My reading of the 1621 Westcourt Manor Survey is that the youngest son is most in line for land inheritance. For example on page eight Anthony Wiseman becomes land holder due to his younger brother John's death, clearly noted on the lease contract. On the next page John Carbor inherits his father's land over his older brother Francis whose death was not noted. In many other places the age disparity between father and son is too great to suggest an eldest son. Correct me if I am wrong. BC
Bruce--fabulous idea! You can count me in! Barbara L. de Mare, Esq. Historian, genealogist and attorney 155 Polifly Road Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201) 567-9440 office BarbaradeMare@yahoo.com (home) http://historygenealogyesq.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ---- From: Bruce E. Carpenter <carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp> To: Carpenter-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:54:40 PM Subject: [CARPENTER] wills Now that the Wilts wills are beginning to be available online, perhaps interested individuals would be interested in a division of labor to find any Carpenter references in them. In other words one individual would be in charge of one town’s wills for any Carpenter references. Obvious towns would be Amesbury, Newton Tony, Marlborough, Little and Great Bedwyn, Hungerford and Shalbourne. Each researcher could keep a list and check off the names as the wills came online. BC ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CARPENTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Now that the Wilts wills are beginning to be available online, perhaps interested individuals would be interested in a division of labor to find any Carpenter references in them. In other words one individual would be in charge of one town’s wills for any Carpenter references. Obvious towns would be Amesbury, Newton Tony, Marlborough, Little and Great Bedwyn, Hungerford and Shalbourne. Each researcher could keep a list and check off the names as the wills came online. BC
The problem of eldest/youngest is complicated by the following: ‘By the Elizabethan period a man could bequeath his copyhold land as he chose unless limitations were named in the indentures covering specific pieces of land, or there were particulars in the customs of the manors forbidding it. On certain manors, the custom of “Borough English” prevailed. This required that the copyholder’s land must go to his youngest rather than his eldest son as was the case in the common-law usage. Mr. Copinger has estimated that as many as eighty manors in Suffolk were governed by this custom (The English Yeoman, pp. 128-9).’ Borough English aside it may be that William Carpenter(1) was bound neither by primogeniture nor any other system as Campbell states above. Perhaps a careful look at the manor survey on the whole will reveal something? BC
Bruce, Are you sure what you are calling the "youngest son" isn't a grandson, son of the oldest som? If all the sons had died before their father, the oldest child of the first male would be next in line. Most early English wills don't even mention the land which is subject to primogenature as it passes according to law, not the will. Properties in a will are other properties owned by the decedent. If you sent a copy of the whole will I could analyze it for you--after all that is what I do for a living! Barbara "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp> wrote: My reading of the 1621 Westcourt Manor Survey is that the youngest son is most in line for land inheritance. For example on page eight Anthony Wiseman becomes land holder due to his younger brother John's death, clearly noted on the lease contract. On the next page John Carbor inherits his father's land over his older brother Francis whose death was not noted. In many other places the age disparity between father and son is too great to suggest an eldest son. Correct me if I am wrong. BC Barbara L. de Mare, Esq. Historian, genealogist and attorney 155 Polifly Road Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201) 567-9440 office BarbaradeMare@yahoo.com (home) http://historygenealogyesq.blogspot.com/
Bruce wrote: << "On certain manors, the custom of "Borough English" prevailed. This required that the copyholder's land must go to his youngest rather than his eldest son as was the case in the common-law usage. Mr. Copinger has estimated that as many as eighty manors in Suffolk were governed by this custom (The English Yeoman, pp. 128-9)." >> Those "certain" manors where Borough English was the custom in the Middle Ages were primarily in Suffolk, Surrey, Middlesex, and Sussex. By the seventeenth century, some (if not many) of them had adopted primogeniture, as a pparently had _all_ Wiltshire manors. << Borough English aside it may be that William Carpenter(1) was bound neither by primogeniture nor any other system as Campbell states above. >> William1 wasn't "bound" by the law of primogeniture, Borough English, gavelkind, or any other system of inheritance. Any such system was used only in cases of intestacy (including, presumably, instances in which an intestate copyholder failed to name an inheriting co-tenant in the manorial record). He was free to name as co-tenant anyone he chose. My point was that primogeniture was not only a principle of common law but also a cultural value that influenced discretionary behavior. << Perhaps a careful look at the manor survey on the whole will reveal something? >> I have only page 7 of the manor survey, which contains the record of the Carpenter copyhold and one other. But my impression is that Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office archivist Andrew Crookston's position--that the eldest son was typically the co-tenant named in Westcourt Manor copyhold records--is based on just such a review. It should be recalled, moreover, that I presented additional reasons for concluding that William2 was probably his father's eldest (if not only) son (see "Re: [CARPENTER] eldest/youngest," CARPENTER Digest, Vol 2, Issue 198). Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
