This link works better for the graves. Then click on insight browser. You can also do a search once the other page opens as you can search any name. I went to google for a search on the American Antiquarian Society and it came right up with the right link. Joyce http://www.davidrumsey.com/farber/view.html

Sorry! The Farber Gravestone Collection is at www.davidrumsey.com.

Perhaps I'm the only list subscriber who hadn't seen this collection...but in case there's someone else out there: the American Antiquarian Society has put the Farber Collection of gravestone photographs online. There are quite a few Brooks stones, representing both Mass. and Conn. lines. The site is lovely to use...it is possible to enlarge and examine the image, section by section if you wish. With a 'right click' you can save or print selected images. Be sure, also, to look at the Data Tab for image detail (name of carver, physical characteristics of the stone, and collection reference).

Maura Amrich wrote: > Does anyone have any information on the Joshua Brooks who > married Lucretia Waite, per Mass. Marriages 1633 on > 8/7/1778 Lancaster, MA. (Crane's Hist. Homes and Inst. & > Gen. & Pers. Memoirs of Worc. Co. Mass. Vol. 2, p. 155 > shows: Josiah White and Sarah Stanford had a dau. > Lucretia who m. Joshua Brooks). Other MA Marriage records > show her name as WHITE. Nourse, Henry S. "The Birth, Marriage and Death Register, Church Records and Epitaphs of Lancaster, MA, 1643-1850." Lancaster, MA: 1890. Page 138: Joshua Brooks Lucretia White both of Lancaster Enterd their Intencion of maridg August 17 1778 Page 128: Marriages Consummated by Josiah Wilder Esqr. 1788. Do. [Oct.], 15th. Jonathan <sic> Brook, & Lucretia Wait both of do. Charlestown VR, 1:385: Joshua, son of Jonathan & Pheobe Brooks, b. Dec. 7, 1752. Cambridge VR, 1:92: Joshua, s. of Jonathan, bp. Dec. 15, 1751. C.R.1. I'll leave it to you to reconcile the discrepancies, but it's clearly the same Joshua in each of these events. He is 5. Joshua (b. 1752) 4. Jonathan (b. 1710) + Phebe SIMONDS (b. 1714) 3. Jabez (1673-1747) m2 Hebsibah CUTTER (1671-1746) 2. John + Eunice MOUSALL 1. Henry (d. 1683) + unnamed 1st wife Chris |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Christopher Brooks BROOKS Families of New England www.tributaries.us ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Does anyone have any information on the Joshua Brooks who married Lucretia Waite, per Mass. Marriages 1633 on 8/7/1778 Lancaster, MA. (Crane's Hist. Homes and Inst. & Gen. & Pers. Memoirs of Worc. Co. Mass. Vol. 2, p. 155 shows: Josiah White and Sarah Stanford had a dau. Lucretia who m. Joshua Brooks). Other MA Marriage records show her name as WHITE. Still beating my head against the wall over my mysterious Salmon Brooks. Acc. to children's marriage and death records, Salmon was b. in Shutesbury MA, (in 1795 per age at death) but can't find on Holbrook transcriptions of vitals, which did have his wife Hannah Jones and her siblings all b. in Shutesbury. Salmon d. 1832 Colrain, per a church record with no identifying info, but he d. suddenly, which I guess explains why there is no info on him in the Franklin County Courthouse, likely had no will. Salmon is on 1830 Colrain census, Hannah is hoh in 1840 census there. No info on Hannah at courthouse either. No Colrain, Bernardston, or Leyden, Brooks probate info at all (for the early to mid 1800's) yet we know through vitals his children were born and died and married in these towns, and have been found in cemeteries there. No Salmon found in any of the cemeteries in these towns. NEHGS has a death record for Hannah (Jones) Brooks saying she was buried in North River Cem. Colrain, 2 visits there and no Hannah or Salmon found, no Brooks at all, graves may have sunk into ground, however even if they were there, there are no big gaps to have located additional Brooks graves who could have been his parents-so doubt the answer is there, although am following up on a lead for an older listing of the graves there. 1790 Sterling census has: Joshua Brooks (believed to be the one who m. Lucretia) as well as Francis Jones, Bulah Brooks, Ami Brooks, Ebenezer Brooks, Thomas Brooks, John Brooks. Only other Joshua's are in Westfield and Lincoln (I know who the Lincoln one is). The Joshua in Westfield is also found with many Nobles (Samuel's dau. was Harriet NOBLE Brooks), no other Brookses there. 1810 census has Joshua Brooks in Northfield and Lincoln. 1820 census has Joshua in Shutesbury and Tewksbury, Joshua in Shutesbury (the first listing for a Brooks in Shutesbury, and the only Brooks) shows (1) male and (1) female over 45, 1 female to 45 1830 Shutesbury census: Joshua Brooks (1) m. (1) f. 70-80, (1) f. 40-50, this age 70-80 would work out for the age of Lucretia Waite and what one would assume her husband's age to be. A Lucretia Brooks, the only Brooks found in a recent trip to a few Shutesbury cemeteries was in West Cemetery, a Lucretia Brooks is buried off alone d. 12/2/1849 age 61. She would be born 1788 and would work right to be a dau. of Joshua and Lucretia, and the one shown living with Joshua 1820 and 1830 Shutesbury. I figured with her being away from the other graves there might be some secret to her, and believe then she is likely the only Brooks record found at Franklin Co. Courthouse for Shutesbury, a record for Lucretia Brooks "insane" (just got this info over phone-and failed to get a date or what it was, am requesting a copy). In 1840 the only Brooks in Shutesbury is Moses Brooks, (1) male 70-80 (who would work to be a sibling to Joshua), (1) f. 15-20 (could be a maid or nurse), (1) f. 50-60 (who would work to be Lucretia, if he was Joshua's sibling and so appointed her guardian). Joshua is not found in any nearby towns and is presumed dead, there were no records for him at the Franklin Co. Courthouse, but perhaps the Lucretia record was a guardianship record at his death, and will provide some info. 1850, no Brooks in Shutesbury, Salmon's 3 surviving children who married 3 Carpenter siblings spent all their lives in Leyden/Colrain and are found in censuses there. Maura Amrich Tyngsborough, MA

