Thank you Gene. Anita -- GeneZub@aol.com wrote: Anita wrote: << Is there a way to post this document so that others can view it. I think it would be interesting. Anita >> I'm working on it. Gene ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ------------------------------- 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Surprise your friends with a FREE Juno Video Mail! Sign up today. http://track.juno.com/s/lc?u=http://ads.addynamix.com/click/2-2130421-177

Anita wrote: << Is there a way to post this document so that others can view it. I think it would be interesting. Anita >> I'm working on it. Gene ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Thank you Gene, not only for this reply, but for all the knowledge you continue to share with us ! Donna Carpenter Cuzze Donna wrote: << Looking over the wills, some mention aliases. As example it may say John Bell alias Carpenter. << Does it mean the persons REAL NAME was Bell or that it was Carpenter? >> >Gene wrote: "REAL NAME" is not a useful distinction when an alias was used with (rather than instead of) another surname. Often, though by no means always, illegitimacy was behind the use of two names; one was the father's surname, the other the unmarried mother's. Adopting an alias might be done for reasons other than illegitimacy (to honor someone, for example), but regardless of the reason, there doesn't seem to have been an established pattern as to which name (father's or mother's, original or adopted) came first. A man might be known by two surnames, one an alias, throughout his life and so might his descendants; ultimately the word _alias_ might be omitted and the two surnames combined into a single, hyphenated one. Gene Z.

Is there a way to post this document so that others can view it. I think it would be interesting. Anita -- GeneZub@aol.com wrote: Bruce: << Where can I view an example of William's handwriting? I assume you have an example from your statement. Could you JPEg me something? >> I have a superb, lengthy example of William2's handwriting from the Rhode Island Historical Society's manuscript collection--much clearer than his entries in Rehoboth records. The page, however, is oversized, and to scan it all, I'll first have to go to the copy shop and make a copy of reduced size. In the meantime, I'll send you a partial copy that includes the statement that the original document is "in the hand and Custodie of mee William Carpenter of Rehoboth" and that he made the copy for William Carpenter of Pawtuxet (one of four parties of the second part including William of Rehoboth) for his "ashourance." << First you doubt that William could write at all and then you tell me below that you have examples of his handwriting and he was Town Clerk. >> No, I doubt that William1 ("ye elder," as he is described in Thomas Wisemans's will) could write and am certain that Wiseman's inventory is in a hand other than that of William2 (whom you had proposed as the one who wrote it). << Then you mention the third person in the inventory who appears to have been Wiseman's "wife." She certainly didn't pen the document. >> I have yet to see an inventory in which one of the appraisers is a woman, let alone the decedent's widow. As executrix or administratrix, she would swear to its accuracy, but that's all. It was a conflict of interest for anyone who stood to receive a portion of the decedent's estate to participate in its itemization/valuation. But more to the point, Wiseman's wife was named Elizabeth (see his will). The reference to the third appraiser, which you read as "wife," is a forename beginning "ruf-" or "rus-" (lower-case "r"); the surname, immediately below and slightly to the left of this, ends "-ptan," perhaps "-uptan." << If people like Pearson were perfectly capable of scripting a will, why coult't they script an inventory? Why does there have to be someone else? >> I never said there had to be someone else. I said it could just as easily have been someone else as one of those who took the inventory. << However your implied point that the calligrapher might have been William Carpenter Sr. is well taken. >> I implied no such thing. I contended that the William Carpenter named with vicar Rowland Hill in 1628 as Thomas Wiseman's overseer was also the church warden of that name ("Crpener" or, more likely, "Crpentr") who had signed by mark the 1628 glebe terrier, and that this was William1. Implied (if I didn't say it outright) was that inventory-taker William Carpenter was the same man. I don't believe for a moment that either William1 (who couldn't write) or William2 (whose handwriting is significantly different) penned the inventory. << Thanks for your reference to "the elder." I had missed it entirely. This would indicate the the inventory "William Carpenter" could be William sr. >> It strongly suggests that the William Carpenter named as one of the three appraisers was "the elder" (i.e., William1), named in the Wiseman will; it indicates nothing as to who wrote the inventory. << The "Glebe Terriers" individual was probably not a William Carpenter. >> You were quite content to think so until now. If you've altered your interpretation so as to argue that there's no evidence that William1 was illiterate, it would help prop up your newly adopted notion that it was William1 Carpenter (rather than William2, your initial choice) who wrote the inventory. More important, it would remove a major conflict with your Wikipedia pieces claiming that William1 had been a scribe at Culham Manor Court before arriving at Shalbourne. But you can't have it both ways: William1 could not have written the inventory AND have been the Culham man: the inventory's handwriting is hardly that of a scribe. And if William1 was illiterate, as the glebe terrier indicates, you don't have it either way: he was neither the Culham scribe nor the writer of the inventory. Sorry, Bruce, but I'm going to bed. I'll send you the scan tomorrow. Gene Z. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ------------------------------- 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Surprise your friends with a FREE Juno Video Mail! Sign up today. http://track.juno.com/s/lc?u=http://ads.addynamix.com/click/2-2130421-177

