Virginia Company of London, and Bartholomew Gosnold, whose wife was Smythe's cousin, one of its chief recruiters. Gosnold brought in his own cousin, Edward Maria Wingfield, as well as Captain John Smith. Other investors included military men like Sir Thomas Gates and Sir George Somers; the minister and geographer Richard Hakluyt (the younger); Sir William Wade, lieutenant of the Tower of London; Sir Francis Popham, son and heir of Lord Chief Justice John Popham; and Sir Walter Cope, a member of Parliament from Westminster.

The company's goals combined commercial, religious, and national interests. The Crown authorized the investors to found a colony, but their primary mission may have been to explore and fortify the coastline as a way to protect English shipping from the Spanish. Merchants like Smythe also hoped to find a trade route through America to China. Others subscribed to Hakluyt's case for colonization, outlined at the time Sir Walter Raleigh was funding the Roanoke voyages: The English Protestants could convert the Indians, thus preventing them from being converted by the Spanish; they could exploit the area's natural resources; they could resettle England's excess population; they could create a new market for English goods; and they could use the colony as political and commercial leverage against the Spanish.

Many of these reforms were created under the leadership of Sir Thomas Smythe but became associated with Sir Edwin Sandys, who was elected the Virginia Company's treasurer on April 28, 1619. At the time, three large factions of investors dominated the company. One, led by Smythe, represented wealthy merchants who were not afraid of shunning short-term rewards in favour of a long-term investment. The second faction, led by Lord Robert Rich and his son—the second and third earls of Warwick—viewed the Virginia colony primarily as a port of protection for their ships, which often raided Spanish galleons in the Caribbean. The Sandys faction represented smaller investors who could ill afford high short-term risks and who, therefore, were dissatisfied with the Smythe regime.
By allying himself with the Rich family, Sandys wrested control of the company from Smythe, but the alliance proved short-lived. Sandys's opposition to piracy ran him afoul of the third earl of Warwick, who was offended that Governor George Yeardley did not properly welcome his ship the Treasurer when it arrived in Virginia with a stolen cargo of enslaved Africans. A long-time member of Parliament and an outspoken defender of that body's rights, Sandys also found an enemy in the king. When Sandys stood for re-election as company treasurer in 1620, King James intervened: "Choose the Devil if you will, but not Sir Edwin Sandys," he is reputed to have said. As a result, Henry Wriothesley, third earl of Southampton, became treasurer on June 28, 1620.
Remarkably, Sandys managed to maintain de facto control of the company. He attempted to diversify the Virginia economy, then overly dependent on tobacco. When that effort failed, in 1622 Sandys negotiated a contract that gave the Virginia Company a monopoly over tobacco imports to England. The details of the contract, however, showed large salaries being paid to Sandys and other officials, and questions arose about the finances of a company that was nearly bankrupt.

At about the same time, on March 22, 1622, an alliance of Virginia Indians led by Opechancanough launched a series of attacks against English settlements along the James River, killing as many as 347 colonists, or about a quarter of Virginia's colonial population. Samuel Wrote, an investor and Sandys's enemy, called attention to an alarming set of figures. He estimated that Virginia's population in 1619, when Sandys took over the company, was 700. Another 3,570 men, women, and children had entered the colony in the subsequent three years, adding up to a population of 4,270.
But after Opechancanough's attacks, which resulted in the deaths of 347 colonists, only 1,240 settlers remained. What, Wrote demanded, had happened to the other 2,683? Most of them, it turns out, had died of disease.

In May 1623, the Privy Council—responding in part to a petition sent to the king by a faction of councillors allied against Sandys—created a royal commission to investigate the Virginia Company of London. That same year, Nathaniel Butler, a former governor of the Somers Islands, published The Unmasked Face of Our Colony in Virginia, as it was in the Winter of the Year 1622, criticizing Virginia's governance. Royal commissioners arrived in Virginia in March 1624 to see for themselves, and on May 24 of that year, the Crown formally revoked the company's charter and assumed direct control of the Virginia colony.

As a financial venture, the Virginia Company of London had failed. Yet despite so many lost investments and lost lives, the English settlement begun at Jamestown survived. Historians, looking to connect the early history of the colony with the ideals of the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), long suggested that the king's revocation of the company's charter was an act of tyranny. Edmund S. Morgan, writing in 1975, countered: "Modern scholarship has altered the verdict and shown that any responsible monarch would have been obliged to stop the reckless shipment of his subjects to their deaths."

The English who were in Holland

However not all the first settlers left from England.  Many of these ancestors found themselves firstly in Holland.  They worked in lace making, and they married within themselves. No doubt one of the reasons there appears to be so much differing of opinions as to who married who, from where.

Approximately 65 passengers embarked the Mayflower in the middle of July 1620 at its home port at Rotherhithe, Surrey, on the River Thames. The ship then proceeded down the Thames into the English Channel and then on to the south coast of England to anchor at Southampton Water. The Mayflower waited there for a rendezvous on July 22 with the Speedwell. Speedwell was coming from Holland with English separatist Puritans, members of the Leiden congregation who had been living in Holland to escape religious persecution in England.

England was a Roman Catholic nation until 1534, when King Henry VIII (reigned 1509-1547) declared himself head of a new national church called the Church of England. Although he and his daughter, Queen Elizabeth I (reigned 1558-1603), changed some things that made the Church of England different from the Roman Catholic Church, a few people felt that the new Church retained too many practices of the Roman Church. They called for a return to a simpler faith and less structured forms of worship. In short, they wanted to return to worshipping in the way the early Christians had. Because these people wanted to purify the church, they came to be known as “Puritans.” Another group, considered very radical, went even further.

 They thought the new Church of England was beyond reform. Called “Separatists,” they demanded the formation of new, separate church congregations.  This opinion was very dangerous; in England in the 1600s, it was illegal to be part of any church other than the Church of England.
The Separatist church congregation that established Plymouth Colony in New England was originally centered around the town of Scrooby in Nottinghamshire, England. Members included the young William Bradford and William Brewster. Like others who refused to follow the Church of England’s teachings, some of them were harassed, fined or even sent to jail. When they felt they could no longer suffer these difficulties in England, they chose to flee to the Dutch Netherlands. There, they could practice their own religion without fear of persecution from the English government or its church.

The Pilgrims in Holland (the Netherlands)

Although they had religious freedom, life in the Netherlands was not easy. The Separatists had to leave their homeland and friends to live in a foreign country without a clear idea of how they would support themselves. The congregation stayed briefly in Amsterdam and then moved to the city of Leiden. There they remained for the next 11 or 12 years. Most found work in the cloth trades, while others were carpenters, tailors and printers. Their lives required hard work. Even young children had to work. Some older children were tempted by the Dutch culture and left their families to become soldiers and sailors. Their parents feared that they would lose their identity as English people. To make matters worse, the congregation worried that another war might break out between the Dutch and Spanish. They decided to move again.

The Move to America

After careful thought, the congregation decided to leave Holland to establish a farming village in the northern part of the Virginia Colony. At that time, Virginia extended from Jamestown in the south to the mouth of the Hudson River in the north, so the Pilgrims planned to settle near present-day New York City. There they hoped to live under the English government, but they would worship in their own, separate church. Because their own money wasn’t enough to establish their village, they entered into an agreement with financial investors. The company of investors would provide passage for the colonists and supply them with tools, clothing and other supplies. The colonists in turn would work for the company, sending natural resources such as fish, timber and furs back to England.

All assets, including the land and the Pilgrims’ houses, would belong to the company until the end of seven years when all of it would be divided among each of the investors and colonists. The colonists and investors had many disagreements, but eventually the Pilgrims were able to leave Europe for America.

The entire congregation could not come to America together. Those who could settle their affairs in Leiden went first while the greater number, including their pastor John Robinson, remained behind. The congregation purchased a small ship, Speedwell, to transport them across the sea and to use for fishing and trading in America.



At Southampton, a port in England, they were joined by a group of English colonists who had been gathered by the investors. Speedwell and Mayflower – a ship rented by the investors – departed for America together. After twice turning back to England because Speedwell leaked, they were forced to leave the ship. As a result, many families were divided when some passengers had to be turned back for lack of space. A month after first leaving England, on September 6, 1620, Mayflower set out alone with 102 passengers.
Given the hardships, it is quite remarkable that the colony survived those initial setbacks.
Like other places, the settlement conditions were the same.  Work for nothing for 7 years, and then be granted your lands. 
Same thing that occurred with the early settlers of Australia, many years later. 

From the following Manifest, on the Hopewell, there are details of William Lane, wife and children, it also includes several other grandparents.

The purpose of this project is to compile and expand the profiles of passengers on the Hopewell in May-June 1635. The majority of Hopewell passengers went on to settle in Dorchester, Hingham, and Salem, Massachusetts.

PLEASE NOTE: If someone is not listed below as one of the passengers, they should not be added to the project. You may want to check your records to see if they came on a different voyage of the Hopwell. This project focuses exclusively on the May-June 1635 voyage. Thank you!

Master: John Driver
English Port: Weymouth, Dorsetshire
Departure: May 6, 1635
Arrival Port: Massachusetts Bay

Passengers  The ship’s passenger list names 18 men, but does not list the names of their wives, children or servants.

The National Genealogical Society listed the family members in its Vol. 71, saying after each name "and family." Burton Spear, in Vol. 20 of his Search for the Passengers of the Mary and John (Clearing House, Toledo, OH), lists them with wives and children known to be alive in 1635. His collected works give additional data on many of these people.

