>From David Hackett Fischer, "Albion's Seed," Oxford University Press, 1989. Chris ======================= The East of England before the Great Migration Despite its poor resources, methods of farming were more advanced in the eastern counties than elsewhere in England. The agricultural revolution came early to East Anglia, as also it did to the Netherlands; "replenishing crops" were used as early as the mid-seventeenth century. The great reformer Arthur Young observed as he traveled through the eastern counties that England's best farmers lived on its worst soil. Agriculture in this region was mostly a regime of mixed farming, which supplied food for urban markets and wool for a local textile industry. Today, East Anglia seems very rural in comparison with other English regions. But in the early seventeenth century, it was the most densely settled and highly urbanized part of England, and had been so for many centuries. Norwich was England's second largest city in 1630—a dynamic center whose population had trebled in the preceding fifty years. In 1600, no fewer than 130 little ports of entry existed on the coast of Essex alone. Many inhabitants of East Anglia were artisans and skilled craftsmen. In 1630, half the adult population of Essex was employed in the cloth trade. Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Kent were also major textile centers, specializing in the manufacture of light woolens favored in southern Europe, and also in luxurious "Suffolk shortcloths," which were worn by the rulers of the Western world. This trade had been deeply depressed by wars with Spain (1625–30) and France (1627–29) and by a general depression of commerce in this period. As a result, unemployment and poverty were major problems in East Anglia on the eve of the great migration. In 1629, unemployed weavers besieged the courts at Braintree and Sudbury in search of work. Their suffering was deepened by a severe "scarcity and dearth of corn" in that year. Local scarcities were made worse by the wretched state of overland communications. Even short trips were so dangerous that the D'Ewes family left an infant with a wet nurse rather than expose it to the danger of even a single day's journey. Travel by land was slow and painful; but travel by water was cheap and easy. The sea linked East Anglia, Kent and Lincolnshire with each other, and also with the Netherlands, in a cultural nexus of great importance in the seventeenth century. At the same time, the sea also exposed East Anglia to many hazards. For more than a thousand years, sea raiders had fallen upon the English coast, and the memory of their depredations was very much alive in 1630. In that year, at least two towns in Essex and the village of Linton in Cambridge still had nailed to their church doors the human skins of marauding Danes who had been flayed alive by their intended victims. Raiders from the sea had attacked East Anglia as recently as 1626 and 1627 when the dreaded "Dunkirkers" came ashore—killing, looting and raping as so many other sea people had done before. Through the centuries, some of these many waves of raiders had remained to settle there, particularly the people known as Angles, and later those called Danes in East Anglia and Jutes (from Jutland) in Kent. It was in part the culture of these people that gave East Anglia and Kent their special character. As early as the sixth century, both East Kent and East Anglia were very different from Wessex, Mercia and the north of England in their comparatively large numbers of freemen, and small numbers of servi and villani. Also, in the words of historian K.P. Witney, they were special in "the greatly superior status enjoyed by the ordinary freemen." The eastern counties were also distinctive in their political character. Many rebellions against arbitrary power had occurred there—Jack Straw's Rising in Suffolk, Wat Tyler's Rebellion, John Ball's Insurrection in Kent, and Robert Kett's Rebellion in Norfolk … This region also became a major center of resistance to Charles I after 1625. When the Civil War began in 1642, Parliamentary forces found their greatest strength in the counties called the Eastern Association — the same area from which Massachusetts was settled. The religious life of this region also differed from other parts of England. It had been marked by dissent for centuries before Martin Luther. During the early fifteenth century, the movement called Lollardy found many of its followers in East Anglia … The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century also flourished in East Anglia, more than elsewhere in England. The Marian martyrs — men and women executed for their Protestant faith in the reign of the Queen Mary — came mostly from this region. Of 273 Protestants who were burned at the stake for heresy during the counter reformation of the Catholic Queen (1553–58), no fewer than 225 (82%) came from nine eastern counties … Within East Anglia, the Puritan movement was strongest in the small towns whence so many migrants left for Massachusetts … The Puritanism of eastern England was not all of a piece. Several distinct varieties of religious dissent developed there, each with its own base. A special strain of religious radicalism which put heavy stress upon the spirit (Antinomianism) flourished among Puritans in eastern Lincolnshire. The more conservative and highly rationalist variant of Calvinism (Arminianism) found many adherents in London, Middlesex and Hertfordshire. In between were men and women from the counties of Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk who adopted a Puritan "middle way." Their faith became the official religion of Massachusetts for two centuries. East Anglia was also exceptional in its educational and cultural attainments. In the seventeenth century, rates of literacy were higher there than in other English regions … [FOOTNOTE: … if one compares the small number of religious writers whom Perry Miller drew together as The New England Mind, most came from Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk, and were educated at Cambridge. [pages 42–49]