In a message dated 10/24/2007 12:02:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, carpenter-request@rootsweb.com writes: Today's Topics: 1. Re: eldest/youngest (GeneZub@aol.com) 2. Re: eldest/youngest (GeneZub@aol.com) 3. Borough English (Bruce E. Carpenter) 4. Re: Veterans day - November 11 (John R Carpenter (JRC)) 5. Manor Survey (Bruce E. Carpenter) 6. wills (Bruce E. Carpenter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:35:22 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] eldest/youngest To: carpenter@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <ce4.1f6cd072.344fd12a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Bruce wrote: << << "and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of being named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his father's eldest son and heir." >> >> << I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. >> Not according to archivist Andrew Crookston at the Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, Trowbridge, England (soon to be the Wiltshire and Swindon Archives, Chippenham). I explicitly raised this issue with him a few months ago, and he confirmed that extending the copyhold beyond the father's lifetime--a matter of inheritance under the old English law of primogeniture--was typically done by naming the eldest son as co-tenant. In light of the legal (and cultural) significance of the eldest son--only to whom, incidentally, did a family crest devolve--the youngest son had little standing among a family's male children. In seventeenth-century England, family claims to land--whether by copyhold or freehold--were almost always perpetuated through the eldest son, who was the "heir at law" of his father's real estate. A father could circumvent the law of primogeniture by making a will whose provisions diverged from it (though most men of modest means left no wills, and those who did typically had other purposes). Similarly, a copyholding father could name someone other than his eldest son as co-tenant, but it would violate a principle deeply rooted in English common law and was rarely done. A copyhold was, by custom, a semipermanent lease from a manorial lord. Having in practical terms many of the features of a freehold, a copyhold was not so tenuous as to require such strategies as making the youngest son co-tenant so as "to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time." A copyhold's continuity through many generations of the same family was virtually guaranteed by custom and the manorial court (on which tenants sat as judges). The perpetuation of a family's copyhold was easily accomplished by adding the next-generation eldest son's name when tenancy was renewed (technically, surrendered and regranted). When a man died intestate and a co-tenant was not named in manorial records, either the law of primogeniture applied (the copyhold was regranted to the eldest son), or, as was the custom on some manors, the copyhold was regranted to all the sons (and the representatives of deceased ones). Under such circumstances, I can't imagine a copyhold's being regranted to the youngest son alone, without the formal consent of each and all older brothers. William2 is named along with his father in the record of their Westcourt copyhold's inception, on 1 June 1608, when William1 was about 33 years old (and his namesake son was about 3). Why, at that age, would the father have thought that William2 would be his last son? (The law of primogeniture almost certainly arose, in part, out of the inherent uncertainty as to [1] the sex of future children and who among them would survive ["a bird in the hand . . ."] and [2] the longevity of the father. Of course it also prevented the dilution of family wealth from one generation to the next.) Finally, given the naming traditions of the time, the son receiving his father's forename was far more likely to be the eldest than the youngest. In that the Carpenters' copyhold was granted to an entirely different family a few months before William1, William2, and the latter's family emigrated, it's quite possible that William2 was his father's _only_ son (by that time, at least). Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:35:22 EDT From: GeneZub@aol.com Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] eldest/youngest To: carpenter@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <ce4.1f6cd072.344fd12a@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Bruce wrote: << << "and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of being named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his father's eldest son and heir." >> >> << I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. >> Not according to archivist Andrew Crookston at the Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, Trowbridge, England (soon to be the Wiltshire and Swindon Archives, Chippenham). I explicitly raised this issue with him a few months ago, and he confirmed that extending the copyhold beyond the father's lifetime--a matter of inheritance under the old English law of primogeniture--was typically done by naming the eldest son as co-tenant. In light of the legal (and cultural) significance of the eldest son--only to whom, incidentally, did a family crest devolve--the youngest son had little standing among a family's male children. In seventeenth-century England, family claims to land--whether by copyhold or freehold--were almost always perpetuated through the eldest son, who was the "heir at law" of his father's real estate. A father could circumvent the law of primogeniture by making a will whose provisions diverged from it (though most men of modest means left no wills, and those who did typically had other purposes). Similarly, a copyholding father could name someone other than his eldest son as co-tenant, but it would violate a principle deeply rooted in English common law and was rarely done. A copyhold was, by custom, a semipermanent lease from a manorial lord. Having in practical terms many of the features of a freehold, a copyhold was not so tenuous as to require such strategies as making the youngest son co-tenant so as "to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time." A copyhold's continuity through many generations of the same family was virtually guaranteed by custom and the manorial court (on which tenants sat as judges). The perpetuation of a family's copyhold was easily accomplished by adding the next-generation eldest son's name when tenancy was renewed (technically, surrendered and regranted). When a man died intestate and a co-tenant was not named in manorial records, either the law of primogeniture applied (the copyhold was regranted to the eldest son), or, as was the custom on some manors, the copyhold was regranted to all the sons (and the representatives of deceased ones). Under such circumstances, I can't imagine a copyhold's being regranted to the youngest son alone, without the formal consent of each and all older brothers. William2 is named along with his father in the record of their Westcourt copyhold's inception, on 1 June 1608, when William1 was about 33 years old (and his namesake son was about 3). Why, at that age, would the father have thought that William2 would be his last son? (The law of primogeniture almost certainly arose, in part, out of the inherent uncertainty as to [1] the sex of future children and who among them would survive ["a bird in the hand . . ."] and [2] the longevity of the father. Of course it also prevented the dilution of family wealth from one generation to the next.) Finally, given the naming traditions of the time, the son receiving his father's forename was far more likely to be the eldest than the youngest. In that the Carpenters' copyhold was granted to an entirely different family a few months before William1, William2, and the latter's family emigrated, it's quite possible that William2 was his father's _only_ son (by that time, at least). Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:22:36 +0900 (JST) From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp> Subject: [CARPENTER] Borough English To: Carpenter-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <38907.125.194.2.197.1193185356.squirrel@webmail.wesleyan.edu> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 The problem of eldest/youngest is complicated by the following: ?By the Elizabethan period a man could bequeath his copyhold land as he chose unless limitations were named in the indentures covering specific pieces of land, or there were particulars in the customs of the manors forbidding it. On certain manors, the custom of ?Borough English? prevailed. This required that the copyholder?s land must go to his youngest rather than his eldest son as was the case in the common-law usage. Mr. Copinger has estimated that as many as eighty manors in Suffolk were governed by this custom (The English Yeoman, pp. 128-9).? Borough English aside it may be that William Carpenter(1) was bound neither by primogeniture nor any other system as Campbell states above. Perhaps a careful look at the manor survey on the whole will reveal something? BC ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:56:55 -0700 From: "John R Carpenter \(JRC\)" <jrcrin001@cox.net> Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Veterans day - November 11 To: <carpenter@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <004801c815e9$89922a00$0200a8c0@JOHN> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Tim, Good ops! We are just getting a head start! John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <carpenter@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Veterans day ...> > If this week was Veteran's Day what is November 11th? > > Tim Stowell ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:25:16 +0900 (JST) From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp> Subject: [CARPENTER] Manor Survey To: Carpenter-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <39461.125.194.2.197.1193196316.squirrel@webmail.wesleyan.edu> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 My reading of the 1621 Westcourt Manor Survey is that the youngest son is most in line for land inheritance. For example on page eight Anthony Wiseman becomes land holder due to his younger brother John's death, clearly noted on the lease contract. On the next page John Carbor inherits his father's land over his older brother Francis whose death was not noted. In many other places the age disparity between father and son is too great to suggest an eldest son. Correct me if I am wrong. BC ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:54:40 +0900 (JST) From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp> Subject: [CARPENTER] wills To: Carpenter-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <39001.125.194.2.197.1193187280.squirrel@webmail.wesleyan.edu> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Now that the Wilts wills are beginning to be available online, perhaps interested individuals would be interested in a division of labor to find any Carpenter references in them. In other words one individual would be in charge of one town?s wills for any Carpenter references. Obvious towns would be Amesbury, Newton Tony, Marlborough, Little and Great Bedwyn, Hungerford and Shalbourne. Each researcher could keep a list and check off the names as the wills came online. BC ------------------------------ To contact the CARPENTER list administrator, send an email to CARPENTER-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the CARPENTER mailing list, send an email to CARPENTER@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CARPENTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of CARPENTER Digest, Vol 2, Issue 198 ***************************************** ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Tim, Good ops! We are just getting a head start! John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Stowell" <tstowell@chattanooga.net> To: <carpenter@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Veterans day ...> > If this week was Veteran's Day what is November 11th? > > Tim Stowell
Bruce wrote: << << "and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of being named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his father's eldest son and heir." >> >> << I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. >> Not according to archivist Andrew Crookston at the Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, Trowbridge, England (soon to be the Wiltshire and Swindon Archives, Chippenham). I explicitly raised this issue with him a few months ago, and he confirmed that extending the copyhold beyond the father's lifetime--a matter of inheritance under the old English law of primogeniture--was typically done by naming the eldest son as co-tenant. In light of the legal (and cultural) significance of the eldest son--only to whom, incidentally, did a family crest devolve--the youngest son had little standing among a family's male children. In seventeenth-century England, family claims to land--whether by copyhold or freehold--were almost always perpetuated through the eldest son, who was the "heir at law" of his father's real estate. A father could circumvent the law of primogeniture by making a will whose provisions diverged from it (though most men of modest means left no wills, and those who did typically had other purposes). Similarly, a copyholding father could name someone other than his eldest son as co-tenant, but it would violate a principle deeply rooted in English common law and was rarely done. A copyhold was, by custom, a semipermanent lease from a manorial lord. Having in practical terms many of the features of a freehold, a copyhold was not so tenuous as to require such strategies as making the youngest son co-tenant so as "to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time." A copyhold's continuity through many generations of the same family was virtually guaranteed by custom and the manorial court (on which tenants sat as judges). The perpetuation of a family's copyhold was easily accomplished by adding the next-generation eldest son's name when tenancy was renewed (technically, surrendered and regranted). When a man died intestate and a co-tenant was not named in manorial records, either the law of primogeniture applied (the copyhold was regranted to the eldest son), or, as was the custom on some manors, the copyhold was regranted to all the sons (and the representatives of deceased ones). Under such circumstances, I can't imagine a copyhold's being regranted to the youngest son alone, without the formal consent of each and all older brothers. William2 is named along with his father in the record of their Westcourt copyhold's inception, on 1 June 1608, when William1 was about 33 years old (and his namesake son was about 3). Why, at that age, would the father have thought that William2 would be his last son? (The law of primogeniture almost certainly arose, in part, out of the inherent uncertainty as to [1] the sex of future children and who among them would survive ["a bird in the hand . . ."] and [2] the longevity of the father. Of course it also prevented the dilution of family wealth from one generation to the next.) Finally, given the naming traditions of the time, the son receiving his father's forename was far more likely to be the eldest than the youngest. In that the Carpenters' copyhold was granted to an entirely different family a few months before William1, William2, and the latter's family emigrated, it's quite possible that William2 was his father's _only_ son (by that time, at least). Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Gene, thank you for your time and effort to help get this straightened out. Its hard when time-honored ideas prove to be incorrect, isn't it? People don't like anyone to upset the apple cart. I am facing that with the Haviland family. If I can't get it straightened out, I won't be able to find where my family fits in. thanks Marilyn (Heavilin) Current, descended from one of the many Stephen Havilands, but which one?!!!! ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