Ship Log  The official ship log is:

John Crowe of Eilpeck with his family
David Prise of Ilminster and family
William Black and family (prob. William Blake)
Edmund Marshall and family
Jon Stronge and family
Edward Clap and family
Jon. Rockwell and family
John Duabant and family
Thomas Demick, wife and family
Jon Whettcomb and family (Jon. Whitcomb)
_____Gachill, wife and family
Thomas Bushrod and others
Daniel Stolack and family
William Lane, his wife and family
Matew Hearne and friends
William Malton, wife and family (William Walton)
Thomas Richards, wife and family.
Jon Gilbert and family
The full list of likely passengers, according to Spear, were:

John Crowe, probably with wife and children (names not known).
William Blake (perhaps from Pitminster, Somerset), age, 40. Family members: Agnes Thorne, wife, 40; John Blake, 17(?), son; Ann Blake, 16, daughter; William Jr., 14, James, 11, and another son, Edward.
Edmund Marshall, 37, who settled at Salem. Family members: wife, Millicent, 37, and Edmund Marshall, probably their son.
John Strong of Chard, Somerset and/or Chardstock, Devon, age 26, who settled at Hingham, MA. Family members: Margery Deane, wife; John Jr., 2, and an infant; also John’s sister, Eleanor, 22.
Edward Clapp, 30, of Salcombe Regis, Devon, who settled at Dorchester, MA. Family members: Prudence Clapp, 29, wife (and perhaps his first cousin), and their daughter, Elizabeth, 1.
John Rockwell, 36, of Fitzhead, Somerset, who settled at Dorchester, MA. Family members: Wilmot Cade, 37, wife; sons Nathaniel, 14,Thomas, 12, and Symon, 4; daughters Mary, 11, and Anna, 3.
John Durant; data for his family not known.
Thomas Dimmock/Demick, probably from Somerset, who settled at Dorchester, MA. Family members: wife, Ann (Hammond?), son John and daughter Susanna.
John Gachill/Gatchell/Getchell, probably from Somerset; settled at Salem, MA. Family members: Wilbra Wayborough/Wilborough, wife, possibly an infant child, and John’s brother Samuel.
Daniel Stolack; identification of family members not known.
William Lane of Beaminster, Dorset, who settled at Hingham, MA. Family members: Agnes Farnsworth, wife; Avis (Lane) Lincoln, 28, daughter, and her husband, Thomas Lincoln; Andrew Lane, 24, son, and daughters Mary and Elizabeth Lane.

John Gilbert, 54, of Combe St. Nicholas, Somerset, who settled at Dorchester, MA . Family members: wife, Winifred; sons Thomas, 23, John, 20, Giles, 8, and Joseph, 6; daughters Elizabeth and Mary Gilbert; step-daughter, Dorothy Combe, 15, and possibly another step-daughter, Joan Combe.
Matthew Hearn (perhaps not married).
William Malton (family members not identified).
Thomas Richards of Pitminster, Somerset, who settled at Dorchester, MA. Family members: Wealthean Loring, wife; sons Thomas Jr., 16, John, 10, and James, 2; daughters Anne, 8, Alice, 6, and Hannah, 4.
Thomas Bushrod, who may have come from Dorchester, England; family members not known.
Hugh Norman of Pitminster, Somerset, believed to be a cousin of Thomas Richards.

In this list, the wife of William Lane is Agnes.   Researchers identify her as being Agnes Farnsworth.

That is a quite distinctive name, and one would think that records could be sourced.

The only marriage for an Agnes Farnworth is in 1594 in London, to Rowland Rafcliffe. It would be a brave person who would attribute the last name to Agnes Farnsworth!

Perhaps she married twice?  Or was that not her real identity?  

Perhaps she is related to this Richard Farnworth.

Richard Farnworth (died 1666) was an English Quaker writer of tracts.

Life
Farnworth was born in the north of England, and appears to have been a labouring man. In 1651 he attended the Quaker yearly meeting at Balby in Yorkshire, where he resided, when he was convinced by the preaching of George Fox. Joining the Society of Friends, became a minister. For some time he seems to have attached himself to Fox, with whom he visited Swarthmore in 1652. During this year he interrupted a congregation at a church in or near Wakefield, but was permitted to leave without molestation.
In 1655 Farnworth was put out of a church in Worcester for asking a question of Richard Baxter, who was preaching, and in the same year was imprisoned at Banbury for not raising his hat to the mayor. He was offered his release if he would pay the gaoler's fees, which he refused to do on the ground that his imprisonment was illegal, when he was offered the oath of abjuration, and on his declining to take it was committed to prison for six months. The latter part of his life was spent in ministerial journeys.
Farnworth died in the parish of St. Thomas Apostle, London, on 29 June 1666, of fever. One of the more successful of the early Quaker ministers, he was praised by the Quaker historian William Sewel as "a man of notable gifts"

Farnworth was a town in Lancashire, and more than likely Agnes would have been a resident there.

However there was another Farnworth who settled in America.

Matthias Famsworth was one of the early settlers who followed the Pilgrim Fathers, founded communities upon the lines marked out by them, and completed their work by transmitting some of their qualities to their descendants. If we of the nineteenth century have inherited some small portion — and let us hope that such is the case — we have ample cause for gratulation. 

The following pages will show that the descendants of Matthias Farnsworth have enjoyed in a marked degree the respect of their fellow-men ; that they have ever been earnest workers ; that such worldly honors as have come to individuals of the name, such positions as have been attained in the various pathways of life, have been the reward of merit rather than the result of self-seeking or favoritism ; that they have been self-made in the truest sense, and it is the proud boast of the author of this book that, in a search for genealogical material extending over more than half a century, the prison and the almshouse have contributed no names to the record. May future generations do as well.

The families of Farnsworth in the United States are all of English origin, and undoubtedly derive their name from one of two places in Lancashire, England, bearing the name of Farnworth. One of them is in the parish of Prescott, not far from Liverpool, on the way to Manchester. It is believed, however, 

that the family derived its name from Farnworth, in the parish of Dean, a few miles north-west from Manchester, in the Hundred of Salford. The name of those places has always been spelled without an s, and the families bearing the name in England almost uniformly write it Farnworth. All the immigrants of that name to this country in the seventeenth century wrote it in the same, or substantially the same, way. 

But as the writers and recorders of those early times were not well instructed in orthography, they were not at all uniform in their spelling of this name. Thus we find ffarneworth, ffernvorth, ffearneworth, ffarnot, ffarnom, ffearnoth, and many other forms. 

The Farnworths themselves were generally very little more uniform in their spelling than others were, until in the early part of the eighteenth century it was gradually changed to Farnsworth. The Groton records almost uniformly spell the name without an s until about 1750; but the usage of the family had changed somewhat earlier. The pronunciation in early times in this country was probably as if spelled Farnoth, as it is spelled in some of the records. 

Joseph Farnsworth of Dorchester, Mass., is the first person bearing the name of Farnsworth that we know of in this country. He is first heard of there about 1632, but he probably came over with the Dorchester Company, though perhaps not in the first vessel. He was admitted freeman March 14, 1638-9. Another Joseph Farnsworth, probably his son, was admitted freeman May 2, 1649. The name is spelled in the record in both cases "ffarnworth." He died Jan. 12, 1660, and his will was proved and 

is recorded in Suffolk Registry of Wills, vol. i., fol. 327, and has been printed in the Historic-Genealogical Register, vol. IX., p. 140. 

He provides in it for his wife, whom he calls " Mary, formerly wife of John Long and Thomas Long." He also gives legacies to his daughters, Elizabeth, wife of John Mansfield; Esther, Mary, wife of Abraham Ripley ; his grandson, ** Joseph Peck, son of Simon Peck, who married with Hannah, my daughter, now deceased," and Rebecca, and also to his eldest son Joseph, although he had, as he says, " already assisted him greatly," and the rest to his son Samuel, who appears to have been a minor. 

The inventory returned amounted to ;;£ 206 18s. 2d. Joseph's first wife's name was Elizabeth, surname unknown. After Joseph's death his widow very soon married John Wilcock, then resident at Dorchester. She was executor of her husband "ffarnworth's " will, and joining her husband Wilcock she made a deed of part of his land, April 20, i66o, to William Pond : Suffolk Deeds, B. VII., fol. 296. 

https://archive.org/stream/matthiasfarnswor00farn/matthiasfarnswor00farn_djvu.txt

However the following Lane children were born in Beaminster

1.      Elizabeth Lane               1605

2.      Avis Lane         18 July 1606

3.      William Lane    28 Aug 1606

4.      Agnes Lane      30 Dec 1608    On records on Find My Past her father is William, on                                                      Ancestry it is Humphrey, for the same record

5.      Andrew Lane    9 May 1610

6.      Mary Lane        c 1610

7.      George Lane     Oct 1612

If William and Agnes and his designated children arrived in 1635, including Elizabeth and Mary then Joan Lane is not their daughter, and, perhaps Elizabeth and Mary were also married, as by then they would have been old maids!

Unfortunately the wife of Edward Baker will have to remain a mystery.

The Roberts Family

The following is just another example of the incorrect records which are online about so many original settlers in America.

·        Name: Thomas Roberts

·        Surname: Roberts

·        Given Name: Thomas

·        Sex: M

·        Birth: 1600 in Woolaston, Glouster, England

·        Christening: 22 Nov 1612 Cranbrook, , England

·        Death: 27 Sep 1673 in Hiltonpointriver, Dover, Strafford, Nh

·        Burial: BEF 30 Jun 1674 Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire, Roberts Cemetery

·        Ancestral File #: 7Z56-B9

  Note: Thomas Roberts is not the son of Sir Thomas Roberts and Frances James.

·        Marriage 1 Rebecca (Hilton?) b: 1602 in , Wearmouth, Durham, England c: in Dover, Strafford, n.h.

Married: 1627 in Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire

Children

• Thomas Thomas Roberts b: 1633/1655 in Dover, Strafford, Nh
• Jane Roberts b: 1627 in Of, Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire
• Anna Roberts b: 1639 in Of, Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire
•   Hester (Esther) Roberts b: 1626 in Dover Neck, Strafford, Nh
• Elizabeth Roberts b: 1641 in Dover Neck, Strafford, Nh
•    Sarah Roberts b: 1643 in Dover, Strafford, New Hampshire, England
• Hesther Roberts b: 1637 in Dover, Strafford, Nh
• William Roberts b: 6 Aug 1614 in Durham, Stafford, New Hampshire
• Ann Roberts b: 1606 in , Glassenbury, Kent, England
• John Roberts b: 25 Mar 1621 in Glassenbury, Kent, England

Sources:Repository: Name: Family History LibrarySalt Lake City, Utah 84150 USA

Title: Ancestral File (R)Author: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Publication: Copyright (c) 1987, June 1998, data as of 5 January 1998
Note: Ancestral File of LDS has error -- "Thomas Roberts born in Woolaston, Worcestershire (about 1600) and emigrated to America, where he died in 1673 "...," cannot have been the second son , nor any son, of Sir Thomas Roberts of Glassenbury, Kent, and his wife Frances James." see ref by Stephen Wilson.

1.                Title: Roberts of Glassenbury  Author: Wilson, Stephen
Publication: Blog post, http://www.glassenbury.blogspot.com/ (version 10 Mar 2002)
Note: Sir Thomas Roberts had issue by his wife Frances James.

Their second son was Thomas Roberts, baptised at Cranbrook, Kent, October II 1590. He made his Will 23 November 1644 and it was proved by Walter Roberts 2 December 1647.

2.                In the Cranbrook Church Register there is an entry for a burial of a Thomas Roberts on May 3. 1645, which w e may reasonably conclude refers to this man.