Holland ties in with the emphasis on East Anglia origins I've propounded. This and the following post contain relevant excerpts from David Hackett Fischer, "Albion's Seed," Oxford University Press, 1989. Chris ======================= Regional Origins of the Puritan Migration …closer study shows that some counties contributed more than others, and that one region in particular accounted for a majority of the founders of Massachusetts. It lay in the east of England. We may take its geographic center to be the market town of Haverhill, very near the point where the three counties of Suffolk, Essex and Cambridge come together. A circle drawn around the town of Haverhill with a radius of sixty miles will circumscribe the area from which most New England families came … This area of approximately 7,000 square miles (about 8% of the land area of Britain today) roughly included the region that was defined in 1643 as the Eastern Association—Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire—plus parts of Bedfordshire and Kent. Approximately 60 percent of immigrants to Massachusetts came from these nine eastern counties. Three of the largest contingents were from Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk. Also important was part of East Lincolnshire which lay near the English town of Boston, and a triangle of Kentish territory bounded by the towns of Dover, Sandwich and Canterbury. These areas were the core of the Puritan migration. On the periphery of New England's primary recruiting ground lay the great city of London. Less than 10 percent of emigrants to Massachusetts came from the metropolis … The Puritan migration also drew from other parts of England, but often it did so through East Anglian connections. Throughout England, there were scattered parishes where charismatic ministers led their congregations to Massachusetts. But these leaders were themselves often East Anglians … It would be a mistake to exaggerate the role of the eastern counties in the peopling of New England. A large minority (40%) came from the remaining thirty-four counties of England … But many of these West Country Puritans did not long remain in the Bay Colony. They tended to move west to Connecticut, or south to Nantucket, or north to Maine. Diversity of regional origins became a major factor in the founding of other New England colonies. [Footnote: A detailed study has been made of one shipload of West Country Puritans who sailed in the Mary and John. They were recruited by the Rev. John White from Dorset, Devon and Somerset, and founded the town of Dorchester in Massachusetts. But many left the Bay Colony within a few years, and settled in Connecticut. The descendants of this onbe shipload included many leading Connecticut families: Wolcott, Griswold, Gibbs, Dewey, Burr and Gallup. John Winthrop called these settlers "the west country people." Dudley referred to them as "the western men."] The concentration of Puritans from East Anglia, and from the county of Suffolk, was especially great in the Winthrop Fleet of 1630. In the New World, their hegemony became very strong in the present boundaries of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Middlesex counties in Massachusetts. This area became the heartland of its region; its communities are called "seed towns" in New England because so many other communities were founded from them. Most families in these seed towns came from the east of England. The majority was highly concentrated in its regional origin while the minority was widely scattered. As a consequence, the East Anglian core of New England's population had a cultural importance greater even than its numbers would suggest. [pages 31–36]

ASHLEY BROOKS was born March 4, 1797 and died August 5, 1870 in Cayuga County, New York. He married MARY WEBSTER May 27, 1827 in Manlius, Onondaga County, New York. She was a descendent of Gov. John Webster of Conn. and her family history is well documented. IGI Record Films No. 177911 and 178018 Logan Temple Baptisms for the Dead on March 21, 1931 at instance of Lucretia W. Tyrrell states Ashley Brooks born March 4, 1797 in Worcester, MA, no father's name listed, mother Elizabeth. When I previously posted request for info re ASHLEY BROOKS, Christopher Brooks replied that there was no record of Ashley Brooks in Worcester, MA. Recently I found on Ancestry.com the following: Worcester County, MA, Probate Index, Vol. 1 & 2 A-Z July 1731-1881 Record Date Surname Given Name Residence Record Type 1812 Brooks Ashley Bolton Guardianship I then ordered Films 0856272 and 0856273 from the Annapolis Family History Center. I could find no listing of Ashley Brooks in the index. In searching through both films, I found a number of references to the estate of Samuel Brooks who had a son, John A. Brooks. However, I could find no guardianship papers. The volunteer was unable to advise me as to the correct films I need to order to find the Guardianship information for Ashley Brooks. If anyone can steer me in the right direction, I would greatly appreciate it. Kay Timmons