Well, Chris, maybe someday I will get lucky. Everyone in the family thought there might be some mystery as to why the old Capt. never discussed his past. His history after coming to Lovell, Portland and Norway was no mystery to hide and he had a large family. There must be 9 million Williams! Marion ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Brooks" <trib@tributaries.us> To: <BROOKS-NE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [BNE] Brooks/McFarland > I'm afraid I don't have anything to add. Most of the Brooks > families in Franklin County, VT were in the Woburn line, > descendants of Adonijah in the 5th generation, though there were > occasional strays from other lines. Lovell, ME is in Oxford > County, and most of its Brooks families were from the Kittery > line. > > Chris > > Marion Brooks wrote: > >> I have never been able to break my brick wall in >> Franklin, Vermont! William Curtis Brooks came to Lovell, >> Maine and said he was born in Franklin to William C. >> Brooks, a farmer, and Sarah McFarland. William of Lovell >> was a Capt in the Civil War. Some of his children were >> hotel managers in various states. I recently visited >> Bermuda and their Archives, where his son Alphonso spent >> winters as Manager of the Hamilton Hotel until he bought >> the Bay of Naples Hotel (Maine) in 1916 and where 3 of >> his 4 children were born. Alphonso was my late husband's >> grandfather. >> I hope someone on this list has a connection to William C >> and Sarah. > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > To Search previous posts by keyword(s): > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=BROOKS-NE > The address is case-sensitive. >

I'm afraid I don't have anything to add. Most of the Brooks families in Franklin County, VT were in the Woburn line, descendants of Adonijah in the 5th generation, though there were occasional strays from other lines. Lovell, ME is in Oxford County, and most of its Brooks families were from the Kittery line. Chris Marion Brooks wrote: > I have never been able to break my brick wall in > Franklin, Vermont! William Curtis Brooks came to Lovell, > Maine and said he was born in Franklin to William C. > Brooks, a farmer, and Sarah McFarland. William of Lovell > was a Capt in the Civil War. Some of his children were > hotel managers in various states. I recently visited > Bermuda and their Archives, where his son Alphonso spent > winters as Manager of the Hamilton Hotel until he bought > the Bay of Naples Hotel (Maine) in 1916 and where 3 of > his 4 children were born. Alphonso was my late husband's > grandfather. > I hope someone on this list has a connection to William C > and Sarah.