3.                His father had left him by Will the sum of £5 0 a year, which in 1641/2 became the subject of Chancery Proceedings {Charles 1st, R315}. I n these proceedings reference is made to the complainant, Thomas Roberts, gentleman; to Sir Thomas Roberts, knight & baronet, his father and to Sir Walter Roberts. Peter Courthope is another party to the dispute. There are other Chancery Proceedings on more or less the same subject and with the same parties in 1641 {Charles 1st, R8/4} as in 1639 {Charles 1st, R38/50}.

The Will of this Thomas Roberts "of Glassenbury, Kent, Esqr." {ref: P.C.C. 247 Fines}, mentions Sir Walter Roberts and "the Lady Roberts" his mother. He was unmarried. and had no children.

Thus, the Thomas Roberts born in Woolaston, Worcestershire (about 1600) and emigrated to Amerca, where he died in 1673 after having had issue through his wife (evidently married about 1627) Rebecca Hilton, cannot have been the second son, nor any son, of Sir Thomas Roberts of Glassenbury, Kent, and his wife Frances James.

 The various American and French web-sites whic h claim this relationship take into consideration neither the fact that their Thomas Roberts was born in Worcestershire, the only claimed child of this Kent family to have been born there; nor that Worcestershire is a long way from Kent; nor that the Roberts of Glassenbury had no ancestral connection with that western county. Worcestershire is, on the other hand, nearer Wales, where Roberts was and is one of the commonest names, as is Thomas.

Neither have they taken into account the fact that the Irish Roberts of Glassenbury family of baronets (now resident in the USA) used to claim descent from the very same Thomas Roberts that the American websites claim. That descent was considered not capable of proof by Garter King at Arms, and accordingly a new Baronetage was created for the Irish Roberts family in 1809. The latest (1999) "Burke's Peerage" entry for the family claims no such descent.

The erroneous Woolaston-New Hampshire descent has been enshrined in the International Genealogical Index of the Mormon Church and is leading astray various amateur genealogists who do not have access to fuller sources. The probably reason for this is that, according to, amongst others, Col. J. W. Tyler, in his articles on the Kent and Sussex family in "Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica", vols. 6 & 7 (1927/8), various royal descents are traceable through this family, and thus the various web sites claim connections with Charlemagne and many many others.

Common sense, as well as a two volume typescript by Dorothy Wyndham on the family, which is deposited in the Society of Genealogists library in London, show that neither the Irish Roberts nor the American ones, can claim descent from this Thomas, and that if there is some reason for believing that the Irish family may be a branch of the Kent and Sussex one, there is no reason to suppose that the American family is in any way connected to them.

29th May 2002:
Please also look at the following succinct web site which proves that the father of the American Thomas Roberts of Woolaston was a John Roberts and not Sir Thomas of the Glassenbury family: www.imt.net/~toss/Roberts.html
(2nd December 2002)
You might also look up my subsequent BloGUer site, which has a promising fruitful line of ascent for the Roberts of Woolaston: RobertsofWoolaston.blogspot.com
-----
[above mentioned blogspot follows]TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 05, 2002

That Governor Thomas Roberts was the son of John Roberts of Woolaston is clear (for those who have any doubts please consult www.glassenbury.blogspot.com).

In "The Visitation of Huntingdonshire" (1613), Camden Society, London (1849), p. 31 (pedigree of APRHESE), there is a reference to a "John Roberts of Wolastone" who was the first of four husbands of Cassandra ap Rhese, the daughter of William ap Rhese (or Price), who was the son and heir of Robert and his wife Joan (the daughter of John Otter), and of Elizabeth, daughter and sole heir of Robert Latimer of Duntish. Robert ap Rhese was the son of Isaac & Joane , sister of Sir Reginald Bray, Knight & Counsellor to King Henry VII. Isaac was the son of Juon ap Rhese and a daughter and co-heir of Wonton. Juon was the son of Mathew ap Rhese of La n in Brecknock and of a daughter and heir of Radnall. And finally, Mathew was the son of Juon and a daughter and heire of Cradock. The pedigree also gives a long ascent of Joane Otter from Richard Washingley, who is mentioned in 1366.

This John Roberts would have been of the generation before the Visitation (1613), therefore perhaps not the father but grandfather of the Thomas Roberts who became Governor of Dover, New Hampshire, if this is the right Woolaston.

The link seems worthy of more research for those interested in a possible ascent for Governor Roberts.

This was discovered while trying to establish to pedigree of Amy Roberts.  It turns out she was not even a relative!

The Hollister Family

7GU  Sarah Hollister was the daughter of

8GU  Lieut John Hollister was purported to arrive in 1642, and his wife was Joanna Treat, however there is research which suggests there are two John Hollisters.  One who had a quarrel with the church. One lived in Wethersfield, the other later returned to England but lived at Weymouth

That was incorrect.

 "It is not pretended that the work is complete; probably in some cases it is not correct, but the compiler has tried to make it as nearly so as possible. He would be glad to be informed of any error his readers may discover. 

For the benefit of those not familiar with genealogical works, the following explanation is given: The descendants of Lieut. John Hollister are numbered consecutively. When an account of their families or other information is given, their number is preceded by the mark +, and the reader will look in the next generation, under the same number, which is used as a family number and enclosed in parenthesis. 

Following the names of heads of families is a line in parenthesis giving the names of all the ancestors back to Lieut. John. The small figure at the right indicating the generation. 

The marriage-name of female descendants is given in parenthesis, after the family name. 

These consecutive and family numbers enable the reader, by referring forward or backward, to find the names of the descendants or ancestors of anv member of the family. ......

John Hollister, the emigrant to America, is known to have been an Englishman,"!* and the Hollisters, if indeed they are not of Anglo-SaxonJ stock, were long settled in England. We do not know that they were confined to any particular part of the kingdom, but most of the English Hollisters of whom we have any knowledge lived in Gloucestershire, Somersetshire, or Wiltshire.§ ......

We have been told, by a Dutch gentleman, that the name is not uncommon in Holland. If this be so, it proves nothing. The Pilgrim fathers were not the only Englishmen who found refuge in Holland. If one English Hollister found his way either in the sixteenth or seventeenth century as many of his descendants may be living there as there are Hollisters in America. 

§ John Hollister of Chicago, the only Englishman of the name I have found in America, says his ancestors have been landholders in Hampshire,. England, for many generations. — L. W. C. 

In the sixth year of Queen Elizabeth (i. c, between Nov. 17, 1563, and Nov. 17, 1564), when Henry, Lord Berkeley, sold the fourth part of his manor of Almondsbury, Gloucestershire, to John Hollister and others.* The earliest Hollister will of which we have an abstract is that of John **of Bristol, merchant," dated July 29, 1575. 

 The parish register of Stinchcombe, Glou., begins in 1583, and in 1584 it records the marriage of one Hollister and the burial of another. 

The earliest mention we have found of the name is int The late Hon. Gideon 11. Ilollister of Litchfield, Conn., collected a number of very valuable manuscript accounts of the English Hollisters. In 1880 he permitted Wm. H. Upton to take a copy of his papers. From these MSS. and Mr. Upton's own collections most of the following account of the English Hollisters is taken. 

The late Hon. Gideon H. Hollister told the writer that he once possessed a pedigree which traced the ancestry of John the Emigrant back several generations. The pedigree had been lost, and he could not remember where he got it. He always disclaimed the possession of sufficient genealogical training to enable him to speak authoritatively on such subjects, but he was satisfied that the pedigree was genuine. He firmly believed that he was descended from John Hollister who purchased the manor 

of Stinchcombe,* Glou., April 24, 1608, and we therefore think it well to give some account of that family. ....

John Hollister whose wife Maryan was buried Aug. 5, 1585. We suppose this to be the John Hollister who bought the manors of Stinchcombe and Bradstone in 1608 (see A^ p. 13). Query: was his father's name Roger .^ ^See third note, p. 13) in which case he must have had a son, viz.: 

 + 5. Roger? (see Ay p. 13). 

Probably this John had a second wife Agnes, who was a widow in 1621, and made a will (C, page 14). By his wife Agnes he seems to have had the five children following, unless Joan, Margaret, and Ann were by her other husband, viz.: 

Roger Hollister, whom we take to be the Roger mentioned at ^, p. 13, ante, and son of John, No. 4, of the First Generation, married, Dec. 28, 1607, Alice Fisher, and had at least two children, viz,: 

+ 15. John? baptized Oct. 29, 1609. 

16. Mary an? baptized July 20, 1616, which would make her rather ancient to be the Marian who married Richard Atwood, Dec. 2, 1658. 

15. Johns Hollister had children, according to the Register, as follows: 

17. Mary* baptized May 2, 1640. 

18. Hannah* baptized March 2, 1642. 

We suppose this to have been the John who sold Stinchcombe some time before 1649, — probably some years before that (see A, page 13, ante). Whether he went to the colonies or was the John who was buried at Stinchcombe, March 4, 1642, is a question that remains to be answered. 

Lieut. John' Hollister. 

John' Hollister, the ancestor of the American family of that name, is said to have been born in England in 1612, and to have emigrated to America about 1642. The compiler has sought in vain for some conclusive authority for these two statements. Nor can the place of his birth be positively given, though it is supposed he sailed from Bristol, England. 

https://archive.org/stream/hollisterfamily00casegoog/hollisterfamily00casegoog_djvu.txt

More recent research indicates that

John may have been born in Stinchcombe, Bristol, England. Mr. Alpheus Hollister of PA wrote: "the Hollisters were from Bristol, England, a good family as early as Henry VIII. There was a John Hollister, Lord of the Manor of Stinchcombe in 1608. Dennis Hollister was a member of Cromwell's Privy Council after the Protectorate was established. The name is derived from "Holly" and "Ter" or "Terre", which means Holly land or the place of Holly trees. There is still a hamlet in England bearing the name of Hollester or Hollesterre." (date of this writing unknown.) 


John likely departed for the colonies through the port of Bristol and may have settled first in Watertown, MA, in 1635, briefly in Weymouth, MA in 1643, before resettling in Wethersfield, CT in 1644, where he had already lived in 1642, He first appears in CT records in 1642. John was given a double land grant for services to the colonies and became a large landowner in Wethersfield, including a section called Naubuck Farms, which was later to become the town of Glastonbury, on the east side of the Connecticut River, which became a town in 1693.