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:51:33 -0500, Penny Warne wrote: :I have been doing some reading and have seen mention of a group of :Purtitans who left England in the late 1500's - early 1600s to :settle in Holland due to the greater religious freedom offered :there. I don't know the numbers of the people that went. Any of :the articles I have read so far are vague about that. Most refer :to a "large" group or "many" people immigrating. :These same articles state that 60 to 70 of the same Puritans were, :some twenty years later, members of the Mayflower group. This :group is well documented (obviously) but I haven't found anything :on the Puritans that stayed behind in Holland. The Mayflower :Puritans, I'm pretty sure, arrived too early in North America for :Thomas Brooks to have been among them. However, if Thomas arrived :in North America in the late 1620s to early 1630s when he was in :in his early twenties, time wise, it would have been possible for :him to have been both born and married in Holland. : :Is it even remotely possible that Thomas (and maybe Grace) might :have been born to one of those Puritan families in Holland and :later on, say in the late 1620's or so, chose to join the other :Puritans who were already established in North America, perhaps :even relatives and friends. : :Has anyone looked at a possible Dutch connection? I'm probably way :off base but there's no harm in asking. Penny, you're not remotely off base. You've read some history, done some thinking, and come up with a plausible and original hypothesis. I think that's great! I have done *some* (not "a lot") reading on both Plymouth and the Puritans in Holland. I've read two histories of the colony (John Demos, "A Little Commonwealth," an academic history by a top-rank American colonial historian, as well as a more popular book written in the 40s by Whose Name Escapes Me, on Plymouth Colony. I found a couple of antiquarian books at the local library from 1920, the date of the Mayflower tercentenary. Again the titles escape me, but photocopies are somewhere here in the massive document piles to sort and enter. Basically, a group of dissenters went to Holland, I think in the 1590s. Several different congregations ending up melding and living in the direst poverty at Leyden, where a handful of prosperous congregants paid for housing for their brethren. Here they were riven by sectarian strife and split again over both doctrinal differences and the extramarital shenanigans of one of the leaders. After a generation's time, fearing that their children would grow up to be Dutchmen who had lost their cultural, linguistic and religious heritage, the largest faction (Separatists, really, unlike the Puritans of the Bay Colony of 10 years later) returned to England, where (William?) Brewster and his agents secretly organized the mass emigration which chartered the Mayflower. I haven't really followed those left in Holland after 1619. Caleb Johnson's first-rate Mayflower pages http://members.aol.com/calebj/mayflower.html might well have links to supplementary reading. A search on the phrase "Brewster" + "Leyden" at http://www.google.com also might be useful, or "Pilgrims" or "Englishmen" +"Leyden." Some of my more exotic hypotheses for Thomas Brooks, who first appears in a land grant at Watertown in 1636: (1) He came with one of the fishing fleets or colonies planted on the coast of New Hampshire and Maine from 1607 on. [Problems: Thomas isn't found in any record before 1636, by which time Sagadahoc and other fishing/trading outposts were in sharp decline or completely abandoned. If he was a maritime man, why does he settle at Concord, inland, and buy fur-trapping rights?] (2) He came as a servant (probably a "servant" in the sense of "manager" or hired administrator rather than of indenture, judging from his literacy and the fact that he was a head of household) to Sir Richard Saltonstall, son of the Lord Mayor of London, who founded Watertown in 1630. There is a record of unnamed "servants of Sir Richard Saltonstall" who arrived a year ahead to scout out the lay of the land and prepare for Saltonstall's arrival. [Problems: The Saltonstall servants aren't identified by name or number, either in contemporary records or in the published Saltonstall Papers. If Thomas really did arrive in 1629 or 1630, already married with children, how does he stay hidden until he receives his first grant at Watertown in 1636? If he's been a loyal employee, why does it take him seven years in residence to get his first grant? While seven years represents a common term of indenture, what employer would feed, clothe and house six bonded mouths for 7 years in order to secure the labor of one?] (3) He came with Winthrop in the Winthrop Fleet of 1630. Something on the order of 20 ships carried 1500 people that year, and only a fraction, mostly dignitaries or ministers like Winthrop, Saltonstall and Phillips, are known by name. [Problem: Again, how does head-of-household Thomas stay out of all public records until 1636? For reasons of length, I'll post a couple of supplementary messages on East Anglia's ties with Holland which bear on Thomas's origin in general and on Penny's question in particular. Penny, please consider all this your personal Do-It-Yourself kit for further searching. If I had two lifetimes, I'd join you ... Chris