Bruce: << . . . the name is spelled "Carpenter" in the inventory, but then later rendered "Capendor", or such, by Pearson and then formalized as such in the final will copy? << Obviously "Capendor" was the manner in which "Carpenter" was pronounced and was the way Pearson usually heard it. Why would the individual who penned the inventory write the name in a careful and correct manner? One explaination would be "Carpenter" penned the inventory. >> Yes, that would be one explanation. But the one, solid piece of evidence we have concerning William1's literacy--his signing the glebe terrier by mark--militates against it. It should also be noted that at this time, spelling wasn't standardized. It was extremely common for the same word to be spelled in two or more ways in the same document. It was, in fact, not that uncommon for people to spell their own names in various ways. We must assume, moreover, that the bearer of a particular name wasn't the only one to spell it "correctly." << Another curious feature in the Wiseman inventory I hope you could comment on is the use of the letter "C" throughout the document. . . . It would seem to me that the writer of the inventory had developed a particular flourish when writing his own name which was different when writing ordinary words.>> I don't see a flourish in the formation of the _C_ in Carpenter. Quite the contrary, I see a hurried quality, resulting in an interruption in the flow of ink at the right side of the letter and in the cross-stroke (of which there is only the slightest evidence, to the left of the letter). << Another point I was hoping you could look at is the way the inventory calligrapher uses the letter ?t? in Carpenter. The writer of the document only uses an eyed ?t? in the name and seeming nowhere else. It seems a signature flourish. Correct me if you think I am mistaken. >> To me, the eye in the _t_ of Carpenter reflects haste and the sort of inconsistency one finds in all handwriting, even today. Variations in letter formation, incidentally, are as common in documents from this period as variations in spelling: _h_'s that go below the line in the same document as _h_'s that don't, for example, or the same word begun with an upper-case letter in some places and a lower-case letter in others.) The case for flourishes--and for William1's being the writer--is further weakened, it seems to me, by the abbreviation of the first name as "Will." It doesn't seem likely that the writer would abbreviate his own name. Gene ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gene: Another point I was hoping you could look at is the way the inventory calligrapher uses the letter “t” in Carpenter. The writer of the document only uses an eyed “t” in the name and seeming nowhere else. It seems a signature flourish. Correct me if you think I am mistaken. Bruce Carpenter

Gene: Another curious feature in the Wiseman inventory I hope you could comment on is the use of the letter "C" throughout the document. When the writer uses an initial capital "C" in words like "Cupboard" it is unlike the use of capital "C" as the first letter of "Carpenter." If you look at Pearson's calligraphy for example, capital "C" is consistant throughout. It would seem to me that the writer of the inventory had developed a particular flourish when writing his own name which was different when writing ordinary words. I have developed such a habit when inscribing my own name. BC

Gene: Another matter re. the Wiseman will I would appreciate your thoughts on is why the name is spelled "Carpenter" in the inventory, but then later rendered "Capendor", or such, by Pearson and then formalized as such in the final will copy? Obviously "Capendor" was the manner in which "Carpenter" was pronounced and was the way Pearson usually heard it. Why would the individual who penned the inventory write the name in a careful and correct manner? One explaination would be "Carpenter" penned the inventory. Bruce

Gene: Thanks so much for your offer re. the William (2) calligraphy and thanks for your help in reading the Wiseman inventory. I hope I haven't given you the impression that I think William (1) was a formal "scribe." The Culham manor court was part of a a tiny farming community. The court officers appear to be yeoman like everyone else. BC