Most of a lot of 900 acres remained in the family until 1884 when Charles Hollister died; the house in which he had lived, "the Old Red House" was built in 1675. It is or was "located on the West Bank of Roaring Brook, facing South, on the road leading to the Ry-Hollister Ferry. The Hollister Ferry, to this day, still runs May to October." John is recorded as a juror in Wethersfield in 1642 (A group of LDS researchers give parents of John as Thomas Hale and Joan Kirby, although why this should be so is unclear. All of the Hales other 12 children, born both before and after John, have the surname Hale. Perhaps John was orphaned and taken in by an Aunt, but there is no explanation given)

Nonetheless, he must have been of a good family and well educated, for he immediately became one of the influential men of Wethersfield and the Connecticut Colony. On May 10, 1643 he was declared a freeman, and in 1644 and April, 1645, he was deputy to the general court. Until 1656 he represented the town of Wethersfield many times. He became Lt. of the local militia, the Wethersfield Train Band. In 1654 he served on Wethersfield's War Committee. (early colonial Indian wars).

DNA Matches have revealed that

Lt John was the son of Thomas Hollister and Alice Walker and had an elder brother Thomas both born in Olveston

8GU  Joana Treat

Joanna was the daughter of

9GU Richard Treat 1584 - 1669 and Alice Gaylord  1594 - 1670.  They came from Pitminster in Somerset.

 The Treat Family

Richard Treat (or Trott) (1584–1669) was an early settler in New England and a patentee of the Royal Charter of Connecticut, 1662.

He was baptized on August 28, 1584, at Pitminster, county of Somerset, England, the son of Robert and Honoria Trott, and died on April 27, 1669, at Wethersfield, Hartford County, Connecticut. He was an early New England settler who emigrated from Pitminster, England, to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1637. 

He was married on April 27, 1615, at Pitminster, Somerset County, England, to Alice Gaylord (born May 10, 1594, at Pitminster, Somerset County, England, she died at Wethersfield, Hartford County, Connecticut). She was the daughter of Hugh Gaylord and Joanna. 

Richard and Alice were the parents of twelve children. Their son, Robert Treat (1624–1710), served as governor of Connecticut from 1683 to 1698. Their daughter, Joanna, was the wife of Lieut. John Hollister. Their daughter, Susanna, was the wife of Robert Webster, the son of John Webster (governor). Their daughter, Honor married John Deming, an early Puritan settler and original patentee of the Royal Charter of Connecticut. 

He was one of the first settlers of Wethersfield, Connecticut in 1637 and was an extensive landowner in the town (over 900 acres). He represented Wethersfield in the first general court in 1637. He was appointed in 1642 by the general court, in connection with Gov. George Wyllys, Messrs. Haines, Hopkins, Whiting, and others, to superintend building a ship, and to collect a revenue for that object.

In the list of Freeman (Colonial) of Wethersfield for 1659, only three besides Richard Treat, Sr., are styled Mr., and he bore that title as early as 1642, and perhaps earlier. Mr. Treat must have been a man of high social standing and of much influence in the town of Wethersfield, and in the colony of Connecticut.

He was chosen a juror, June 15, 1643 and grand juror, on September 15 of the same year.

In April, 1644, he was chosen deputy, and was annually elected for fourteen years, up to 1657-8. From 1658 to 1665, he was elected assistant magistrate of the colony eight times, and was named in the royal charter of Charles II as one of the original patentees of the Charter of the Colony of Connecticut. On Oct. 25,1644, he and Mr. Wells were the committee and the revenue collectors of the Fenwick tax a fund for the support of students in the college at Cambridge. In 1654, he was chosen on a committee to lay out lands granted by the town and in 1660, he was elected a townsman, an office answering to the present selectmen

Richard Treat's descendants number in the thousands today. Some of his notable descendants include

• George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States

• George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States

Some pretty impressive ancestors!

9th Great Uncle

Robert Treat (February 23, 1624 – July 12, 1710) was an American colonial leader, militia officer and governor of the Connecticut Colony between 1683 and 1698 and the founder of Newark, New Jersey.
Treat was born in Pitminster, Somerset, England and emigrated to Massachusetts with his family when he was fifteen. His father was Richard Treat and his mother was Alice Gaylord. His family were early settlers at Wethersfield, Connecticut. He settled in Milford, Connecticut in 1639 and became one of the leaders of the New Haven Colony, serving in the General Court as its assembly was known.
On Christmas Day, 1647 he married Jane Tapp in Milford, with whom he had eight children. Jane died on October 31, 1703. He then married Mrs. Elizabeth (Powell) Bryan, the daughter of Elder Michael and Abigail Powell of Boston, on October 24, 1705. She was twice widowed before marrying Gov. Treat. She died on January 10, 1706.

When the Connecticut Charter of 1662 forced the New Haven Colony to merge with Connecticut in 1665, Treat led a group of dissidents who left the colony. They moved to New Jersey in 1666 where they were joined by other dissidents from Branford, Connecticut, another part of the former New Haven Colony. The dissidents from Branford were led by Abraham Pierson, Sr. Robert Treat wanted the new community to be named Milford, New Jersey. Pierson, a devout Puritan, preferred the name New Ark, and this place is now known as Newark. Robert himself returned to Milford, Connecticut in 1672 and lived there the rest of his life.

Treat headed the colony's militia for several years, principally against the Narragansett Indians. This included participating in King Philip's War in 1676. He served on the Governor's Council continuously from 1676 to 1708.

First elected Governor in 1683, Treat was supplanted by Sir Edmund Andros in 1687, making Connecticut part of the Dominion of New England. Treat is credited with having a role in concealing the state's charter in the Charter Oak, and resumed his job as governor when the dominion scheme fell apart in 1689. He was re-elected annually until being defeated by Fitz-John Winthrop in 1698.
Treat died in Milford, New Haven County, Connecticut, on July 12, 1710. He is interred at Milford Cemetery in Connecticut


Richard Treat was the son of

10th GU  Robert Treat 1538 - 1599 and Honour Lambert 1535 - 1627

Robert was the son of

11GU  Richard Treat/Trott 1520 - 1599  and Johana Scadding  1520 - 1577.

Richard Treat was the son of

William Treat  1480 - 1571 and his wife Joanna  1484 - 1577

 The family lived at Staplegrove.

Alice Gaylord was the daughter of

9GU  Hugh Gayford 1553  - 1614  and Joan Alwyn 1570 - 1628

Hugh Gayford was the son of

10GU  Nicholas Guillard 1525 from France  and Johanne 

Who would Nicholas Guillard be?  The Guillard family is extensive, however one ancestor might well be:

Charles Guillar of Chartres, who was responsible for works in 1564.  At some point between 1564 and 1572 he became a Protestant.  Technically, he was removed from his see in 1566, and actually resigned in 1573. 

Another link to a religious family.

The Skinner Family

Jonathan Martin Derby was the son of  Captain Nathaniel Eliab Derby 1746 - 1814 and Jemina Skinner 1759 - 1812.  They were the 4th great grandparents.

Jemina Skinner was the daughter of
5GU  Joseph Skinner 1733 and Ruth Strong  1733

Joseph Skinner was the son of
6GU  Joseph Skinner 1703 -    who was the son of

7GU Benjamin Skinner 1681 - 1750 and

8GU Thomas Skinner 1645 - 1722 m  Mary Pratt 1643 - 1704 Colchester  He arrived in America in 1664
Thomas Skinner was the son of

9GU  Thomas Skinner  b 1617 in Chichester  m Elizabeth Knight. He was a Deacon, the son of
10GU Richard Skinner


Thomas Skinner of Maulden, victualler, purchased a house and 15 acres of land, lying in Mauldon aforesaid, on March 22, 1653/4, from Rowland Lahorne of Charlestowne, planter, with the assent and consent of Flora his wife. Acknowledged by both Rowland and Flora on 13 September 1654.[1] In Britain, a victualler is "A person who is licensed to sell alcohol." From Oxford Living Dictionaries, published by Oxford Press.

Dated tenth month, thirtieth day of 1653: Request of Maulden Selectmen for Thomas Skinner be licensed to sell Drink. Note: the tenth month and thirtieth day would have been Jan. 30th, because the first month at that time was March.

The "Sgt." in Sgt. Thomas Skinner's name: In common with the other towns, as required by law, Malden had early attended to its military duties. ... … The Middlesex regiment, consisting of sixteen companies, had been under the command of Major Daniel Gookin of Cambridge, who was commissioned May 5, 1676; but in 1680 it was divided, and Malden with the neighbouring towns formed the First Regiment under Major Gookin, while the western towns of the county were transferred to a new regiment under Major Peter Bulkley of Concord. In the latter year we hear of Sergeant [Sgt] Thomas Skinner in the Malden company, and of Sergeant Samuel Sprague in 1864.
In the information about "Sgt." Thomas Skinner (c1617-1703/4), she describes his headstone: "He was known as "Sergeant Thomas Skinner for his attachment in Malden's First Regiment of 1680. His gravestone has the large "pipe" design on both the foot stone and headstone."



Mary Pratt was the daughter of

9GU Richard Pratt  1620 - 1691 and Mary

Richard Pratt was the son of

10GU Joseph Pratt  1580 and Alice Walker Malden England
Joseph Pratt was the son of

11GU Joseph Pratt was the son of Rev William Pratt  1562 - 1629
Rev William Pratt was the son of

12GU  Andrew Pratt 1539  who was the son of
13GU  Thomas Pratte 1510


Rev. William Pratt, christened in Baldock, England in October of 1562, was the son of Andrew Pratt, and grandson of Thomas and Joan Pratt. For thirty years he was Rector of Stevenage, Herts, England. All six of his children are named on a tablet in the Church in memory of the father’s service there. His will was dated 1629.

William Pratt (1609–1678) was an early colonial settler, a lieutenant in the Pequot War, and a representative to the General Court of Connecticut for 23 terms. William and his older brother John were two sons of Reverend William Pratt of England. William and John came to Massachusetts on the same ship as John Cotton and Thomas Hooker. Before that, William and John Pratt went with Thomas Hooker to Holland. Rev. Hooker and Rev Cotton attended the same college at Cambridge as Rev. William Pratt. All were strong believers in the Puritan movement. Rev. Hooker was an ardent believer in universal Christian suffrage and along with William and John Pratt broke away from Rev. Cotton of Massachusetts Bay Colony.

They went on to found the Connecticut Colony, which on 14 January 1639 ratified "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut" which were inspired by the beliefs of Hooker. Connecticut is known as "The Constitution State" because of the hugely forward thinking of its founders, including the Pratt Brothers and Rev. Hooker who saw the future in American Democracy and freedom of Religion, as first espoused by its first truly Puritan Church leaders.

They arrived in 1636.