I've got a new and improved wild goose chase to suggest. :-) For years I've wondered if the IGI entries for some Brookses in southwestern New Hampshire, which are marked "Relative of Joseph Smith, the Prophet," might be accurate. A new correspondent, who is herself related to Joseph Smith, advises me that Smith is so well documented that any notation of a relationship to Joseph Smith is likely to have some basis in fact. That seems logical. .. Is anyone here descended from, or researching, or at all interested in, the following people? .. If so, are you familiar with a Joseph Smith connection? .. Does anyone here have a 2-book set answering to the description of "LDS Bio/Ency, a virtual who's who of the followers of Joseph Smith, Jr."? The individuals and families denoted in the IGI as Joseph Smith's relatives are marked with an *asterisk in the following table. ====================================== *John Drury BROOKS (1757-1832) + Martha PRENTICE Of Alstead, NH, and, late in life, Bethel, VT. CHILDREN: *Polly, b. 1779, m. Buckminster WOOD, 1800 *John (1782), of Langdon NH & Royalton VT + Permelia REED CHILDREN: Joshua (1812-1812) *Nathaniel Prentiss (1813) + Lucy S. FISK *Howard Wales (1816) Nelson Walker (1818-1820) *Alden Walker (1822) *Oliver Howard (1784) + Polly BURROUGHS *Sophia (1787) *Joshua (1790) + Polly EGERTON Austin (1793-1793) *Susanna (Suky) (1794) *Josiah Prentice (1797) + Betsey P. ROBBINS * Austin (1799) + Huldah ANDERSON *Martha (Patty) (1802) ====================================== The Brooks ancestral line is: 6. John Drury + Martha PRENTICE 5. Dea. Simon + Rachel DRURY 4. Ebenezer + Sarah FLETCHER 3. Noah + Dorothy POTTER 2. Dea. Joshua + Hannah MASON 1. Capt. Thomas + Grace ?WHEELER Since John Drury is the only son of Dea. Simon Brooks who is identified as related to Joseph Smith, it would seem that any direct connection to Joseph Smith is through his Prentice wife. There were several Brooks/Prentice (Prentiss) marriages at Alstead, and a number of later Prentices with the middle name of Brooks and Brookses with the middle name of Prentice. This is, by the way, the line of John Brooks Threlfall, author and researcher, who commissioned a statue of his ancestor Nathaniel Prentice as a minuteman which stands in Alstead today. On our list, I can think of Buzz Brooks and Jeff Miller, both of whom descend from Dea. Simon Brooks, but there are probably more. Chris

FYI. I'm passing this along from another list. No other details available. Hope it helps someone in their research. ~~~Pam =========== Brooklyn (New York) Union-Argus July 16, 1877 BROOKS - On Monday, July 16, at the residence of her sister Mrs. Esther TAYLOR. Miss Harriet BROOKS, in the 77th year of her age. Funeral services will be held at 557 Lafayette avenue, on Wednesday, 18th inst. At 2 P.M. ===========

