This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Bruce, Griffith Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/XOG.2ACIB/1285 Message Board Post: I'm hoping someone out there with a connection to Vermont Bruce's can help me. I have a Permitta Bruce, b.Oct. 5, 1805 in Moretown, Vermont. Her parents were Hezikiah Bruce and Betsy Benton Haskins. Hezikiah's parents were Elisha Bruce, b. May 7, 1731 in Southborough, MA and Esther Buck. Elisha's father was also Elisha Bruce, born Sept 14, 1695 in Framingham, MA, m. Silence Newton, and his father is Roger Bruce b. 1670 in Sudbury, MA, who was married to Elizabeth Forbes/Forbush. His father I have shown as Thomas Bruce, born about 1630, no birthplace known. Does anyone share this ancestor and if so, any known place of origin for him or any other interesting information on any of the Bruce's listed? Thanks.

Hello there: I share this ancestral line through John. This family has had much misinformation published in the earlier years, but fairly recently has been correctly identified with good information for at least two of four posible children attributed to Thomas Bruce of Marlborough. His ancestry is unknown. He married Magdalen _________ and had possibly, perhaps even likely, four children that were in Marlborough. They are Thomas (disappears from the records), John, Roger and David. Two genealogies (in progress) that you might find interesting are: http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/cooke/d7.htm#P753 http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~mroman/atafel.htm It was not until fairly recently that Thomas was identified as the fau., certainly of Roger and David, probably of Thomas, and possibly John. Neither Thomas (Jr.) or John are mentioned in his papers, as are both David and Roger. Further, neither Hudson's genealogy of Marlborough, nor Savage, nor numerous other genealogies even mention Thomas Sr. The only Thomas Jr. earlier alluded to is as son of Roger (true), son of John. They, like Savage, attributed both to John of Sudbury. New and re-evaluated evidence has surfaced by way of town records, deeds and wills that proved his (Thomas Sr.'s) existence and definitive proof for at least two of his children, Roger and David. Roger, during the interim, had been prior assigned as a child of John, who was mentioned in other historical records, including Savage, as being of Sudbury, MA 1672. While Thomas's and Roger's identity and parentage have now been seemingly established, John the son, herein listed, and identified as the Bruce ancestor of this genealogy, is still less than clearly linked to paternal ancestors, though the Fayhey article tentatively places him as son of Thomas, as does the Michael J. Roman Genealogy, and thusly, he is so placed here. (See sources). Thomas is certainly the earliest Bruce discovered in Marlborough to date (1676), with John not mentioned until 1688 in the Andros Tax List at which time he had to be at least 21. As further evidence of a family relationship, both John and Roger go to Framingham, with several of Rogers children being born there, namely Elisha, Rebekah, and Sarah, the last to be born there in 1700. The balance of his children are born in Marlborough. Roger then returns to Marlborough where more children are born, with John staying at Framingham. Known Events: 1676: NEHGR 35:218-219: The earliest record of Thomas is when in 1676, Thomas Bruce is among those petitioners sustaining losses in the Sudbury Indian Fight (King Phillip's War) of 1676 He is also among those petitioning the general court as a distressed inhabitant of Sudbury. 1679: MJR--Middlesex County Deeds, p. 296: The Selectmen of Marlboro agreed with Thomas Bruce that he would build and operate for the town's use a mill to be located near the confluence of Angle Brook and Stoney Brook to be in operation by January 1680. In return, Thomas was granted 40 acres of land and ten acres of meadow. The agreement was sign by Abraham Williams for the town and "Thomas Breuis" for himself. By original agreement the land was to revert to the town if Thomas were to cease operations of the mill. By 1702, however, the mill was at least partially destroyed, and at his request, and it was so voted that the land be granted to him free and clear. 1688: NEHGR 36:51: In 1688, Thomas Bruse Jr. and John Bruse and Thomas Bruse are among those listed in Marlborough for Taxes under Andros. 1691: NEHGR: 43:372: Thomas Bruse, Sr. is among those settled at the garrison at Marlborough, Middlesex Co. 1691/2 NEHGR40:400: Thomas Brewes is mentioned several times as those of Sudbury involved in King Phillip's war and having sustained loss. 1699: MJR--Middlesex County Deeds, p. 296: On January 29, 1699, Thomas and Magdalen, "my wife," disposed of his land and part interest in his saw mill to sons David and Roger. 1702: MJR--Worcester County Deeds 16:60, 20:584: Samuel Ward of Marlborough exchange land in which Thomas Bruce describes himself as "Thomas Bruce Senr, Miller." 1706: MJR--Worcester County Deeds, 15:149: On April 13, 1706, Thomas Bruce Senr, in fatherly love, gives Roger halft part of his house lot granted by the town, with all the housing and Corn Mill and half of Sawmills standing thereon, and also, "my whole Estate . . ." Research by Katherine Fahey and Winnifred Pelley indicate that no will has been found, and that he likely disposed of his property through deeds such as the above. 