A slightly edited version of this article was published in the New England Historical and Genalogical Register by the New England Historical and Genealogical Society, 101 Newbury Street, Boston Massachusetts 02116, Volume CXLIX, October 1995, Pages 374-378.

For 141 years, since the publication of Rev. Frederick W. Chapman’s The Pratt Family, the mystery of the birthdates of John Pratt and his younger brother Lieutenant William Pratt have plagued Pratt family genealogists. The Pratt brothers were disciples of the Reverend Thomas Hooker, following him first to Newtown, Massachusetts, and then to Hartford, Connecticut, arriving as original settlers in 1636. William Pratt later distinguished himself in the Pequot Indian Wars, being named a Lieutenant, and eventually settled in the Potapaug Quarter of Saybrook (which much later became Essex, Connecticut) and served as a representative from Saybrook at the General Court for twenty-three sessions. John Pratt stayed in Hartford, where he died in 1655. Chapman believed that these two brothers were the sons of the Reverend William Pratt, a Cambridge-trained Anglican priest, who served as parish priest at Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England from 1598 till his death in 1629. Chapman listed the baptismal date of John as November 9, 1620, and asserts that no birth record survives for William Pratt. The assumption was that William Pratt, the younger brother, was born about 1622. All subsequent Pratt genealogists and historians who have dealt with the Pratt family have perpetuated these beliefs.

In July 1865, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register reviewed Chapman’s book, expressing admiration for his thoroughness in cataloguing the descendants of Lt. William Pratt. However, it attacked the assumption that Lieutenant William Pratt was the son of Reverend William Pratt of Stevenage, England. The editor commented, “The least satisfactory part of the book is the attempt to identify the father of the emigrant.” He agrees that it is clearly established that Rev. William Pratt had three sons, John, William, and Richard, of which John and William are not named in their father’s will. Also, the editor correctly argues that these birthdates would have made the sons of Rev. William Pratt much too young to have immigrated to America and become prominent citizens in Connecticut by 1636. He argues, “Why he would presume that they were in New England rather than dead, we do not see. We cannot see the slightest ground for the supposition, and trust if any proofs remain they will be furnished us.” Though belatedly, I wish to do just that.

Recent research at the County Records Office at Hertfordshire, England, has revealed the correct birthdates of John and William Pratt. The confusion over the birthdates arises from an understandable misinterpretation of the parish record. The microfilm copy of the original parish record states that the original records were damaged, and that some years were missing entirely. The year which would contain William’s baptism is missing; the year containing John’s baptism is out of order. The page to the immediate left of the page listing John’s baptism bears the date 1619; since John’s page is dateless, researchers in the nineteenth century assumed that John was born in 1620. However, by carefully studying the succession of months between the pages, it becomes apparent that the pages had been rebound out of order; the page listing John’s baptismal record obviously belongs earlier in the parish record.

Moreover, the back of the actual page recording John’s baptism lists the year as 1607. When accurately interpreted, the records show that the correct baptismal date for John Pratt is November 29, 1607, not 1620. An examination of the original Bishop’s Transcript lists the baptism of William Pratt, in the handwriting of his father, Rev. William Pratt, as June 6, 1609. The transcript for the year 1607, where John Pratt’s baptismal record should be, is missing entirely. The new birthdates, verified by Hertfordshire County Archivist Kathryn Thompson, make John and William Pratt approximately the right age to emigrate and become prominent citizens in New England.

http://jared.pratt-family.org/general_histories/general_english_origins.html

America.  Phineas Pratt was probably the first Pratt arrival in America, coming to Massachusetts Bay with Thomas Weston in 1622 and helping to establish the Wessagusett plantation.  Forty years later as an old man, he wrote an account to the court of Massachusetts of the colonists' early struggles.  He lived onto the ripe old age of ninety. 

Other early Pratts in New England were:

Joshua Pratt who arrived at Plymouth on the Anne in 1623 and Matthew Pratt who came in the 1630's and settled in Weymouth.  Matthew's line was covered in Francis Pratt's 1890 book The Pratt Family.

while John and William Pratt were Puritans who had settled in Hartford, Connecticut in 1636.  From this lineage came Jared and the Mormon Pratts.  There are, because of multiple wives, a staggering 30,000 descendants of the 18th century Jared Pratt.  

The Pilgrims were a Separatist group, and they established the Plymouth Colony in 1620. Non-separating Puritans played leading roles in establishing the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629, the Saybrook Colony in 1635, the Connecticut Colony in 1636, and the New Haven Colony in 1638. The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was established by settlers expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of their unorthodox religious opinions. Puritans were also active in New Hampshire before it became a crown colony in 1691.

When they established these villages around the towns, they appear to have an association with others who also lived in the same places in England, and they named the towns very often, after the towns they lived.

 Ruth Strong married Joseph Skinner  and are the 5th generation.

Ruth was the daughter of

6GU  Ezra Strong  1701 - 1785 and Angela Calvelly 1714 - 1787   They lived in Lebanon Connecticut.  

Ezra Strong was the son of

7GU   Jedidiah Strong 1667 - 1709  and Abijah Ingersoll 1663 - 1732

Jedidiah Strong was the son of

8GU  Jedidiah Strong  1637 - 1733 and Freedom Woodward 1642 - 1681

Jedidiah Strong was the son of

9GU  John Strong and Abigail Ford.   Who were the parents of Mary Strong who married John Clark.

Angela Calvelly (Calvely) was the daughter of

7GU  Philip Calvely 1688 from Colchester who may have been a stone mason, and Hannah Mason.

Calverley is the English version of the name, and derived from a town. There have been many of the family who have been members of the Cleric.

The Ingersoll Family

Abijah Ingersoll was the daughter of

8GU John Ingersoll   1614 - 1684  and Abigail Bascom   c 1640

Abigail was the daughter of

Early New England ancestors included Thomas Bascom, constable of Northampton, Massachusetts, who came to America in the 1630s. Thomas Bascom came from England but was of Huguenot and French Basque ancestry.  On the "Mary and John"

9GU   Thomas Bascom. 1606 - 1682 and Avis Jessie Tanner  1617 - 1676

Thomas Bascom was the son of

10GU  John Bascom 1570 - 1624 and Jeanne Beaumont  1576 - 1624

John Bascom was the son of

11GU  Jean Bascom 1524 - 1626 and Margaret Barber 1536 - 1586   Jean was born Champagne France

Jean was the son of

12GU  Robert Bascom  1499 - 1548  and Marie Dornat 1505 - 1524   from Meaux France

Robert was the son of '

13GU  Guilliame (William)  Bascom 1443 - 1511 and Adelaide de Chabanne 1449 - 1521 fron Zon in the Ardennes.

Guilliame Bascom was the son of

14GU  Guilliame Bascom  1410 - 1490 and Marie de La Croix 1425 - 1493 from Tantas France

Marie was the daughter of

15GU Jehan de la Croix  (From the Cross) 1392 - 1452 and Katherine de la Garde 1400 - 1441 Nouzon in Ardennes

Ingersoll is a surname derived of the Old Norse words "Ingvar" or "Inger" and "sál", common words in found in modern Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian

Surnames derived from Old Norse have changed over time due the splitting of the language into modern Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Greenlandic, Faroese and Danish as well as names being changed with immigration into new countries like the United States.

This surname has split over time into some of these common spellings: Ingersoll, Ingersöll, Ingersol, Ingersole, Ingvarsson, Ingersson, Inkersoll, and Ingwersol.


During the Viking Age, from the late 8th century to the mid-11th century, the Old Norse language expanded through Europe as the Vikings conquered and settled areas like Normandy (Normanni in Old Norse) and Inkersall (Ingvarsál in Old Norse)

The Inkersell family were also Merchants in London.  Richard the son of Henry was admitted to the Taylors Merchants in 1606

Amongst the first settlers in North America, which could be considered a kinsman of the surname Inkersall, as a variable spelling of that family name was Richard and John Ingersoll settled in Salem in 1629 having arrived from Bedfordshire: Also at Salem at this time were Alice, Anne, George, James, Joanne, and Sarah: Sargent Ingersol arrived in Boston in 1820: Ann Ingersole settled in Maryland 1740: Colin Ingersoll, settled in Boston in 1765 accompanied by his servants.

John Bascome and Jeann Beaumont were the 10th Great Grandparents.

Jeann Beaumont was the daughter of

11GU  Sir Thomas Beaumont  1550 - 1614 and Catherine Farnham 1551 - 1624 

Catherine Farnham was the daughter of

12GU Sir Thomas Farmham 1524 - 1574 and Helen Chaloner c 1530

Thomas Farnham was the son of

13GU  William Farnham  who died in 1548

Helen Chaloner was the daughter of

13GU  Roger Chaloner  1490 - 1550

The most prominent family of the Challoner name in early-modern Ireland appears to have been descended from Roger Challoner of London (c 1490-1550).

As well as being a prominent London merchant (he appears on a 1537 list of members of the Worshipful Company of Mercers preserved in the Chapter House in Westminster), Roger was also a courtier to King Henry VIII. He worked directly for Henry as his Gentleman-Usher of the Privy Chamber, and also occupied offices as a Teller of the Receipt of the Exchequer, an official with the Duchy of Lancaster, and an Ecclesiastical Commissioner in Hertfordshire and Essex. It seems that Roger Challoner created much of his wealth through the buying and selling of Church property confiscated by the English crown during the reformation. Roger himself never appears to have lived in Ireland, but King Henry VIII granted him the fishing rights of the Corrib River in Galway City in 1538. It was only in the 1550s that we see Roger’s sons John and Francis begin to take an active interest in the country they would both eventually settle in.

Roger Challoner was born around 1490 to Thomas Chaloner of Beaumaris on the Isle of Anglesey in Wales and his wife Agnes Thickness. It is unclear whether it was Roger or his father Thomas who moved the family to London, or even if Roger was himself born in London. The only thing we can say is that his family was the Challoner family of North Wales which was descended from the 12th century lord, Maelog Crwm of Arllchwedd Isaf (born about 1130).

As was the tradition of securing "good" marriages, these families died rather well.  They were all Members of Parliament, with some very interesting stories in their Biography.

Sir Thomas Farnham

b. by 1527, 2nd s. of William Farnham (d. 6 May 1548), and bro. of John. m. Helen, da. of Roger Chaloner, 2da.
Steward and bailiff, Leics. lands of late bp. of Lincoln from 1549; teller of the Exchequer May 1552-60; esquire of the body at Q. Elizabeth’s coronation; clerk of liveries in ct. of wards July 1559-61; particular surveyor for the Exchequer in Leics. from 1561; j.p. Leics. from c.1559.