In our family, there seem to be groups of five. Five Stroud's here; five Stroud's there, etc. These five's turned out to be correct though. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clifford J OCHELTREE" <mbcjo@cox.net> To: <BROOKS-NE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [BNE] Re: "Three brothers" > > Three has some mystical significance, the trinity perhaps. My OCHELTREE > line is said to have originated with "three brothers" as have may other > families. Have you ever noticed that it's never "three sisters" or "two > brothers and their sister." > > As the father of three daughters when reading old folk tales to the > girls I constantly had to vary the outcome as the story usually involved > "three brothers" or "three sisters" who had to overcome great odds. It > was always the youngest who succeeded and this would never pass muster > with my brood. > > Cliff Ocheltree > > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > When posting, please use a relevant, not recycled, subject line. This is a key to successful searching of the message archive. >

Elaine Sunde wrote: > When the science says that two individuals shared a > common ancestor does the statement exclude the > possibility that one of the individuals descends from the > other? (I've always been confused on this: Bob and his > son Tom do share a common ancestor, that is Bob's father > is Tom's grandfather....) I may be the least informed of the individuals who tested, but my guess is that a shared common ancestor is *any* shared common ancestor. If anyone has better information, please set me (and us) straight. The baffling thing about the DNA testing we did is that Buzz, who descends directly from Capt. Thomas as I do, tested closer to Mo (who descends directly from Henry Brooks) than to me. The lab provides some fairly indecipherable advice about checking in such cases whether matching testees might share (other) common ancestors. I suspect, in my case, that's the issue, since I also descend (through a daughter line) from Henry. I posed this issue to the lab before purchasing the test, and they replied, no, you're not disqualified as a testee of Thomas's line. However, I am very much wondering right now whether my mixed lineage explains the surprising results. Basically, it has to do with mutations — the more generations Buzz and I have been isolated genetically, the more mutations (differences) we ought logically to have, as these only develop over time. At least I *think* that's right. I probably should shut up, as I need to figure these questions out. But we can say with certainty that Mo, Buzz and I all share a common male ancestor, and therefore that Thomas and Henry of Massachusetts Bay were closely related. If Henry and Thomas were first cousins, they would share a common Brooks grandfather. The test does not, cannot, identify the specific common ancestor. You just get a range of probabilities. "In comparing 37 markers, the probability that Clarence M. Brooks (Buzz) and Christopher H. Brooks shared a common ancestor within the last 4 generations [is] 4.15% 8 generations 28.17% 12 generations 59.4% " etc. Chris

I haven't been researching for awhile - going through chemo and radiation, but all is going well. I have never been able to break my brick wall in Franklin, Vermont! William Curtis Brooks came to Lovell, Maine and said he was born in Franklin to William C. Brooks, a farmer, and Sarah McFarland. William of Lovell was a Capt in the Civil War. Some of his children were hotel managers in various states. I recently visited Bermuda and their Archives, where his son Alphonso spent winters as Manager of the Hamilton Hotel until he bought the Bay of Naples Hotel (Maine) in 1916 and where 3 of his 4 children were born. Alphonso was my late husband's grandfather. I hope someone on this list has a connection to William C and Sarah. Marion Brooks

Clifford J OCHELTREE wrote: > Three has some mystical significance, the trinity > perhaps. My OCHELTREE line is said to have originated > with "three brothers" as have may other families. Have > you ever noticed that it's never "three sisters" or "two > brothers and their sister." I imagine that in the Christian era the Trinity is the reference point, but wouldn't be at all surprised to see much earlier origins for the significance of three. I was a college instructor in folklore in another life, but that was 30+ years ago, so I've forgotten what little I once knew. If memory serves three was also important to the Greeks, as in the Pythagorean theorem. Chris

The family story is that John and Henry Brooks came from Cheshire, England, and Henry Brooks was a farrier in Cromwell's army. His age makes it questionable, but who knows what age was recruited back then or whether he worked with his father. Since Henry came from Cheshire, England, his son Thomas worked to have this community named Cheshire in honor of his father. I spent some time on the web before going on a trip to Cheshire and Wales. I had one day at the Register Office in Chester, the country seat. I was informed that Nantwich and Northwich (I think that was the other town) were the centers of Cromwell's support in the county. So, I looked through the records of Nantwich trying to find a Brooks (Brook, Brooke) family with sons John and Henry. I could find those with son John or those with son Henry, but not one with both. There may be a lot more on the web now in the way of records, but have been into other "relatives" since then. I hope to go back someday before long. My line is Henry, Thomas, Enos, David, David, Elizabeth who married Henry W. Chatfield, Elizabeth who married John Van Buren Thayer, to Elizabeth who married Waldo McCutcheon McKee. This family has lived in the same house since 1733. Many of the children stayed in the area for several generations but many went to other parts, such as New York State, Pennsylvania, etc. Cheshire Jean