I am receiving double memos. Please cancel one old address [email protected] for [email protected] Thank you. Sharon Carter Lengfellner ----- Original Message ----- From: "Penny Warne" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 4:51 PM Subject: [BNE] Thomas Brooks origins - Dutch connection? > Hi All, > > Please allow me to think outloud here. > > I have been doing some reading and have seen mention of a group of Purtitans > who left England in the late 1500's - early 1600s to settle in Holland due > to the greater religious freedom offered there. I don't know the numbers of > the people that went. Any of the articles I have read so far are vague about > that. Most refer to a "large" group or "many" people immigrating. These same > articles state that 60 to 70 of the same Puritans were, some twenty years > later, members of the Mayflower group. This group is well documented > (obviously) but I haven't found anything on the Puritans that stayed behind > in Holland. The Mayflower Puritans, I'm pretty sure, arrived too early in > North America for Thomas Brooks to have been among them. However, if Thomas > arrived in North America in the late 1620s to early 1630s when he was in in > his early twenties, time wise, it would have been possible for him to have > been both born and married in Holland. > > Is it even remotely possible that Thomas (and maybe Grace) might have been > born to one of those Puritan families in Holland and later on, say in the > late 1620's or so, chose to join the other Puritans who were already > established in North America, perhaps even relatives and friends. That would > explain our lack of success in tracking down his family in the U.S.A. or > England. (So would 2 world wars, fire and a lot of other things) > > Has anyone looked at a possible Dutch connection? I'm probably way off base > but there's no harm in asking. > > Thanks, > Penny Warne > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Christopher Brooks <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:45 AM > Subject: Re: [BNE] HELP! Re: Grace WHEELER > > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:56:02 -0500, Craig Beeman wrote: > > > > :Just checked on World Connect and found some two hundred and forty > > :nine files now there having one Henry BROOKS married to one Grace > > :WHEELER. > > : > > :Found some sixty-nine files there having one Thomas BROOKS married > > :to one Grace WHEELER. > > > > Should we take a poll? :-) As is well known, the internet has > > contributed more genealogical misinformation in the last decade than > > disconnected researchers were able to compile in the centuries > > preceding. It only takes ONE idiot to get something wrong, or make it > > up, and then submit it to the world by way of the Ancestral File or > > the internet. Then the other 248 people Craig counted will mindlessly > > cut and paste to their own site without rechecking anything. > > > > For a while I used to write folks whose websites have Henry Brooks > > born to his second wife (no kidding!), ask them for their sources, > > offer mine, and politely discuss the discrepancies. One in three > > thanked me; one in three ignored me; one in three flamed me in reply. > > I gave up when I realized that genealogy web pages are proliferating > > faster than 10 of us could keep up with. Instead of tilting at > > windmills as a one-man truth squad, I opted to launch this list. As > > much as to share and to help make connections, the list was conceived > > to counter, in some small way, the hemorrhage of misinformation that > > has flooded the internet. > > > > :Might any one of you have even one solid primary source for a > > :marriage of a Grace WHEELER to any Henry BROOKS during the early > > :1600's. > > :Same for a Grace WHEELER to any Thomas BROOKS during this same > > :time period. > > :It is of no consequence to me whether in North America or in the > > :British Isles, but if any marriage has indeed been recorded for a > > :Grace WHEELER and a Henry BROOKS or Thomas BROOKS, I would dearly > > :appreciate learning of same! > > > > The death of Grace, wife of Thomas Brooks, is recorded in 1664 in the > > vital records of Concord, MA. Henry's marriages are thoroughly > > discussed in the literature (Cutter, NEHGS, Robert Peacock Brooks, > > Richardson Memorial, Torrey, etc.). The information in those articles > > has been summarized a number of times in posts to this list, and in > > founder thumbnails we posted perhaps two years ago, and can be found > > in the list archive. Folks new to these names can find more by > > downloading the first issue of Tributaries, a Brooks genealogy > > journal, at http://www.tributaries.org > > Or I can send an annotated narrative and bibliography for either or > > both of these men to anyone interested. > > > > I've found no marriage record for a Thomas Brooks/Grace ____ anywhere > > in the literature in this country. Recently, using the IGI batch > > number method that I posted to the list, I searched the indices of > > every English parish available on LDS film with baptismal/marriage > > records for the years 1590 to 1635. The results were no better. And > > most recently, as I posted to the list, I searched all of East Anglia > > and Lancashire in Boyd's Index of marriages. Once again, no > > Thomas/Grace are found. > > > > And after weeks of combing English record indices, I can say that > > there are many baptisms for men named Thomas, and some (but far > > fewer) for men named Henry; but I haven't found a single Henry and > > Thomas in the same parish at the same time. Furthermore, The Great > > Migration series will, by the next series, have passed both Thomas > > and Henry by, meaning, for all intents and purposes, that their > > emigration will never be known if it's not found in the next two > > years of coverage. It seems more likely as time passes that the > > reason such records have never been found by many prior researchers > > is that they simply don't exist. People have been looking for answers > > to these questions for 150 years! Of course, I still hope ... > > > > Two things I hope to see before I die are a Red Sox World Series win > > and the discovery of the origins of Thomas Brooks. I think the odds > > of the Red Sox are somewhat higher. :-) > > > > Chris > > > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Christopher Hapgood Brooks > > Researching BROOKS Families of New England > > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > > > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > > To unsub, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to > > [email protected] > > or [email protected] > > > > > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > Archives of previous posts are located at: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/BROOKS-NE-L/ > The address is case-sensitive. >

Mike Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: :timothy & Grace? wheeler and in another message wrote :interested? although did see that wheeler name twice Mike, I haven't a clue what these messages mean, but they have now gained eternal life in the list archive in order to similarly baffle future readers. If you're writing to the 190 people who compose this list, please write a complete sentence or paragraph that we can understand. If your message is changing the subject from the message to which you're replying, please type in YOUR OWN new subject line to tell others what you're writing about. Many folks delete a lot of the mail they receive each day unread, simply on the basis of a glance at the subject line. If you want your messages to be read by the folks that might be able to help, you have to help them in return with a coherent message and a relevant subject line which make it easier for them to respond and/or help you. Chris Christopher Brooks, List Administrator: ==================================== BROOKS-NE (Brooks Families of New England), HAPGOOD, and MERRIAM lists at RootsWeb. ==================================== [email protected]