Farnham presumably acquired his lucrative Exchequer office through his elder brother’s court connexions and remained a government official for the rest of his life. His brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Chaloner^†, surrendered his tellership in his favour, and was no doubt helpful in securing his advancement. Shortly after Elizabeth’s succession, Farnham transferred to the court of wards, having been granted the profitable clerkship of the liveries there for life. By October 1561, however, he had surrendered his appointment, probably through ill-health, and retired to his Leicestershire seat, becoming particular surveyor of Exchequer lands and a justice of the peace. Less than a year later, on 4 Sept. 1562, he died, still comparatively young.

Between 1548 and his death he bought lands which yielded a total income of well over £100 a year, his major purchase after Elizabeth’s accession being Smith’s manor in Quorndon, the last remaining property outside his control in his native parish: it cost £200. He also speculated in land, and his inquisition post mortem testifies to the success of his activities, showing extensive estates in Quorndon, Stoughton and elsewhere in Leicestershire, several other counties, and a London house. His bequests came to nearly £1,000 and there is no suggestion that any of this was to be raised from the landed estate. His will is long, revealing his interests and friends in Leicestershire and London, and confirming the presumption, based on his appearance in the list of those who stood for the ‘true religion’ in the Parliament of October 1553, that he held radical religious views, for the beneficiaries included many of the leading puritans of the early years of Elizabeth’s reign.

Probably 16 men who sat in the House of Commons during the reign are mentioned, most being puritans; nine were Farnham’s fellow-Members in 1559, when he was returned for Thomas Copley’s borough of Gatton. The principal heirs were his infant daughters Anne and Katherine (who married the son of Nicholas Beaumont), but he wanted most of his property to go to his brother John. He therefore left his daughters the third of his property which the law demanded, bidding them to surrender it to John when they came of age for 400 marks. The other lands went immediately to John. Many relatives and servants received minor bequests, and money was left for the poor of Leicester. Thomas’s wife Helen was to enjoy a life interest in Stoughton and was sole executrix and residuary legatee. Farnham was buried at Stoughton under a large tomb of carved alabaster, with full length figures of himself in armour and his wife.

11GU  Sir Thomas Beaumont

BEAUMONT, Sir Thomas I (c.1555-1614), of Stoughton Grange, Leics.

b. c.1555, 3rd but 2nd surv. s. of Nicholas Beaumont† of Coleorton, Leics. and Anne, da. of William Saunders of Welford, Northants.; bro. of Sir Henry Beaumont I*. m. by 1584, Katherine (d. 10 May 1621), da. and h. of Thomas Farnham† of Stoughton Grange, 3s. 7da. kntd. 23 Apr. or 11 May 1603. d. 27 Nov. 1614.  Held office in
Leics. 1598-d.;2 commr. charitable uses, Leics. 1603,3 inquiry into lands of Henry Brooke alias Cobham†, 11th Lord Cobham, Leics. 1603, Bye plotters, Leics. 1603, Gunpowder plotters, Leics. 1606,4 subsidy 1605-8,5 oyer and terminer, Midlands rising, Leics. 1607;6 collector, fifteenths, Leics. 1607.7

Born into an important Leicestershire family, Beaumont was the younger brother of Sir Henry Beaumont, who inherited the family estates at Coleorton. He established himself in his native county by acquiring through marriage the manor of Stoughton, three miles south-east of Leicester, which he vigorously improved, converting 20 acres at Stoughton to pasture and exploiting coal deposits in Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire (not always profitably) in partnership with his son-in-law, Sir John Ashburnham, and Sir Percival Willoughby*.

Beaumont was nominated for Leicester in 1597 by the 4th earl of Huntingdon, only to be rejected as ‘an encloser himself, and unlikely to redress that wrong in others’. In 1604, however, he was returned for the county with his kinsman Sir George Villiers. When his partner Willoughby chose to sit for Nottinghamshire rather than Tamworth, where he had also been elected, Beaumont persuaded Willoughby to nominate his nephew, Sir Thomas Beaumont II, for the Tamworth seat. Uncle and nephew are never distinguished from one another in the records of the first Stuart Parliament. However, as the uncle was older and sat for a more prestigious seat it has been assumed that most of the references to Sir Thomas Beaumont relate to him.

Beaumont was certainly appointed on 24 Mar. 1604 to the committee to recommend expiring laws for continuance or repeal, as Sir Thomas Beaumont II was not returned for another three days. Consequently it seems almost certain that it was Beaumont who was appointed to consider the resulting bill on 23 June. He was probably among those ordered to consider a bill confirming the liberty of the subject (29 Mar.), and to attend conferences with the Lords on Union with Scotland (14 Apr.), purveyance (7 May), and wardship (22 May). His principal interest was in religion, and on 19 Apr. he was appointed to prepare for a conference with the Lords on that subject. He also spoke in the debate initiated by Sir James Perrot on 5 May, although his words are not recorded, and was named to committees for bills to prevent pluralism (4 June) and ‘to take away all excuse of not coming to church’ (27 June). His other legislative appointments included the bill against obstructions on navigable rivers (23 June), which was of interest to his partner Willoughby, who owned coal barges on the Trent.

In the second session Beaumont was joined by his elder brother, Sir Henry, who was elected senior knight of the shire for Leicestershire on 6 Feb. 1606. He continued to show an interest in religious issues, for on 22 Jan. he was appointed to the committee ‘to consider of the fittest course to provide for the general planting of a learned ministry’ and to combat non-residence. Seven days later he was named to the committee for the Sabbath observance bill. In the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot he urged, rather impractically on 3 Feb. that measures should be taken to prevent recusants from keeping house, and on the same day he was named to attend the conference with the Lords about the recusant laws. He was subsequently named to committees to consider bills for ‘the better direction of ecclesiastical proceedings’ (1 Apr.) and ‘against such as coming to church do refuse to receive the sacrament’ (7 April). On 3 Apr. he was among those ordered to confer with the Lords about ecclesiastical grievances.

On 31 Jan. 1606 Beaumont produced the navigable rivers bill from the the previous session, which had never been reported, and it was given a first reading. After the second reading on 7 Feb. he was named to the committee. The name ‘Sir Thomas Beaumont’ appears twice on the list of the committee to consider the bill to regulate legal fees on 14 Feb. 1606, suggesting that both Members with this name and style were appointed. Beaumont may have left before the end of the session as either he or his namesake were reported to be absent from Westminster on 24 May.

Beaumont was named to just six committees in the third session. He showed only a very limited interest in the Union, the main business of the session: on 28 Nov. 1606 he was added to a committee to prepare for a conference with the Lords and on 16 Feb. 1607 he opposed the expulsion of Christopher Piggott for insulting the Scots. Although not among those named to consider the bill to explain the 1604 statute regulating the leather industry after its second reading on 9 Dec. 1606, he apparently attended the committee, to whose members he tendered a proviso, the effect of which is unknown. The committee did not see fit to incorporate his proviso into the bill, but it was ‘remembered’ by Edward Alford at the report stage on 14 Mar. 1607. The House subsequently ordered the bill to be engrossed as it was, but gave permission for the proviso to be tendered again at third reading. There is no evidence that Beaumont took up this offer. On 18 Feb. 1607 Beaumont and his brother Sir Henry nominated the Leicestershire collectors of the second fifteenth voted the previous year.

By 1607 there were signs of growing tension between Beaumont and the 5th earl of Huntingdon, the head of the Hastings family who had recently come of age and replaced Beaumont’s elder brother, Sir Henry I, as custos rotulorum of Leicestershire. Probably as a consequence, Beaumont drew closer to the 1st Lord Grey of Groby (Sir Henry Grey†), Huntingdon’s rival for dominance in the county. Beaumont tried to block the appointment to the bench of Huntingdon’s great-uncle and confidant, Walter Hastings, in the summer of 1607. Beaumont objected to Walter because the latter was widely suspected of harbouring Catholic sympathies. In a letter to Huntingdon he declared that Walter was ineligible for office owing to his wife’s recusancy, claimed that he knew the appointment ‘to be against the mind of the Parliament’, and added that ‘if he lived to the next session it should be amended’. Beaumont also clashed with Huntingdon over Leicestershire’s local composition for purveyance. Indeed, the earl, who took over responsibility for raising this money in 1607, subsequently claimed that he had been consistently opposed by Beaumont.

In December 1607 Beaumont was compelled to bring an action in Star Chamber against a former servant, Coleman, who had sought revenge for his dismissal by claiming intimacy with his wife and daughters. Repetition of these stories was encouraged, if not instigated, by Walter Hastings’ son, the openly Catholic Sir Henry Hastings of Braunston, whom Beaumont had presented as a recusant at the local quarter sessions for a month’s absence from church and allegedly over-assessed for the subsidy. Hastings claimed that Beaumont was acting in collusion with his own Protestant cousin and namesake, Sir Henry Hastings*, against whom he had suits pending in the duchy of Lancaster court. Coleman was whipped, pilloried, and sentenced to life imprisonment, but escaped. However, sensational as the case was, its impact on county politics was probably mitigated by the refusal of Huntingdon and even Walter Hastings to support the allegations against Beaumont.

There is no evidence that Beaumont pursued his complaint against the appointment of Walter Hastings when Parliament resumed in 1610, but he was more prominent in the fourth session than he had been before. It is possible that he was added to the privileges committee, for although not recorded among those added to the committee at the beginning of the session he was listed as a member on 11 May, when the committee was ordered to draw up an order about receiving messages from the king. In the debate of 28 Feb. 1610, on the Great Contract, he expressed satisfaction that ‘contribution and retribution’ were being taken together, but urged proceeding gradually by considering the value of what was offered and what the country could afford before granting a supply. However, on 1 May he demanded ‘that we may first understand what is propounded’, as he complained that what was on offer was ‘darkly propounded’.

 In the supply debate on 13 June he criticized Humphrey May for attacking those who were reluctant to vote subsidies. Although he agreed that the king was ‘fit to be supplied’ and thought two subsidies were inadequate, he did not consider the time was yet right. He joined with Sir Francis Hastings and Herbert Croft in arguing that grievances and supply should go hand in hand and proposed that the latter should be deferred until James I had answered the grievances and the Contract had been concluded. Alternatively, if the king was not ready to give an immediate answer, he proposed that the session should be adjourned for three months, to give Members time to consult their constituents and seek their consent. Five days later he was appointed to the committee to prepare a message to the Lords about support.