Three has some mystical significance, the trinity perhaps. My OCHELTREE line is said to have originated with "three brothers" as have may other families. Have you ever noticed that it's never "three sisters" or "two brothers and their sister." As the father of three daughters when reading old folk tales to the girls I constantly had to vary the outcome as the story usually involved "three brothers" or "three sisters" who had to overcome great odds. It was always the youngest who succeeded and this would never pass muster with my brood. Cliff Ocheltree

Steven Curry wrote: > I have a "three brothers came over from England" story in > my family, but have never been able to document anything. > I noticed that you commented (below) that the "three > brothers" story is found frequently in genealogy. Might > you expand on this? The "brothers" legend is attached to many surnames. Oddly, when I search my own hard drive, I come up empty, but I know that I have an extract somewhere of an 1869 book by a southerner named I think Headen, which says, "There were six Brooks brothers in England who went to America. Three went north, and three went south." And thus we have a simplistic explanation for the fact that there are numerous unrelated Brooks lines in North America. Google for "six brothers," and you'll even find a children's book about the six brothers who were turned into swans. There were, of course, the few occasions when exactly three brothers did come over. :-) If any of our readers has a Richardson in the family tree, they might well descend from one of the three Richardson brothers who helped settle Woburn, MA around 1640. Chris

Don't feel bad, it took me ages to figure it out and I still have trouble explaining it. BUT, it all relates to the common ancestor that two people have. If my grandfather is your great-grandfather, then we are first cousins once removed. I'm am removed up being a generation closer to our common ancestory and you are removed down being a great-grandchild rather than a grand child. I could still be younger than your are, however. My Mother's niece would be my first cousin, since we share the same grandfather. Her son would be my first cousinonce removed down. I am his first cousin once removed up. My children and cousin's children would be 2nd cousins to each other, as they both now share the same great grandfather. I didn't understand this concept until I had relatives to relate it to. I didn't find out until after my Mother died that she was the 7th of 9 children, not an only child. Thus I finally had cousins. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joyce & Bill Manuel" <southern_heart_ranch@juno.com> To: <BROOKS-NE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [BNE] Re: DNA results [WAS: BROOKS-NE-D Digest V06 #32] > For the fear of sounding really stupid, but I am going to ask anyways.. > What does (once removed) Mean??? > Joyce > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:16:31 -0400 Christopher Brooks > <trib@tributaries.us> writes: >> >> >> In the lab's language, Henry and Thomas shared a common male >> (Brooks) ancestor "in a genealogical time frame." IOW, not a >> thousand years previously - rather, they were closely related. >> Threlfall guesses at first cousins once removed, on the basis of >> paper research. Those of us who tested are working to figure out >> the DNA results. When we've accomplished that, I'll share all >> with the list. >> >> Chris >> >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> Christopher Brooks >> BROOKS Families of New England >> www.tributaries.us >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> >> >> ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== >> To Search previous posts by keyword(s): >> >> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=BROOKS-NE >> The address is case-sensitive. >> >> >> > > > Southern Heart Ranch > www.southernheartranch.com > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > To send a message to all subscribers, use > the address BROOKS-NE-L@rootsweb.com

Ramona Curtis wrote: > Forgive my lack of knowledge on such matters, but > pertaining to the following note you sent to the list, > does this mean that Henry and Thomas had the same father, > or does it mean they just shared any male ancestor of > their parents/fathers? > "...DNA news popdown - results are back from the lab, > confirming that Henry/1 and Capt. Thomas/1 Brooks, both > of Massachusetts Bay, shared a common male ancestor. [snip] In the lab's language, Henry and Thomas shared a common male (Brooks) ancestor "in a genealogical time frame." IOW, not a thousand years previously — rather, they were closely related. Threlfall guesses at first cousins once removed, on the basis of paper research. Those of us who tested are working to figure out the DNA results. When we've accomplished that, I'll share all with the list. Chris |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Christopher Brooks BROOKS Families of New England www.tributaries.us ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