I seem to be making a habit of these the last few days -- sending personal replies to the list and vice versa. I'm using new email software, but that's no excuse. Let's not all copy my sloppiness and turn this into a chat room. :-) Chris Christopher Brooks, List Administrator: ==================================== BROOKS-NE (Brooks Families of New England), HAPGOOD, and MERRIAM lists at RootsWeb. ==================================== [email protected]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:09:44 EST, [email protected] wrote: :As an old Brooklyn Dodger fan, we dreamed those dreams every year :and made it a couple of times, so dream on. There was nothing :like a ballgame in Ebbets' Field. Jean, I am *so* remiss in responding to you in a proper way that I cringe with guilt (well, slightly) each time a new message from you comes in. I keep trying to get the "quickies" out of the way so that I can give the serious emails the attention span they merit -- but the backlog just seems to grow and I never seem to get caught up. Maybe today ... Back in the late 50s my dad bought me a "How to Play Baseball" tutorial produced by the '56 (?) World Champion Dodgers. This was a vinyl record inside covers which folded open to reveal perhaps 24 pages of "how-to" photo pages glued in. Clem Labine's fingers demonstrated how to grip the curve ball, Jackie Robinson demonstrated how to bunt and steal, and the Duke showed how to play the outfield and hit. Carl Erskine showed the windup and the fastball grip, Labine the stretch, Gil Hodges how to play first, and Roy Campanella demonstrated the "tools of ignorance" behind the plate. Pee Wee Reese covered the art of the double-play. I think the third-baseman may also have been in there, but I'm drawing a total blank on his identity. By the time my dad picked this up (probably on closeout), it was a couple of years later (maybe 1959?), the Dodgers had moved to Chavez Ravine, Campy was disabled and out of baseball, and Robinson had retired. Still I played that instruction record dozens of times, and practiced the windups and the swing hundreds if not thousands of times in front of the mirror, so there's a little bit of Dodger blue and Ebbetts Field in me as well. But only a little :-) Chris

timothy & Grace? wheeler

interested? although did see that wheeler name twice

As an old Brooklyn Dodger fan, we dreamed those dreams every year and made it a couple of times, so dream on. There was nothing like a ballgame in Ebbets' Field. Cheshire Jean

Hi Chris, I'd be willing to give it a try. Send details. ~~~Pam Outgoing mail scanned by Norton Antivirus 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Brooks" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [BNE] HELP! Re: Grace WHEELER > I have a meaningful challenge for anyone interested in Thomas and > Grace Brooks who would enjoy gaining some research experience at the > individual document level. [snip]

Hi All, Please allow me to think outloud here. I have been doing some reading and have seen mention of a group of Purtitans who left England in the late 1500's - early 1600s to settle in Holland due to the greater religious freedom offered there. I don't know the numbers of the people that went. Any of the articles I have read so far are vague about that. Most refer to a "large" group or "many" people immigrating. These same articles state that 60 to 70 of the same Puritans were, some twenty years later, members of the Mayflower group. This group is well documented (obviously) but I haven't found anything on the Puritans that stayed behind in Holland. The Mayflower Puritans, I'm pretty sure, arrived too early in North America for Thomas Brooks to have been among them. However, if Thomas arrived in North America in the late 1620s to early 1630s when he was in in his early twenties, time wise, it would have been possible for him to have been both born and married in Holland. Is it even remotely possible that Thomas (and maybe Grace) might have been born to one of those Puritan families in Holland and later on, say in the late 1620's or so, chose to join the other Puritans who were already established in North America, perhaps even relatives and friends. That would explain our lack of success in tracking down his family in the U.S.A. or England. (So would 2 world wars, fire and a lot of other things) Has anyone looked at a possible Dutch connection? I'm probably way off base but there's no harm in asking. Thanks, Penny Warne ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Brooks <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [BNE] HELP! Re: Grace WHEELER > On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:56:02 -0500, Craig Beeman wrote: > > :Just checked on World Connect and found some two hundred and forty > :nine files now there having one Henry BROOKS married to one Grace > :WHEELER. > : > :Found some sixty-nine files there having one Thomas BROOKS married > :to one Grace WHEELER. > > Should we take a poll? :-) As is well known, the internet has > contributed more genealogical misinformation in the last decade than > disconnected researchers were able to compile in the centuries > preceding. It only takes ONE idiot to get something wrong, or make it > up, and then submit it to the world by way of the Ancestral File or > the internet. Then the other 248 people Craig counted will mindlessly > cut and paste to their own site without rechecking anything. > > For a while I used to write folks whose websites have Henry Brooks > born to his second wife (no kidding!), ask them for their sources, > offer mine, and politely discuss the discrepancies. One in three > thanked me; one in three ignored me; one in three flamed me in reply. > I gave up when I realized that genealogy web pages are proliferating > faster than 10 of us could keep up with. Instead of tilting at > windmills as a one-man truth squad, I opted to launch this list. As > much as to share and to help make connections, the list was conceived > to counter, in some small way, the hemorrhage of misinformation that > has flooded the internet. > > :Might any one of you have even one solid primary source for a > :marriage of a Grace WHEELER to any Henry BROOKS during the early > :1600's. > :Same for a Grace WHEELER to any Thomas BROOKS during this same > :time period. > :It is of no consequence to me whether in North America or in the > :British Isles, but if any marriage has indeed been recorded for a > :Grace WHEELER and a Henry BROOKS or Thomas BROOKS, I would dearly > :appreciate learning of same! > > The death of Grace, wife of Thomas Brooks, is recorded in 1664 in the > vital records of Concord, MA. Henry's marriages are thoroughly > discussed in the literature (Cutter, NEHGS, Robert Peacock Brooks, > Richardson Memorial, Torrey, etc.). The information in those articles > has been summarized a number of times in posts to this list, and in > founder thumbnails we posted perhaps two years ago, and can be found > in the list archive. Folks new to these names can find more by > downloading the first issue of Tributaries, a Brooks genealogy > journal, at http://www.tributaries.org > Or I can send an annotated narrative and bibliography for either or > both of these men to anyone interested. > > I've found no marriage record for a Thomas Brooks/Grace ____ anywhere > in the literature in this country. Recently, using the IGI batch > number method that I posted to the list, I searched the indices of > every English parish available on LDS film with baptismal/marriage > records for the years 1590 to 1635. The results were no better. And > most recently, as I posted to the list, I searched all of East Anglia > and Lancashire in Boyd's Index of marriages. Once again, no > Thomas/Grace are found. > > And after weeks of combing English record indices, I can say that > there are many baptisms for men named Thomas, and some (but far > fewer) for men named Henry; but I haven't found a single Henry and > Thomas in the same parish at the same time. Furthermore, The Great > Migration series will, by the next series, have passed both Thomas > and Henry by, meaning, for all intents and purposes, that their > emigration will never be known if it's not found in the next two > years of coverage. It seems more likely as time passes that the > reason such records have never been found by many prior researchers > is that they simply don't exist. People have been looking for answers > to these questions for 150 years! Of course, I still hope ... > > Two things I hope to see before I die are a Red Sox World Series win > and the discovery of the origins of Thomas Brooks. I think the odds > of the Red Sox are somewhat higher. :-) > > Chris > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > Christopher Hapgood Brooks > Researching BROOKS Families of New England > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > To unsub, send ONLY the word UNSUBSCRIBE to > [email protected] > or [email protected] > >