1709-10 MJR--Worcester County Deeds 15:148: Thomas was still alive at this date, for he disposes of land to his grandson, David, including "one half of all my right" in the land which was gven to him for building and maintaining a mill. He mentions with the document that he makes this grant for "Divers good causes and other weighty considerations moving me thereto . . ." It is obvious that Thomas is uncomfortable for some reason with events in his life. Magdalen did not sign this will, and it could be conjectured that as she signed earlier documents, she was by now deceased. 1710-1721: MJR-Middlesex County Deeds, p. 299: An attorney was hired in 1710 by Samuel Bigelow, guardian and maternal grandfather of Thomas' grandson David, to represent his interest against the town which wished to nullify earlier land agreements with early residents--David, through Thomas, was among those so affected. A settlement was reached and David was granted twenty acres, in exchange for extinguishment of his half of the rights. In October, 1714, Thomas was granted twenty acres in a similar action. Finally in a meeting of May 8, 1721, a committee was appointed to agree on the bound of one acre of the twenty granted to Thomas and to settle with his heirs. Therefore, Thomas died between 1714 and 1721. NEHGR 63:224: Colonial Records of Marlborough: Referencing the reserved land at Fort Meadow, A "commeetty" is to call John Shearman to show the bounds of an acre of meadow Granted to Thomas Bruce. Thomas Bruce is also those among those shown to have been issued a "primitive" grant. Of Marlboro And These Times: While documentation proves, disproves, or suggests early ancestors, it does little to tell us of their lives. The facts of the narrative below is drawn from Hudson's History of Marlboro. Marlboro was set off from Sudbury in 1656 at the request of several leading inhabitants of Sudbury, many of whom were other early ancestors: Thomas Goodnow, John Howe, Peter and John Bent. In actuality, there were two plantations laid out at this time--that of the Indian Plantation who had so long resided there and the English plantation. The first included about six thousand acres and a "planting field" for the Indians, and the second "Whipsuppenicke" consisted of some 29,000 acres or some 35,000 acres including that part reserved for the Indians. Marlborough was originally called by the name of Okommakamesitt." By 1659, formalities of settlement were underway, and the proprieters held a meeting to ensure that those who lay claim within the plantation proceed in "perfecting their house lots" else lose claim. Various tax rates and assessments of the proprieters and of the inhabitants of the plantation were also put into effect. It is noted by Hudson that although there was some trepidation about the close adjacency of the Indian Plantation, in the earliest years, matters were reasonably peaceful between these particular Indians and the early plantation settlers. He further notes that they were, "more advanced in civilization than most of the savage tribes." While Hudson is a temperate historian, a personal observation is that no matter how couched, explained away or reasoned, The Indians were native, the English the intruder, and as history makes clear, it was the Indian who was ultimately savaged, and not the reverse. That this would in good time provide a bloody battleground awaited only chance and circumstance. By 1674, the village of "Marlborough contained only about ten families and about fifty "souls," and of the entire plantation, it comprised about six thousand acres. There was little apprehension from Indian danger, as, indeed, numerous tribes had "submitted" to the Colony, agreeing to live in peace and friendship and in essence "put themselves, their subjects, lands and estates under the government of Massachusetts." This treaty encompassed moral law as well, and when informed that they should not labor on the Sabbath, The Indians replied that as they had little work to do, they would readily comply. One wonders if the Indians in their joy of the natural land, considered their activities to be "work" in the same sense as the English. Within a year, the horror would begin. The famous King Philip's war, formally the Narraganset, would terrorize the all of the colony, including the outpost settlement of Marlborough. In Marlborough, on the 26th of March, 1676, and at the church, the dread cry arose, "The Indians are upon us." Fleeing for their lives they made for the garrison, and save one person, they were able to defend themselves. The town itself, however, was nearly destroyed. Dwellings, barns, animals and orchards were systematically destroyed, possessions taken away. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:02 PM Subject: Bruce's of Vermont or Mass.... > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Surnames: Bruce, Griffith > Classification: Query > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/XOG.2ACIB/1285 > > Message Board Post: > > I'm hoping someone out there with a connection to Vermont Bruce's can help me. I have a Permitta Bruce, b.Oct. 5, 1805 in Moretown, Vermont. Her parents were Hezikiah Bruce and Betsy Benton Haskins. Hezikiah's parents were Elisha Bruce, b. May 7, 1731 in Southborough, MA and Esther Buck. Elisha's father was also Elisha Bruce, born Sept 14, 1695 in Framingham, MA, m. Silence Newton, and his father is Roger Bruce b. 1670 in Sudbury, MA, who was married to Elizabeth Forbes/Forbush. His father I have shown as Thomas Bruce, born about 1630, no birthplace known. Does anyone share this ancestor and if so, any known place of origin for him or any other interesting information on any of the Bruce's listed? Thanks. > > > ==== BRUCE Mailing List ==== > Have you considered joining the Rootsweb Genealogical Data > Cooperative? > http://www.rootsweb.com/ >