"and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of being named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his father's eldest son and heir." I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. BC
Thanks, Gene, always there to help. Phoebe ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Phoebe wrote: << << my sone in lawe [stepson] >> >> << How can you tell when it means "step" son of a spouse, and when it means husband of your daughter? >> Without other evidence, we can't. But in the absence of it, it's important to keep in mind that "in-law" had a broader range of meanings than it does now. If we simply assume that the narrower, modern meaning was intended, we will often be wrong. By remaining alert to other possibilities, we're more likely to recognize as relevant the evidence necessary to draw the right conclusion. Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Marilyn wrote: << If this is a different Thomas than the one who married Hannah Alsop, can you tell me which Thomas it was? (Some say it is the same as Thomas with wife Hannah Alsop.) >> So far as I'm aware, there was no marriage between a Thomas Carpenter and a Hannah Alsop. The Thomas Carpenter _said_ to have married Hannah Alsop, was the father of Hannah5 Carpenter, who married Solomon Haviland (see Daniel Hoogland Carpenter, _History and Genealogy of the Carpenter Family in America_ [Jamaica, N.Y., 1901], 67; Josephine C. Frost, _The Haviland Genealogy_ [New York, 1914], 110). These sources identify Hannah Alsop as the daughter of Thomas and Hannah (Underhill) Alsop. Both assertions are incorrect. If Hannah Underhill married an Alsop (direct, documentary evidence is lacking), it was not Thomas but Richard1 Alsop (see Douglas Leffingwell, _Alsop Genealogy_ [n.p., 1928], 2-4; Joseph C. Frost, ed., _Underhill Genealogy_, 2 vols. [New York?, 1932], 2:65; Robert Charles Anderson, _The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England 1620-1633_, 3 vols. [Boston, 1995], 3:1862, 1863). "Richard Alsop's widow, Hannah (who, tradition saith, was a Dutch lady, whom he courted through an interpreter), attained her 91st yr. and d. Aug. 23, 1757" (James Riker, _The Annals of Newtown, in Queens County, New-York_ [Ne w York, 1852], 335). Widow Hannah Alsop's age at death matches perfectly Hannah Underhill's birth date of 2 December 1666; although she was born at Flushing, Long Island, her father, Capt. John1 Underhill, had married first wife Helena deHooch at the Hague, Netherlands (12 December 1628) (_The Great Migration Begins_, 3:1861, 1862). A Thomas Alsop immigrated to New England in 1635 with his brother Joseph and settled in Connecticut (Robert Charles Anderson, George F. Sanborn Jr., Melinde Lutz Sanborn, _The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England 1634-1635, Volume 1 A-B_ [Boston, 1999], 47-52). He died by 1650/1, however, and there is no indication that he married or had children (ibid., 52). The Thomas Alsop whose will D. H. Carpenter cites is that of Richard1 Alsop's son (1687-1743) (see _Carpenter Family in America_, 68n; New York Wills and Administrations, 15:127-29 [FHL film #497595]; _Alsop Gen_, 4; _Underhill Gen_, 2:65). Richard Alsop's will, executed at Maspeth Kills (in Newtown [now Elmhurst]), Queens County, Long Island, on 11 October 1718 and proved the following 8 November, names daughter Hannah Sackett (_Alsop Gen_, 2 [transcr. of will]). Her husband is identified elsewhere as Joseph Sackett, son of Joseph and Elizabeth (Betts) Sackett (_Annals of Newtown_, 345-46; _Underhill Gen_, 2:66). An 1859 account by a Haviland descendant based on family records gives the forename of the wife of Thomas4 Carpenter (Joseph3-2, William1 of Providence) as Hannah (see _Haviland Gen_, 186). Her maiden name, however, has not been established. Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Are you saying that William1 and William2 might be brothers? Anita -- "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp> wrote: "and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of being named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his father's eldest son and heir." I think this is mistaken. The youngest was usually named in manor records, with the intention to maintain family claims to the land for the longest period of time. Clearly William (2) was the youngest. BC ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CARPENTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message _____________________________________________________________ Prices, software, charts & analysis. Click here to open your online FX trading account. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iifUxWPkwyOY5EBFwXePBzTCqBeCYag0HBUozEM23gmhLCIEf/
John, I have a copy, it doesn't indicate what version, but I think it's 7.5, the only identification is FDF8AE-MAN on the back. You are welcome to it for postage rembursement, I don't use that program anymore. John Proctor Stilwell, KS ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