Bruce: << Where can I view an example of William's handwriting? I assume you have an example from your statement. Could you JPEg me something? >> I have a superb, lengthy example of William2's handwriting from the Rhode Island Historical Society's manuscript collection--much clearer than his entries in Rehoboth records. The page, however, is oversized, and to scan it all, I'll first have to go to the copy shop and make a copy of reduced size. In the meantime, I'll send you a partial copy that includes the statement that the original document is "in the hand and Custodie of mee William Carpenter of Rehoboth" and that he made the copy for William Carpenter of Pawtuxet (one of four parties of the second part including William of Rehoboth) for his "ashourance." << First you doubt that William could write at all and then you tell me below that you have examples of his handwriting and he was Town Clerk. >> No, I doubt that William1 ("ye elder," as he is described in Thomas Wisemans's will) could write and am certain that Wiseman's inventory is in a hand other than that of William2 (whom you had proposed as the one who wrote it). << Then you mention the third person in the inventory who appears to have been Wiseman's "wife." She certainly didn't pen the document. >> I have yet to see an inventory in which one of the appraisers is a woman, let alone the decedent's widow. As executrix or administratrix, she would swear to its accuracy, but that's all. It was a conflict of interest for anyone who stood to receive a portion of the decedent's estate to participate in its itemization/valuation. But more to the point, Wiseman's wife was named Elizabeth (see his will). The reference to the third appraiser, which you read as "wife," is a forename beginning "ruf-" or "rus-" (lower-case "r"); the surname, immediately below and slightly to the left of this, ends "-ptan," perhaps "-uptan." << If people like Pearson were perfectly capable of scripting a will, why coult't they script an inventory? Why does there have to be someone else? >> I never said there had to be someone else. I said it could just as easily have been someone else as one of those who took the inventory. << However your implied point that the calligrapher might have been William Carpenter Sr. is well taken. >> I implied no such thing. I contended that the William Carpenter named with vicar Rowland Hill in 1628 as Thomas Wiseman's overseer was also the church warden of that name ("Crpener" or, more likely, "Crpentr") who had signed by mark the 1628 glebe terrier, and that this was William1. Implied (if I didn't say it outright) was that inventory-taker William Carpenter was the same man. I don't believe for a moment that either William1 (who couldn't write) or William2 (whose handwriting is significantly different) penned the inventory. << Thanks for your reference to "the elder." I had missed it entirely. This would indicate the the inventory "William Carpenter" could be William sr. >> It strongly suggests that the William Carpenter named as one of the three appraisers was "the elder" (i.e., William1), named in the Wiseman will; it indicates nothing as to who wrote the inventory. << The "Glebe Terriers" individual was probably not a William Carpenter. >> You were quite content to think so until now. If you've altered your interpretation so as to argue that there's no evidence that William1 was illiterate, it would help prop up your newly adopted notion that it was William1 Carpenter (rather than William2, your initial choice) who wrote the inventory. More important, it would remove a major conflict with your Wikipedia pieces claiming that William1 had been a scribe at Culham Manor Court before arriving at Shalbourne. But you can't have it both ways: William1 could not have written the inventory AND have been the Culham man: the inventory's handwriting is hardly that of a scribe. And if William1 was illiterate, as the glebe terrier indicates, you don't have it either way: he was neither the Culham scribe nor the writer of the inventory. Sorry, Bruce, but I'm going to bed. I'll send you the scan tomorrow. Gene Z. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Gene: Although I do not have the records with me at the moment, my recollection is that the Carpenters were tenants of Westcourt Manor and Talmidge and a William Capner (or something close) were tenants of the Eastcourt Manor. The church served both and Reverend Hill (Hyll) was a witness to documents of both communities. The "Glebe Terriers" individual was probably not a William Carpenter. This I will check. BC

Gene: Thanks for your reference to "the elder." I had missed it entirely. This would indicate the the inventory "William Carpenter" could be William sr. BC

"<< Even if [William Carpenter] had been able to write, he was but one of three men who took Thomas Wiseman's estate inventory. Either of the other two or someone else entirely could just as easily have prepared the inventory's final draft. >> Sorry, the last sentence is a misstatement. I had momentarily forgotten that William Peerson, one of three men who took Thomas Wiseman's estate inventory and the only witness to his will, appears to be the one who wrote the latter document; its handwriting differs significantly from that of the former. This, however, scarcely improves the odds that the inventory was prepared by William Carpenter "ye elder," let alone William Jr., who, as Rehoboth town and proprietors' clerk from 1643 to 1649, wrote in a discernibly different hand. Gene Z." Gene: First you doubt that William could write at all and then you tell me below that you have examples of his handwriting and he was Town Clerk. Then you mention the third person in the inventory who appears to have been Wiseman's "wife." She certainly didn't pen the document. If people like Pearson were perfectly capable of scripting a will, why coult't they script an inventory? Why does there have to be someone else? Again, the problem of who composes inventories and related problems is still unclear. And yes, of course, someone else could have penned the inventory. But whu didn't someone else pen the will? However your implied point that the calligrapher might have been William Carpenter Sr. is well taken. BC