On 22 May Beaumont expressed the House’s alarm at the king’s claim that the right to levy impositions formed part of his prerogative when he stated that there was ‘a fear, that our whole liberty be swallowed up’. He was named to a committee appointed to draw up a petition to the king about the subject on 3 July. Having been appointed to the Leicestershire commission to try the enclosure rioters apprehended in the Midland rising in 1607, he was named on 18 Feb. to consider a bill ‘for reformation of disorders and abuses amongst commoners, concerning their commons’. On 15 June he was appointed to the committee for the bill to endow a hospital and grammar school at Thetford, in Norfolk, which he opposed at the report stage on 26 June. He did not press his opposition to a division, but may have done enough to earn the hostility of the borough patron, the earl of Northampton.

Returning to Westminster for the fifth session, Beaumont argued on 2 Nov. 1610 that the Commons could only give a conditional reply to the king’s message about the Contract. He seems to have been unsure whether the concessions promised in the last session were still on the table and whether they would be binding. He was also concerned how the money to be paid to the king in compensation would be raised. Beaumont’s worries about the Contract became fully evident on 7 Nov., when he made his longest recorded speech. He argued that dangers lay ahead, whether they proceeded with the Contract or broke it off, as ‘both ways we must be undone’. If the king’s demands were met ‘the people [would be] driven to great want’, which was ‘too base for free-born men’. However, he feared the constitutional implications of breaking off the Contract, asking ‘what ... can become of us, when even as things now stand our liberties are infringed?’. He complained that ‘the liberty of the subjects [was] much impeached’ and that ‘Magna Carta [was] not now to be spoken of’. He was particularly resentful that the Crown continued to levy impositions and resort to purveyance, as in his eyes both were self-evidently illegal. He feared that if the Contract failed James would rely ever more on prerogative finance, further eroding the rule of law, and he asked ‘if these things be thus now, what may we expect to find them hereafter?’ Beaumont announced that, in general, his constituents had responded positively to the Contract, and had agreed that if all their grievances were addressed ‘they would be willing to give £200,000 a year and also to give some present supply’. However, he added that ‘they pressed me particularly to tell them whether the impositions, which were resolved in Parliament to be unlawful, were determined by the king to be laid down’. He also reported that many were anxious that the money to compensate the king should not all be rated upon land. Despite his misgivings about the consequences of rejecting the Contract, Beaumont eventually came down on the side of abandoning the negotiations. James’s demand for an additional supply of £500,000, he argued, made it ‘impossible for us to deal for it’.

Beaumont was one of the 30 Members summoned on 16 Nov. to an audience with the king, at which he ‘showed the greatness of impositions’. In his last recorded speech, on 23 Nov., he examined the case for granting James supply now that the Contract had failed. The first point was ‘the king’s necessities’, which, he conceded, was a matter ‘much to be respected’. However, he evidently doubted that a vote of taxation would solve James’s chronic financial problems or stem the rise of prerogative finance. Would anyone, he demanded, ‘undertake that the king shall not want hereafter?’. Next he considered the fear that James would resort to ‘privy seals, and execution of the penal laws’ (by which he was presumably referring to any statute which imposed a financial penalty), but he dismissed this possibility with the assertion that ‘the king is just’.

 He argued that there was no reason to vote subsidies, as the country was not threatened with invasion and Members had already performed a ‘testimony of our love’ by offering support ‘for the maintenance of the king’. Finally, he raised the question of the impositions. After dwelling on their deleterious impact on the economy he returned to the question of their legality and argued that in Scotland not only was there no comparable tax but there was a law that ‘no judge nor any other shall presume to expound the law contrary to the meaning of the law makers’. In England, he added bitterly, ‘we have the like laws, but they are more infringed’. He ended by calling for a committee, but the session was adjourned the following day.

Beaumont’s parliamentary career earned him a very mixed reputation. Sir William Heyricke[1]* wrote in 1614 that Leicestershire ‘got as good an opinion in the House the last Parliament by Sir William Skipwith* and Sir Thomas Beaumont the elder as any shire or county in England’. However the earl of Northampton called Beaumont ‘that notorious knave that opposed the king so powerfully in Parliament’.35 Perhaps as a result of opposition from the earl of Huntingdon, Beaumont was not elected to the Addled Parliament. He died on 27 Nov. 1614 and was buried at Stoughton.

 In his will, dated 20 Feb. 1613, he left £10 to the poor, especially the colliers at his Bedworth mine in Warwickshire. He also placed those of his estates which lay outside his native county in trust to pay off his debts, which were substantial, and to provide legacies for his brother Francis and his younger children. The Leicestershire estates were entailed on his eldest son. The profits from his mines he left to Sir John Ashburnham, although they were also to be used to provide an annuity of £40 for his brother. His grandson Thomas represented Leicestershire throughout the Protectorate

Thomas Beaumont was the son of

12GU  Nicholas Beaumont 1526 - 1585 and Ann Saunders 1528 - 1582

Nicholas Beaumont (born before 1526 – 1585), of Coleorton, Leicestershire, was an English politician. He was the eldest son of Richard Beaumont of Coleorton.

He was a Justice of the Peace for Leicestershire from 1588 and was appointed High Sheriff of Leicestershire for 1577–78. He was elected a Member (MP) of the Parliament of England for Leicestershire in 1563 and 1572 and for Bramber in 1584.

He married Anne, the daughter of William Saunders of Welford, Northamptonshire and had 4 sons, including his heir Henry Beaumont, MP for Leicester and another son, Thomas Beaumont who succeeded his brother as MP for Leicester

Ann Saunders was the daughter of
13GU  William Saunders 1501 - 1541 and Jane Marston 1510 - 1539

William Saunders  MP

b. by 1497, 1st s. of Henry Saunders of Ewell by Joan da. of John Lepton of Yorks. m. (1) Jane (d.1539), da. and coh. of William Marston of Horton, Surr., wid. of Nicholas Mynn (d.1528) of London and Norf., 3s. inc. Nicholas at least 1da.; (2) Joan, wid. of Thomas Gittons (d.c.1544) of London, 4da. suc. fa. 1518. 

Receiver, ct. augmentations, Surr. and Suss. 1540-48; j.p. Surr. 1541-64; commr. musters 1544, chantries, Surr., Suss. and Southwark 1546, relief, Surr. 1550, goods of churches and fraternities 1553, loan 1562; other commissions 1541-68; escheator, Surr. and Suss. 1548-9; sheriff 1555-6; surveyor of crown lands, Surr. and Suss. in 1562-3.

It is possible, but unlikely, that the William Saunders who sat for Gatton in 1529 was a cousin of the later Member of that name and an uncle of Thomas Saunders of Charlwood. This William Saunders, who belonged to a prosperous Surrey family, was probably resident in that county at the time (his son Nicholas, the famous Catholic controversialist, being born at Charlwood in the following year), and was presumably of an age to have been returned to Parliament; he may also have been a member of the Middle Temple. Yet he seems to have owned no land in Surrey and to have taken no part in its affairs, he is described by some writers as resident in Aston, a place-name which cannot be located in Surrey, and it thus seems likely that he left the county after Nicholas’s birth. Failing him, the Member for Gatton can only have been his cousin and namesake who was to sit again under Mary, and this is the conclusion adopted here.

Little is known about Saunders’s early life, and this little has been confused both by the statement, based upon a misreading of Henry Saunders’s will, that he was a second son, and by the inference from his signature on a copy of the Pendell rent rolls that he was acting as his own lawyer in 1520. The will makes it clear that he was the eldest son, and the fact that his brother Nicholas had then been married for at least four years sugggests that he was well over age at his father’s death. He was bequeathed considerable landed property, part of which, however, was to be administered by trustees while he received an annuity of £5; this arrangement lasted until April 1529, when the trustees conveyed the property to him. Neither his probable age nor his subsequent career makes it likely that he was the William Saunders who graduated BA at Cambridge in 1524-5.

He must have married his first wife soon after 1528, the year in which her first husband died, as their fourth child Erasmus was born in 1535: it is not known whether his five daughters were all by this wife, who was to die in 1539. His return to Parliament in 1529 would thus have coincided with his marriage and his entry upon his inheritance, but apart from his proximity to Gatton there is nothing to connect him with Sir Roger Copley, the owner of that borough and clearly the man responsible for the choice of both its Members. Nothing is known of Saunders’s part in the proceedings of this Parliament, nor is it more than a probability that he sat again in its successor of 1536 in accordance with the King’s general request for the re-election of the previous Members. He may have been returned a third time in 1539, when the names of the Gatton Members are unknown, but from then until 1553 he did not reappear in the House.


It is in 1537 that Saunders makes his first appearance in local affairs as a collector of rents for the manors of Ewell and Kingswood, the property of Merton priory: he was already a lessee of another of the priory’s manors, Chessington, of which in January 1536 he had succeeded Richard Rogers in a 21-year lease. If it was he, and not his cousin, who appears in a list of 1538 he had by then attached himself, if somewhat tenuously, to Cromwell: a William Saunder was one of the ‘gentlemen not to be allowed in my lord’s household aforesaid but when they have commandment or cause necessary to repair hither’. In the same year he was a member of the Surrey jury which returned an indictment of the Marquess of Exeter and Lord Montagu at Southwark. On 1 Feb. 1539 he was given the next vacancy as one of the 17 particular receivers of the court of augmentations, and within 18 months he was established in that office, which carried a salary of £20 a year and other recognised emoluments. In 1541 he became a member of the Inner Temple by special admission; there he joined his second cousin Thomas Saunders, already a lawyer of repute. When war came in 1543 his name was included among those of Surrey gentlemen required to provide men for the army overseas, his quota being three foot-soldiers. On the dissolution of the first court of augmentations in 1547 he lost his receivership without apparently being given an appointment in the new court: he was, however, amply compensated on 15 May by a life annuity of £80. 

His later enthusiasm for the Catholic cause notwithstanding, Saunders aided the progress of the Reformation in Surrey by his work for the court of augmentations and his membership of the commissions for chantries, for taking possession of the deanery of Hastings and for the sale of church goods in east Surrey: in March 1549 he was busy certifying the inventories of the village churches near Ewell. In 1553, however, he emerged as an ardent supporter of the new Queen. Although the claim that he became cofferer of her household is not supported by the accounts for the reign, which show that the office was held in turn by Thomas Weldon, Sir Richard Friston, Michael Wentworth and Richard Ward I, his name does appear on a list of annuities granted by the Queen ‘for service at Framlingham in her lifetime’ and he may therefore have served in her household, perhaps in a financial capacity.