In a message dated 10/21/2007 5:52:44 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, GeneZub@aol.com writes: my sone in lawe [stepson] Gene, How can you tell when it means "step" son of a spouse, and when it means husband of your daughter? Dates? I seem to remember a Jayne in Orange Co. NY who named two sons in law, John Carpenter and John Wood (my records are in storage so can't check for sure, but think early 1700s). Phoebe ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
In a message dated 10/3/2007 5:50:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, GeneZub@aol.com writes: HANNAH5 CARPENTER was born at Musketa Cove (then part of Oyster Bay, now the city of Glen Cove), Queens (that part now Nassau) Co., N.Y., say 1722, daughter of Thomas4 and Hannah (______ [not Alsop]) Carpenter; she died at Rye, Westchester Co., N.Y., or Greenwich, Fairfield Co., Conn., probably in the 1740s (only one known child), certainly before 29 August 1766 (date of father's will, in which she is not named). She married at Rye, 17 9th month [November] 1742, SOLOMON HAVILAND, who was born at Rye, say 1720, son of Benjamin and Charity (Farrington??? [not documented]) Haviland; he died at Greenwich not long before 22 June 1772 (letters of admin.), leaving a widow Esther. Gene, If this is a different Thomas than the one who married Hannah Alsop, can you tell me which Thomas it was? (Some say it is the same as Thomas with wife Hannah Alsop.) thank you' Marilyn (Heavilin) Curent ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
In a message dated 10/3/2007 5:50:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, GeneZub@aol.com writes: HANNAH5 CARPENTER was born at Musketa Cove (then part of Oyster Bay, now the city of Glen Cove), Queens (that part now Nassau) Co., N.Y., say 1722, daughter of Thomas4 and Hannah (______ [not Alsop]) Carpenter; she died at Rye, Westchester Co., N.Y., or Greenwich, Fairfield Co., Conn., probably in the 1740s (only one known child), certainly before 29 August 1766 (date of father's will, in which she is not named). She married at Rye, 17 9th month [November] 1742, SOLOMON HAVILAND, who was born at Rye, say 1720, son of Benjamin and Charity (Farrington??? [not documented]) Haviland; he died at Greenwich not long before 22 June 1772 (letters of admin.), leaving a widow Esther. Sources: Daniel Hoogland Carpenter, _History and Genealogy of the Carpenter Family in America, from the Settlement at Providence, R.I., 1637–1901_ (Jamaica, N.Y., 1901), 67n–68n, citing Oyster Bay Records, B:103–6, 1:469, 470, 476; William S. Pelletreau, ed., _Early Wills of Westchester County, New York, from 1664 to 1784_ (New York, 1898), 48, 219–20; Pelletreau, _Abstracts of Wills on File in the Surrogate's Office, City of New York_, 17 vols. (New York, 1893–1913), 2:11; New York Wills and Administrations, 15:127–28; Douglas Leffingwell, _Alsop Genealogy_ (n.p., 1928), 2–4; Purchase (Rye) Monthly Meeting Records (1700–1800), 1, 4 [FHL film #17,293, item 1]; Westchester Co. Deeds, F:328, G:46–47; Greenwich Deeds, 6:359, 10:257; Stamford (Conn.) District Probate, 3:499, 4:12, 6:388–89; Josephine C. Frost, _The Haviland Genealogy_ (N.Y., 1914), 50–51, 70–71, 110 (caveat). Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
In a previous posting this date, I supposed that Joanna (Mrs. Richard) Carpenter had been "a close relative (daughter or sister?) of Philip Heath's." It since occurred to me that since Heath had died before "the Feaste of St. Michaell" [29 September] 1621 (date of his estate inventory), and the marriage of Richard Carpenter and Joanna Heath took place on 23 April 1622, she might have been Heath's widow. This is confirmed by the will of Richard Carpenter of Little Bedwyn, blacksmith, dated 17 June 1681 and proved 14 January 1683[/4] (P5/1683/15, online at _http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/heritage/getwill.php?id=102472_ (http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/heritage/getwill.php?id=102472) , images 8, 9). It names "my sone in lawe [stepson] Phillip heathe my first wifes sonn"; "my sister in law Robert Carpenters wife of Swindon"; "my kinse woman Elezabeth Phillips"; and wife Dorothy (executrix). Having in 1622 married a widow with at least one child, Richard is not likely to have been born later than about 1602. And considering his year of death (ca. 1683), it's unlikely that he was born much before 1600. This would seem to eliminate the possibility that he was either a brother or son of William1 Carpenter, then of Shalbourne. William1 was born about 1575 (aged 40 in 1614; 62 in 1638), and we may assume that William2 (b. ca. 1605), by virtue of being named with William1 in Shalbourne Westcourt tenant records, was his father's eldest son and heir. Note, however, that a Phillippe Hethe married at Calne, Wiltshire (about 20 miles west of Little Bedwyn), on 12 October 1612, Joanne Vauhen [probably Vaughen/Vaughan/Vaughn] (IGI extraction from Calne parish register). If--I repeat, _if_--this was Richard's eventual wife, then despite his year of death, his birth year might have been early enough to preserve the _possibility_ that Richard was William1's brother. In any case, it wouldn't hurt to check parish records for Swindon and vicinity. Gene Z. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com