For the fear of sounding really stupid, but I am going to ask anyways.. What does (once removed) Mean??? Joyce On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:16:31 -0400 Christopher Brooks <trib@tributaries.us> writes: > > > In the lab's language, Henry and Thomas shared a common male > (Brooks) ancestor "in a genealogical time frame." IOW, not a > thousand years previously — rather, they were closely related. > Threlfall guesses at first cousins once removed, on the basis of > paper research. Those of us who tested are working to figure out > the DNA results. When we've accomplished that, I'll share all > with the list. > > Chris > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > Christopher Brooks > BROOKS Families of New England > www.tributaries.us > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > > ==== BROOKS-NE Mailing List ==== > To Search previous posts by keyword(s): > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=BROOKS-NE > The address is case-sensitive. > > > Southern Heart Ranch www.southernheartranch.com

Forgive my lack of knowledge on such matters, but pertaining to the following note you sent to the list, does this mean that Henry and Thomas had the same father, or does it mean they just shared any male ancestor of their parents/fathers? "...DNA news popdown - results are back from the lab, confirming that Henry/1 and Capt. Thomas/1 Brooks, both of Massachusetts Bay, shared a common male ancestor. Finally, the author John Brooks Threlfall has recently been in touch with what he believes is the English origin of this line - in Manchester, of all places. (East Anglia, most often Suffolk, has generally been the prior supposition.)"

Chris's note: This is the same marriage record which John Brooks Threlfall believes is that of Thomas & Grace of Concord, MA. ----- Original Message ----- From: 'Debbye Lansing' <Debbyel@comcast.net> Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 07:16 Subject: Fwd: Thomas Brooks & Grace Hi Chris, Here is the response I received from the Cathedral Archivist of the Manchester Cathedral. It looks promising! ========================== Dear Mrs Lansing, Thank you for your email enquiry, which was passed on to me, the Cathedral Archivist, by the Dean. I have looked in the original registers of baptisms, marriages and burials, which are housed in the Cathedral's own Archives, and I can confirm that the marriage entry for the 2nd February 1618 (in modern dating) is as follows: Thomas Bruckes and Grace Cundelyve huius [Latin for 'of this parish']. I have also undertaken a search for the couple's children: Mary, Joshua, Caleb and Gershom. I used the index in the published version of the registers (done by the Lancashire Parish Register Society between 1908 and 1949 - in three volumes they have covered the period from 1573 upto 1666). The only possible baptism mentioned is: 15 January 1626 - Mary, daughter of Thomas Brucke of Moston. The other three names do not appear in the index. The other way of searching, and the only index available for the registers after 1666, is to use the Mormon website search facility: www.familysearch.org If you would like an official certificate of the entry in the registers, please contact the Parish Clerk and Head Verger, Mr Geoffrey Robinson, who can write an authorised certificate for a small fee. He can be contacted on: geoffrey.robinson@manchestercathedral.com Yours sincerely, Christopher Hunwick ____________________________________________ Christopher Hunwick, Cathedral Archivist, Manchester Cathedral, Manchester. M3 1SX Tel: ? (0)161 833 2220 Fax: ? (0)161 839 6218

Gene Hutson wrote: > and here I'd thought I'd found the three brothers that > originally came over from Nantwich, Cheshire. Gene, I don't know what three brothers you speak of — the "three brothers came over" legend has been attached to many, many families, usually without foundation. I have never encountered any threesomes among New England Brooks founders. The pairs of siblings which are documented can be seen at the Tributaries website. Henry and John Brooks were brothers who came from Cheshire, England, were at New London and then Wallingford, CT, and finally at Cheshire, CT, which was named for their home in Old England. Jean McKee, a descendant, has been to Nantwich looking for evidence of them there, so far without results, as I recall. There were only two of them, not three, unless you've found evidence that eluded Jacobus, who covered these lines in detail in his "Ancient Families of New Haven." Henry and John have biographies available on the Tributaries website, the bulk of the information extracted from Jacobus. > > I found a LONG line from there, from Brooke to Brooks, if > I have this right, Caleb would be my 8X Great Granddad. Caleb's not in either of the Cheshire lines descending from Henry and John Brooks. He descends from Capt. Thomas Brooks of Concord, MA. There's no evidence whatever that Thomas was related to the Cheshire men. So unless I'm misunderstanding you, which is quite possible, it seems you may be misconnecting Caleb of the Concord line to these Cheshire line founders. If you want to send me a simple ahnentafel of your Brooks ancestors offline, I'll see what I can match up and send you an annotated ancestral file for as many generations as I have. Chris |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Christopher Brooks BROOKS Families of New England www.tributaries.us ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||