Maura Amrich wrote: > Family stories: [snip] My G. Uncle, now 94, remembers > visiting an Adams family in Franklin Co. (Leyden?), MA Brooks, Eveline A. of Shutesbury and Lyman Adams, int. May 31, 1840. <Barre VR, 116> Brooks, Evalina A., of Shutesbury, and Lyman Adams of Barre, June 17, 1840. C.R. <New Salem VR, 58> > first Brooks found in Shutesbury > is Joshua in 1820, he is the only one, Salmon is not on the > census, as the family is shown to include 1 m. 45+; 1 f. 27- > 45; 1 f. 45+. Joshua would fit to be Salmon's father). This could be any of a dozen or two Joshuas living at this time, unfortunately. By date alone the Evelina/e above fits as a daughter. > Finally to get to the point of Joseph Smith, I found several > mentions of a branch of Thomas' line as being believed related > to Joseph Smith, prophet. A number of individuals in the Alstead, NH branch of Capt. Thomas's line (through Dea. Simon/5, who went to Alstead about the beginning of the Revolution) are labelled in the IGI as related to Joseph Smith. Not being LDS, I've regarded this as a curiosity or novelty rather than a personal research imperative. My *guess* would be that the relationship to Joseph Smith, if any, is through one of the PRENTICE or DRURY ladies who married an Alstead Brooks male. > my lines are heavily intermarried and I often find I have > numerous relations to people, am already related to siblings > and cousins spouses, so it is likely I connect to Smith in > another way, including through my Brooks line. These sorts of heavily interconnected lines are quite typical of early Massachusetts families, which historian David Hackett Fischer has referred to as "a vast cousinage." In the course of researching my own line, and a number of collateral families, at Concord, I've extracted several (two? three? four?) thousand people from the published Concord VR. I've reached the point where almost every new marriage I enter of Concord lines consists of cousins, whether distant or near. Of course, I wouldn't want to diminish your bragging rights in any way, Maura. :-) > John Quincy Adams also shows on my Smith descendancy, another > cousin (remember earlier memory of my great uncle that they > used to visit an Adams family in Franklin Co. who were > relatives), his line is supposed to be: 1. Robert Smith 1594 > (our common ancestor); 2. Thomas Smith 1634 (brother to my > Robert 1626) and Abigail Boylston; 3. William Smith 1707 and > Elizabeth Quincy; 4. Abigail Smith 1744 and John Adams; 5. > John Quincy Adams 1767 (John Q's son Charles Francis Adams > married Abigail Brown Brooks, a descendant of Capt. Thomas, > her line should go back to Capt. Thomas as: Peter Chardon, > Edward, Samuel, Samuel (who married a Bolyston, see # 2 > above); Caleb; Capt. Thomas). Some years back I researched the BOYLSTON family to ascertain the Brooks/Adams/Boylston connection. In looking for Boylstons I went through all the published VR of Middlesex, Worcester, and Suffolk (Boston) Counties, as well as Bond's Watertown Genealogies. I found no Abigail Boylston earlier than Abigail/3 (Thomas/2, Thomas/1), b. 15 Nov 1674, Roxbury (VR, 1:36), who married Capt. Ebenezer/3 Brooks (Caleb/2, Thomas/1). Pres. John Quincy Adams (there were sons and grandsons of the same name) traces back to Peter/3 Boylston (Thomas/2, Thomas/1), brother of Abigail. The first Charles Francis Adams (again, the name was carried on after him), son of Pres. John Quincy Adams and grandson of Pres. John Adams, married Abigail Brown/7 Brooks, whose line was as you have it above. Her Boylston ancestress was Sarah/3, a sibling of the two previously mentioned. In my mind, it's important to distinguish between genealogical (blood) relationships and relationships by marriage. There's no genealogical connection that I've yet seen between John Quincy Adams or Charles Francis Adams. Since Charles Francis/7 married a Brooks, obviously his descendants from that point on carry Brooks genes. I don't know who your Abigail in #2 above is, but I don't think she was a Boylston. > Now here is the other connection to Capt. Thomas line [snip] > Silas Newton Brooks b. 1825 Bernardston (he is > buried in Central Cemetery Bernardston near some of my known > Brooks, and with my Carpenters and other lines, he would seem > to be the most likely link to my Salmon, his f. Dr. John > Brooks b. Worcester 1783 would seem so perfect to be a brother > or first cousin to my Salmon 1795, but no link found yet, Dr. John/6 of Bernardston was the son of Capt. Nathaniel/5 Brooks and Mary Newton. Just looking at the dates, Mary Newton (b. 11 Oct 1747) bore their children from 1768 to 1788, when she was 41. To have also had a son Salmon ca 1795 (at approximately 48 years of age, and after a 7-year hiatus from childbirth) seems unlikely to me. There are many, many unexplored branches of Capt. Thomas's line, and, as I've opined before, I suspect Salmon belongs to one of these rather than to the already well-documented branches of the line. Chris |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Christopher Brooks BROOKS Families of New England http://www.tributaries.org ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Christopher Brooks wrote: > In my mind, it's important to distinguish between genealogical > (blood) relationships and relationships by marriage. There's > no genealogical connection that I've yet seen between John > Quincy Adams or Charles Francis Adams. Since Charles Francis/7 > married a Brooks, obviously his descendants from that point on > carry Brooks genes. Of course, I meant to say, no known genealogical relationship between John Quincy or Charles Francis AND a Brooks line. Chris