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:03:55 -0500, Christopher Brooks wrote: :::I think the odds of the Red Sox are somewhat higher. :-) :: :: ::I'm not so sure about that!!! :: ::(new york brooks, ya know) : :THIS is the year. Oops! Off-topic, and should have been private. Chris

Eve Grogan wrote: ::I think the odds of the Red Sox are somewhat higher. :-) : : :I'm not so sure about that!!! : :(new york brooks, ya know) THIS is the year. New owners, new attitude, new clubhouse spirit, more basepath speed, better infield and outfield defense. Ricky Henderson (who at 43 has signed with the Red Sox) comes back to haunt his old Yankee teammates, and steals home with the winning run against the Yankees in the bottom of the 9th in the final game of the league championship series to elevate the venerated Carmine Hose over the Minions of George Steinbrenner. All New England rejoices. Such pealing of bells hasn't been heard since V-J Day in 1945. You read it here first, ya New Yawkah. :-) Chris

I have a meaningful challenge for anyone interested in Thomas and Grace Brooks who would enjoy gaining some research experience at the individual document level. Wiley Brooks Jr., a subscriber, has an unreadable copy of the deed by which Capts. Thomas Brooks and Timothy Wheeler purchased a 400-acre Medford estate in 1660. The challenge, should any one want to take it up, is to secure a legible copy, either from the original county deed registers, or on LDS microfilm, which can be transcribed and circulated. This deed might divulge some hard-earned snippets about Thomas Brooks, such as terms of credit, schedule of occupancy, and witnesses -- if we could read it. I hope to get to it "someday," but one of you could get to it now, if you were interested, and gain some valuable experience in transcribing period records in the process. :-) Mind that this deed does not exist as an original document -- you won't find the autograph of Thomas Brooks at the bottom. It's the county's record of the deed, which was copied into the county register (a huge, Dickensian-sized ledger book) by a clerk from the original paper, which would have then been recycled. (Cotton paper and rags were reused to make more cotton paper, which was scarce and expensive until the development of paper from wood pulp around the time of the Civil War.) But the existing copy is only slightly (to the degree of one court copyist) removed from Thomas, it's tangible, and it's evidence -- as close to the original as we can ever come. I'll be happy to detail where and how to start should anyone be interested. Chris

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:55:35 EST, [email protected] wrote: :Thanks for the infomation on Grace. But I am sorry to hear now :that the information I have, is probably not correct. First, what do you have? Why not share it? (See my concluding paragraph.) Every few months we revisit the topic of unverifiable sources vis a vis Brooks founders. Each of us who descends from Henry or Thomas Brooks would like to know the origins of these presumed brothers. It's awfully tempting to yield to the siren call of websites cooing, "Quick answers -- paste me!" There are so many of them that they *must* be right, right? Wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Consider: (1) "Grace wife of Thomas Brooke died 12 may 1664:" [Concord VR, page 11] (2) Joshua, Thomas's eldest son, named his 2d daughter Grace after his mother (he named his firstborn daughter after his wife) [Concord VR, 9] (3) There is no known use of the name Grace among descendants of Henry Brooks for 5 generations (until bestowed on a baby girl in New London, 1743) [my own research] (4) Henry's marital life is accounted for. At the time of Grace's death at Concord, Henry was living with his 2d wife Susanna Bradford at Woburn [vital records, wills, deeds, probate, and numerous secondary analyses cited in last evening's post] It's clear that Thomas Brooks of Concord was married to a Grace, but no marriage record has been found in Massachusetts or in England, nor any English baptismal record for their children. Among those who have looked are Savage, Lemuel Shattuck (historian of Concord and founder of the New England Historical Genealogical Society), William Gray Brooks (father of Rev. Phillips Brooks, and a lifelong genealogist), John Brooks Threlfall, the most knowledgeable person living on Thomas Brooks, and even not-so-famous-but-equally-dedicated Shepherd Brooks of Cambridge, MA, who was over in Suffolk looking in the mid-90s. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Steps such as combing Boyd's Index are really last-straw measures, because everything that's indexed in Boyd has been combed multiple times before for Thomas and Henry. For William and Gilbert of Scituate, MA, the odds are better of finding something, because less research has been published on them. The number of English emigrants to New England between 1629 and 1640 is variously estimated at 21,000 to 40,000. Banks, who spent five years researching in England, estimated in "Planters of the Commonwealth" that he had identified only 40% of these emigrants. I suspect the authors of the Great Migration series, the definitive study now coming out, will lower that percentage. The odds, then, are substantially less than 50-50 that any Englishman of that period can be documented. Most Englishmen of that day will be forever anonymous. So the thorough but stymied historian proceeds to search for contemporaneous records of other events which might have involved Thomas or Grace Brooks. Emigration? Not found. Will? Thomas died intestate, and no will is found for Grace. Probate? That tomb has already been found and looted ... Thomas's probate was first dug up and published way back in 1860 [Bond's Watertown Genealogies]. Gravestone? None this old survives in Concord, nor did they when Concord's vitals and cemetery inscriptions were compiled and published in the 1890s. My own to-do list for Thomas and Grace still includes checking published church, land, town, and General Court records. When those are exhausted I will of necessity conclude that we know all we are going to know. At the least I am certain that more deeds can be mined, and a list compiled of references to Thomas in General Court records. I won't be looking for answers in the Ancestral File, or among the believer-submissions in the IGI, or online at any site that doesn't cite contemporaneous evidence. :-) To anyone who isn't a Brooks, it's just another collateral name, often some obscure spouse who married in, and not worth a lot of time and effort. The purpose of this list, on the other hand, is to give the BROOKS surname the "spotlight treatment" -- that is, the gravitas and evidentiary analysis that any surname deserves when studied in its own right. I'll cite a favorite example of scholarly research. Steve and Jennie Hoffman, subscribers to this list in Whitchurch, Hampshire, England, perhaps two years back submitted several research findings which can be found in the list archive. One of their posts, documenting the Brooke family of Whitchurch, killed and buried the "William of Whitechurch" ancestral canard (which is found about as frequently online as the marriage of Henry and Grace). In another post, they looked at the common assignment of Grace's surname as WHEELER, examining Wheeler births and baptisms in Cranfield, Bedfordshire. (That's the ancestral home of the many Wheelers who emigrated to Concord, including the son-in-law of Thomas Brooks.) No Grace Wheeler is found at Cranfield, and I write her as Grace ?Wheeler because the surname is demonstrably unproven. Thanks to Steve and Jennie, we know these facts authoritatively, not because we found them on the internet, but because someone we can contact looked in a thorough and organized manner in the appropriate places. Their methodology, in turn, allows a firm conclusion to be drawn and the evidence to be revisited if necessary. The process and analysis are replicable. Personally, I have no monopoly on truth, evidence or good judgement. I've been spectacularly wrong many times. :-) Like each of you, I'll bet, I've got far more IGI citations ("or clues," as we genteely call them) in my database than I'd like, or notations like "source unreported." We're all just trying to find the best information and evidence we can. But Data Rules!, or at least it should. Before I climb down off my soapbox, I will urge any reader with new information or a related question about Thomas, Grace and Henry to post it here. Don't be shy, intimidated or discouraged. The important thing is not to "be right," but to "get it right." Chris

Hi, Chris! Loved reading how your started your list. This is the best surname list by far!!!!! If anyone finds the origin of Thomas, it will be YOU. The Red Socks win might be a little more difficult, but then, I wouldn't have bet on the Patriots. All the best, Kathy