He was certainly active against religious dissidents: according to a list of sheriffs of Surrey and Sussex ‘that did burn the innocents, with a list of such whom they burned’, Saunders burned the highest number, 14. It is thus not surprising to find him returned as knight of the shire to three Marian parliaments, on the last occasion as the senior Member, although his replacement in 1558 by the more moderate Sir Thomas Saunders (who had been sheriff at the time of his cousin’s second return for the county) may reflect some dislike of him for his share in the persecution, a consideration which would have told even more heavily against him if he had sought, in his old age, to sit in the Elizabethan House.
Saunders was brought repeatedly into conflict with that doughty Protestant (Sir) Thomas Cawarden. When on the outbreak of Wyatt’s rebellion Lord William Howard ordered the seizure of Cawarden’s armoury at Bletchingley, Sir Thomas Saunders as sheriff called on his cousin for help and together they made an inventory of the arms and arranged for their despatch. (In a brief transcript of one of the many documents relating to this episode William Saunders is described as Cawarden’s servant, but this must be a mistake). Cawarden was afterwards to complain to Queen Elizabeth that the inventory was incomplete, and that although the sheriff had been ordered to return everything only a few items had been restored.
Another occasion of ill feeling was Queen Mary’s grant of Nonsuch Palace to the 12th Earl of Arundel. Henry VIII had granted Cawarden several offices at Nonsuch, and it was with evident relish that Saunders aided John, Baron Lumley, the earl’s son-in-law, to evict Cawarden from the premises. Bletchingley, where Saunders’s ownership of the manor of Pendell made him a close neighbour of Cawarden, was yet another battleground between them. In 1547 Cawarden chose a new rector, William Wakeling, married with six children and a firm Protestant; he was replaced in 1554 by a Catholic, Robert Harvey, but restored probably soon after Mary’s death. Wakeling appears to have claimed the freehold of part of Pendell, for at a manorial court held in November 1562, before a full attendance of 22 homagers, Saunders produced the rent rolls of 1451 and 1491 and triumphantly refuted Wakeling’s claim.

It is clear from a Star Chamber suit in which he was involved that Saunders could inspire hostility in others than Cawarden. In 1547 one William Warner had sold him the manor of Parrock with an iron mill near Hartfield in Sussex, and after Warner’s death a claim by his son that the sale was not complete had been rejected in Chancery. The Warners’ lessee of the mill, Denise Bowyer, complained that Saunders had interfered with her use of the forge there, but it is not known how the case was decided as Denise Bowyer had only a 10-year lease and by 1564 Saunders was in possession of the mill: in 1577 the Warners formally abandoned their claim to the manor.

Under Elizabeth the Saunders of Ewell became one of the leading recusant families in Surrey. Saunders’s sons Nicholas and Erasmus were Catholic stalwarts and several of his daughters married into recusant families in Norfolk.



 When Roger Castell of Raveningham, Norfolk, contracted to marry Elizabeth Saunders he did so both with Saunders and with Thomas, 4th Duke of Norfolk, and among other Catholic peers with whom Saunders was intimate was Lord Lumley, whom he appointed overseer of his will. In 1542 Saunders had himself been appointed executor to Elizabeth Lady Carew, widow of Sir Nicholas Carew, and in 1560 his eldest son Nicholas married their daughter Elizabeth.

Although his father had been a younger son Saunders both inherited and acquired considerable property. From his father he received the manor of Batailles and other lands in Chessington, Epsom and Ewell after the expiry of successive life interests to his mother and sister-in-law Joan; he also came into the mansion at Ewell, a water-mill and lands in Chessington, Epsom and Ewell not belonging to Batailles manor, and a string of properties held by feoffees which included Pendell in Bletchingley and the Three Crowns inn, Southwark. Some of these Saunders sold, a house in Southwark for £140 in 1537 and land in Charlwood for 50 marks in 1544, but he more than offset them by buying the manors of Cardens in Kent, Chessington in Surrey and Parrock in Sussex.
By his will of 2 Oct. 1570, proved on the following 10 Nov., Saunders asked to be buried without pomp. He left farm animals, corn, household fittings and plate to his wife Joan, who was also to have a life interest in the manor of Cardens if she chose to live there. To his son Erasmus he gave his ‘cross of gold with a pearl in the end thereof’, his best doublet, a sum of £100 and a share with the third son Francis of Harsing marsh in Kent; Francis himself received jewelry, clothes, household goods, annuities totalling £25, a lease of property in Ashstead, Surrey, and lands in Cliffe, Kent. After small bequests to his daughters, his grandchildren, his stepson Oliver Gittons and his servants, Saunders bequeathed the rest of the estate to his eldest son Nicholas

14GU Henry Saunders 1640 - 1510 and Joan Lepton 1465 - 1510  The family were from Elwell Dorset

For over three hundred years the Stoughton Estate remained in the ownership of the Farnham family and its descendants. The family name changed through the marriage of Farnham to the Beaumont family who are believed to be descendants of John Beaumont. Sir Thomas Beaumont, 1st Baronet of Stoughton Grange lived at the house until he died in 1676.

The Woodward Family

John Strong and Abigail Ford were the parents of Jedidiah Strong 1637 - 1733  who married Freedom Woodward 1642 - 1681.  They were the 8th generation.

Freedom Woodward was the daughter of

 9GU  Dr Henry Woodward 1620 and Elizabeth Maher  c 1620

Elizabeth Mather was the daughter of

10GU  Thomas Mather 1575 from Munchwarton Lancashire who was the son of John Mather.

Freedom Woodward     Mother of Fourteen Children –

B.  about 1642 in Dorchester, Massachusetts  M. 18 Nov 1662 in Northampton, Massachusetts
Husband: Jedediah Strong  D. 10 May 1681 in Northampton, Massachusetts

Many women in the Puritan colonies had large families and Freedom Woodward was an example of that. Freedom was born in about 1642 in Dorchester, Massachusetts to Henry Woodward and Elizabeth Mather. She had two younger sisters named Experience and Thankful, and a brother John. Freedom was said to be a first cousin of Increase Mather, an important figure in the Massachusetts Bay colony.

The Woodward family moved to Northampton in 1658. On November 18, 1662, Freedom married Jedediah Strong. The first of her children was born on June 9, 1664; this would be followed by 13 more over the next 17 years. Her children were Elizabeth, Abigail, Jedediah, Ford, Hannah, Thankful, John, Sarah, Lydia, Mary, Experience, Preserved, John (again) and a baby who was unnamed. Of the children, four were known to have died as infants and another died at age 17.

In spite of having so many children, on May 31, 1674, a man in Northampton tried to kiss Freedom on the street. The man was brought to justice and fined 8 shillings for his act.

Freedom's 14th child was born on May 10, 1681, and she died a week later on the 17th. Her husband Jedediah remarried twice and lived a long life, dying at the age of 96.

Henry Woodward, a physician, arrived in Dorcester, MA from England on the "James"   1607   (Captain Taylor) in 1635. he served as a constable in Dorcester MA. He moved to Northampton, MA in 1659. He was one of the founders of the Church in Northampton. He served as a tithing-man there. He was killed either in a grist mill accident or by lightning on April 7, 1685 in Northampton.

Probably a relation to Elizabeth Mather

Richard Mather (1596 - April 22, 1669), was a Puritan clergyman in Colonial Boston, Massachusetts. He was father to Increase Mather and grandfather to Cotton Mather, both also celebrated Boston divines.

Biography

Mather was born in Lowton, in the parish of Winwick, Lancashire, England, of a family which was in reduced circumstances but entitled to bear a coat-of-arms.

He studied at Winwick grammar school, of which he was appointed a master in his fifteenth year, and left it in 1612 to become master of a newly established school at Toxteth Park, Liverpool. After a few months at Brasenose College, Oxford, he began in November 1618 to preach at Toxteth, and was ordained there, possibly only as deacon, early in 1619.

In August-November 1633 he was suspended for nonconformity in matters of ceremony; and in 1634 was again suspended by the visitors of Richard Neile, archbishop of York, who, hearing that he had never worn a surplice during the fifteen years of his ministry, refused to reinstate him and said that "it had been better for him that he had gotten seven bastards."

He had a great reputation as a preacher in and about Liverpool; but, advised by letters of John Cotton and Thomas Hooker, he was persuaded to join the company of pilgrims in May 1635 and embarked at Bristol for New England. He arrived at Boston on August 15, 1635, in the midst of one of the most catastrophic hurricanes of the colonial era. He was the pastor of Dorchester until his death in 1669.

Elizabeth Brother  https://archive.org/details/lineageofrevrich00math







A book to read   

Lineage of Rev. Richard Mather by Mather, Horace E 1827- Birth: 1596, England 

Death: Apr. 22, 1669, USA

Born in Lowton, Lancashire, England. Attended Brasenose College, Oxford in 1618. Pastor of church at Toxteth, Liverpool, c. 1618 to 1633. Emigrated from Bristol, England, to Dorchester, Mass. on the James in 1635. Pastor at Dorchester from 23 Aug. 1636 until death in 1669. Co-author of The Bay Psalm Book in 1639, the first book published in English in the American colonies. A leader of New England Congregationalism and a chief proponent of the Half-Way Covenant of 1662, which broadened church membership and helped to maintain ecclesiastical power in the Colony. Father of the Rev. Increase Mather (1639 - 1723), and grandfather of the Rev. Cotton Mather (1663 - 1728)

Henry Woodward the 9th generation, was perhaps unaware of his rich family heritage.

Henry Woodward was the son of

10GU Thomas Woodward 1550 and Elizabeth Tyson

Thomas Woodward was the son of

11GU  Hugh Woodward 1522 -  and Joannah Hawet  1530

Many different interpretations have been assumed by people regarding Joannah Hawet.  

It is unclear whether she was the daughter of Sir William Hawte and his wife Mary Guilford.  Their daughter was Jane Haute, who married Sit Thomas Wyatt.

 (Sir) William Hawte of Bishopsbourne (c. 1489-1539), whose wardship was granted to Sir Henry Frowyk in 1503, married Mary Guildford (daughter of Sir Richard Guildford, and relict of Christopher Kempe), and was by her father of Jane Haute, the wife of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger. William remarried to Margaret, daughter of Oliver Wood.

Hugh Woodward was the son of

12GU  Ralph Woodward 1508 - 1570 who married Jane Molyneux 1512 -1605

Ralph Woodward was the son of

13GU Hugh Woodward  1478 - 1507 who married Henrietta Southworth 1475 - 1508

Jane Molyneux was the daughter of

13GU  Richard Molyneux 1482 - 1512 who married Catherine Orrell 1480 - 1512 

---

[1] Sir William Herrick the author's 12th great uncle