At 10:17 PM 8/19/07 -0400, you wrote: >Thanks Tim, I will check into those name via Madison Co., and elsewhere.? If yu should find anything else I would be most appreciative.????? > > >Always, Meralyn Ok, so I finally found my other source - Milton Maxson, son of Dewey, and Lucinda (Colegrove) Maine, was born at North Stonington, CT, March 6, 1802; died at Portville, Cattaragus Co., NY, Feb. 17, 1878. He married Theda C. Carpenter. She was born Aug. 27, 1804; died March 14, 1895. I show them as having 10 children. First child was born in 1823, where I don't know. I'm guess New York - Chenango county as Milton's sister born in 1804 was born there. I realize that still doesn't give a clue as to Theda's parents. I do know that Stonington, CT area had a lot of folks show up in central New York. This site, near the bottom, shows Milton's heritage in a format I've never seen before - http://www.cazcie.net/breer_and_grimmett.htm Still rooting and finding out some interesting Carpenter material - (general nature as well). Tim

Gene: "who, as Rehoboth town and proprietors' clerk from 1643 to 1649, wrote in a discernibly different hand." Where can I view an example of William's handwriting? I assume you have an example from your statement. Could you JPEg me something? Bruce

<< Even if [William Carpenter] had been able to write, he was but one of three men who took Thomas Wiseman's estate inventory. Either of the other two or someone else entirely could just as easily have prepared the inventory's final draft. >> Sorry, the last sentence is a misstatement. I had momentarily forgotten that William Peerson, one of three men who took Thomas Wiseman's estate inventory and the only witness to his will, appears to be the one who wrote the latter document; its handwriting differs significantly from that of the former. This, however, scarcely improves the odds that the inventory was prepared by William Carpenter "ye elder," let alone William Jr., who, as Rehoboth town and proprietors' clerk from 1643 to 1649, wrote in a discernibly different hand. Gene Z. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Donna wrote: << Looking over the wills, some mention aliases. As example it may say John Bell alias Carpenter. << Does it mean the persons REAL NAME was Bell or that it was Carpenter? >> "REAL NAME" is not a useful distinction when an alias was used with (rather than instead of) another surname. Often, though by no means always, illegitimacy was behind the use of two names; one was the father's surname, the other the unmarried mother's. Adopting an alias might be done for reasons other than illegitimacy (to honor someone, for example), but regardless of the reason, there doesn't seem to have been an established pattern as to which name (father's or mother's, original or adopted) came first. A man might be known by two surnames, one an alias, throughout his life and so might his descendants; ultimately the word _alias_ might be omitted and the two surnames combined into a single, hyphenated one. Gene Z. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Bruce wrote: << The 1628 Wiseman inventory gives every impression (to me) as being an original document with a notarization at the bottom in another ink and hand. >> No question about it. The three images of which record P5/1628/104 consists are of the "original" inventory and will (i.e., those presented to the court). << It would seem that the possibility the inventory was from the hand of William Carpenter are high. >> How are we to reconcile this with the signature--by mark--of church warden William "Crpener" on the 1628 glebe terrier? (The other church warden, John "Tallmage," also signed by mark; as one would expect, vicar Rowland "Hyll" signed his name.) That this was someone other than the eventual William1 Carpenter (_Bevis_, 1638) is highly unlikely, particularly in light of the Wiseman will's naming Mr. Rowland Hill and "Will[ia]m Capender ye elder"--almost certainly two of the three signatories of the glebe terrier--as his overseers. William1 Carpenter was unable to put pen to paper except to make his mark. Even if he had been able to write, he was but one of three men who took Thomas Wiseman's estate inventory. Either of the other two or someone else entirely could just as easily have prepared the inventory's final draft. Gene Z. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

I looked at wills for long period this morning. My own conclusion is that the situation was a mixture. Some wills were officially rewritten and some were kept in their original form and basically notarized at the bottom. The same for inventories. The 1628 Wiseman inventory gives every impression (to me) as being an original document with a notarization at the bottom in another ink and hand. It would seem that the possibility the inventory was from the hand of William Carpenter are high. Bruce Carpenter Clinton, WA

Mandy E. Carpenter, born 21 June 1873 in Mississippi, married Dee C. McNatt in the early 1900s in Mississippi. Mandy died 21 June 1970 and is buried in the Hebron Baptist Church Cemetery in Grenada County, Mississippi. She had 7 children. Anyone know who Mandy's parents are? Thanks ~ Gloria ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour