According to a grave record at the Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Thomas Davenport was born in 1615 in England and died in 1685 in Dorchester, Massachusetts. Taken from the NEHGS Search Results for Thomas Davenport, 39 records offered for the given name "Thomas".

Sorry List. That conversation between Teri and I was supposed to be private. Bill Davenport

Bill- Thanks, just "Teri & Butch's". Thanks again....cuzzin Teri

Sure I can at Butch's name - how do you want be to phrase it? Bill Davenport [email protected]

Bill- I'm so excited! I just visited your new site and you did a really good job. I'm praying that this project helps all of us obtain our goal. Could you possibly include my partner Butch's name on our link? Thanks! Keep up the good work.....cuzzin Teri

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] Winn: >> So, what is the bottom line then? > I for one am looking for my ancestry which I have already traced to 1612, > but I am not about to engage in a pretty fairy-tale. > We have to be sure!!! > > You are not back to the Middle Ages. You are going to have to put up with what may be many "fairy-tales" The only people who had written records back in that time period before about 1500-1550 are members of royalty and the landed aristocracy that they married with. These old records are not written in current languages, people back then did not have naming systems with first, middle, and last names. They may be shown my numerous different names depending upon who did the research and where they found their information. Prepare for a shock. The Gen-Med-L list is great for this time period,but you have to be prepared for some really bad arguments by some strong minded people who are not always polite. Jno<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I agree with most of your message, but at the same time I believe there is enough data available to prove that the Davenport name did begin in Cheshire where the land was given to one of William's knights.- And yes, when you get to the late 1500s or so one tends to reach a dead end unless there was some specific data on your ancestor which was recorded. For instance, in my case I have traced back to the early 1600s which is very close to all the well-known Davenport lines. I am hoping to connect somewhere there. I'm not an expert, but (it is often the case) in the Middle Ages and before the oldest son inherited everything and usually they tried to help the rest of the children out through marriages (especially in the case of girls) and sons often went into the Military, Priesthood and the like. What does disturb me though, and I'd like to find the answer, is this other theory making the rounds (and I *have heard it before as well) .... the one suggesting that the Davenport name has something to do with the Dane river and a period *before William the Conqueror. I'm actually a member of Compuserve and staid with them because of the many forums they had - sadly diminished how since the AOL take-over. It was there that I met several Davenports in England and somewhere here I have lists of the well-known EARLY lines. At the moment I have a problem with time since my husband is going into the hospital for surgery but if anyone is interested I could probably scan some of them so that others could look them over in the hope if connecting somewhere. Personally I am convinced that the US Davenport are the same as the British ones - clearly, we all know that many English settled here early on.- Actually I believe the William the Conqeror story but we do have to connect the dots and not just merely *assume*. Winn

The new website for information and reporting the results for the Davenport Surname DNA Project is now online. It is: <A HREF="http://www.DavenportDNA.com">http://www.DavenportDNA.com</A> It is still a work in progress (and always will be), so be kind. We are looking for Davenport males to have their Y-DNA tested to compare the Davenport lines. Check it out Bill Davenport [email protected]

[email protected] wrote as follows: Bob I agree with you. So far all we have are possibilities. I haven't seen any proof yet that connects Thomas of Dorchester to the extended family in England. I hope something comes up. I do believe the evidence points to Thomas, whose wife is Mary Pitman, is the son of Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth. There may also be connections to the Townshend, Bright, and Winthrop families. The will of Thomas Dobson that I sited was only to simulate conversation. I have nothing else pertaining to it. Maybe someone who has access to these records could look into it. Also on the same page in the NEHG Register there is a small article about The Rev. John Davenport and another paragraph in ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- BILL........ The Thomas Dobson will quoted by you should caution all of us not to accept information based upon names alone.. Part of our difficulty in connecting back to our English roots is the name 'THOMAS' which was common during a protracted period. There surely must have been great numbers of Thomas Davenports at the end of the 16th century in England. If Teri's listing of a Thomas as the son of a William born in 1563 is correct, then he probably was not an eldest son but a younger one instead off to make his way in the world. We can guess at the circumstances but proof is difficult. I have long felt that Thomas of Dorchester, our patriarch, must have emigrated to Massachusetts as a part of the group sponsored by the Reverend John White of Dorchester England. However, those who have researched the passenger list for the ship 'Mary and John' [ arrived 1630] which carried this first big group [of 150] to settle in Dorchester MA say that there was no Thomas Davenport aboard, but even earlier ships had carried groups of 50 or less and the records to these vessels are poor. Maybe, who knows, our Thomas was an advance scout of sorts for the later larger Reverend White sponsored group? If any of this is true, then is probable that our patriarch's family roots were in Dorchester England and that is where in England we should be looking. Bob Davenport San Diego

Bob I agree with you. So far all we have are possibilities. I haven't seen any proof yet that connects Thomas of Dorchester to the extended family in England. I hope something comes up. I do believe the evidence points to Thomas, whose wife is Mary Pitman, is the son of Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth. There may also be connections to the Townshend, Bright, and Winthrop families. The will of Thomas Dobson that I sited was only to simulate conversation. I have nothing else pertaining to it. Maybe someone who has access to these records could look into it. Also on the same page in the NEHG Register there is a small article about The Rev. John Davenport and another paragraph in Latin(?) about the Rev. John Davenport. Bill Davenport [email protected]

In a message dated 1/27/03 12:09:18 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > So, what is the bottom line then? > I for one am looking for my ancestry which I have already traced to 1612, > but I am not about to engage in a pretty fairy-tale. > We have to be sure!!! > > You are not back to the Middle Ages. You are going to have to put up with what may be many "fairy-tales" The only people who had written records back in that time period before about 1500-1550 are members of royalty and the landed aristocracy that they married with. These old records are not written in current languages, people back then did not have naming systems with first, middle, and last names. They may be shown my numerous different names depending upon who did the research and where they found their information. Prepare for a shock. The Gen-Med-L list is great for this time period,but you have to be prepared for some really bad arguments by some strong minded people who are not always polite. Jno

Amen Janet Ariciu ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Companion List > In a message dated 1/27/03 12:09:18 PM Central Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > So, what is the bottom line then? > > I for one am looking for my ancestry which I have already traced to 1612, > > but I am not about to engage in a pretty fairy-tale. > > We have to be sure!!! > > > > > > You are not back to the Middle Ages. You are going to have to put up with > what may be many "fairy-tales" The only people who had written records back > in that time period before about 1500-1550 are members of royalty and the > landed aristocracy that they married with. These old records are not written > in current languages, people back then did not have naming systems with > first, middle, and last names. They may be shown my numerous different names > depending upon who did the research and where they found their information. > Prepare for a shock. The Gen-Med-L list is great for this time period,but > you have to be prepared for some really bad arguments by some strong minded > people who are not always polite. > > Jno > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

----- > Subject: Davenport > > > Thomas Davenport born 1580 who married Mary Forth was the son of a William > Davenport born 1563 who married Dorothy Warren > > Sir William [Damport]of 1563, the son of the William Damport who married > Margery Ashton.. No marriage or children for that William of 1563 are > indicated nor is there evidence to support thepossibility that the final > William of this list was the father of the a > Thomas who married Mary Forth [and fathered the one that married Mary Pitman > > A Mr. Warren, a descendent in the Warren family that produced the Dorothy > Warren who > married William Davenport of 1563, can solve this linkage problem. > > The will of a Thomas Dobson dated 1626 regarding a Thomas Davenport, the > son of a Mary, but this may > or may not be the Thomas who moved to Dorchester Mass, nor does it indicate > even that he was closely related to the Bromhall clan! . > > I believe the two Thomases referred to there, were our Thomas of Dorchester > [senior] and > Thomas [junior] his eldest son born 1645. > > Can anyone help with the Davenport family of old. > > Janet > > > Dear Janet, > > Omerord, III, p 828 lists no Thomas for the son of William Davenport and > Dorothy > Warren. > > Bob > > > >

I can't comment, since my Davenports have not gone beyond the early 18 century so I haven't started looking for medieval connections of this line. I would caution that most errors come in the generation or two before the immigrant to America. Usually these errors come in linking the immigrant to false English ancestry by the same name that has a noble lineage. Out of about 10 of my colonial families so linked by others, only one stood up to scrutiny. The Y chromosome project may answer the question if known Davenport descendants of earlier noble Davenports can be located in England and tested. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 4:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [DAVENPORT] RE:Orme de Davenport/Thomas of Dorchester Gordon, Bud & others- I'm only human and do tend to err, my dates could be wrong. My intent is to do a little more studying on this subject. This list of companions.... I'm sure others would be interested in knowing who was with William. I know I am. I've seen many dates for all these issues, I'm just waiting to see the correct ones. Take care.........cuzzin Teri This is how we see things: Orme & unknown Richard b. 1136 & Anabilia Venables Thomas b. 1189 & unknown Richard & unknown Vivian b.ca. 1200 & Beatrix de Hulme Roger b. 1228 & Mary Salmon Thomas b. 1250 & Agnes Macclesfield Thomas b. 1280 & Elizabeth Davenport John b. 1330 & Alice Bromhall Robert b. 1365 & Joan Assheton John b. 1419 & Cicely Warren William b. 1446 & Margery Legh William b. 1472 & Blanch Warburton William b. 1521 & Margaret Booth William b. 1543 & Margaret Assheton William b. 1563 & Dorothy Warren Thomas b. 1580 & Mary Forth Thomas b. 1615 & Mary Pittman ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] >ecame King of England.) [N.B. At the church of Notre Dame in Dives-sur-Mer, where the invasion forces of William the Conqueror first embarked, there is a plaque listing hundreds of "Companions of the Conqueror". It was reportedly placed there in 1862. It is said to be false.] "The Dives Roll, compiled by Leopold Delisle for the 8th centenary of the Battle, was published by de Magny in his "Nobiliare de Normandie",and was probably first published in England as an Appendix to the 2nd edition of Burke's "Vicissitudes of Families", 3rd Series, 1863, and reprinted in "The Battle Abbey Roll: with some Account of the Norman Lineages", I, xxxi-xxxv, (by the Duchess of Cleveland, 1889 in 3 vols),and in "Falaise Roll", pp. 216-219.The list seems to be taken from Domesday Book, but the Duchess of Cleveland said "it is to be regretted that he has in no case cited an authority or given a reference"." (For this reason, this list is generally ignored by genealogists.) [From "My Ancestor Came With TheConqueror", by Anthony Camp.] I hope this helps. Jno<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< So, what is the bottom line then? I for one am looking for my ancestry which I have already traced to 1612, but I am not about to engage in a pretty fairy-tale. We have to be sure!!!

I ask the Medieval site about the Davenport family. I don't know if they will help us or not Let you all know when I know anything. ----- Janet Ariciu

Thank you Janet, I for one will check out your site immediately...Teri

Jno- Thank you for the list of William's companions.....cuzzin Teri

"Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48, written by Geoffrey H. White: 1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester. 2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne. 3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche. 5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford. 6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil. 11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. 13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle. (# 1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, # 13 portrayed in the battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, # 14-15 named by Orderic.) Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly at the battle: 16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances. 17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay. (# 16 named by William of Poitiers, # 17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, # 20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the EnglishWar before William became King of England.) [N.B. At the church of Notre Dame in Dives-sur-Mer, where the invasion forces of William the Conqueror first embarked, there is a plaque listing hundreds of "Companions of the Conqueror". It was reportedly placed there in 1862. It is said to be false.] "The Dives Roll, compiled by Leopold Delisle for the 8th centenary of the Battle, was published by de Magny in his "Nobiliare de Normandie",and was probably first published in England as an Appendix to the 2nd edition of Burke's "Vicissitudes of Families", 3rd Series, 1863, and reprinted in "The Battle Abbey Roll: with some Account of the Norman Lineages", I, xxxi-xxxv, (by the Duchess of Cleveland, 1889 in 3 vols),and in "Falaise Roll", pp. 216-219.The list seems to be taken from Domesday Book, but the Duchess of Cleveland said "it is to be regretted that he has in no case cited an authority or given a reference"." (For this reason, this list is generally ignored by genealogists.) [From "My Ancestor Came With TheConqueror", by Anthony Camp.] I hope this helps. Jno

Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > Gordon or Bud- Could you please post the list of companions of William The Conquerer? Teri< That list is also available in the library of the Roots forum at Compuserve. ( At least, it used to be).

I am descendant of Davis Davenports and what I am going to say has nothing to with his family. I belong to email site called Medieval On my webpage under my mother side of the family is William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. Beside this family I have the Bruce, Huntingdon, Old Scottish families much more if anyone would like read all the Medieval families here is my webpage www.geocities.com/janet_ariciu Janet Ariciu ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] Companion List > "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48, written by Geoffrey H. White: > > 1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester. > 2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne. > 3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux. > 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche. > 5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford. > 6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars. > 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle. > 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville. > 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches. > 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil. > 11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. > 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. > 13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent. > 14. Turstin Fitz Rou. > 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle. > (# 1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, > # 13 portrayed in the battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, > # 14-15 named by Orderic.) > Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly at the > battle: > 16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances. > 17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall. > 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux > 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux. > 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay. > (# 16 named by William of Poitiers, > # 17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, > # 20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the EnglishWar before William > became King of England.) > > [N.B. At the church of Notre Dame in Dives-sur-Mer, where the invasion forces > of William the Conqueror first embarked, there is a plaque listing hundreds > of "Companions of the Conqueror". It was reportedly placed there in 1862. It > is said to be false.] > > "The Dives Roll, compiled by Leopold Delisle for the 8th centenary of the > Battle, was published by de Magny in his "Nobiliare de Normandie",and was > probably first published in England as an Appendix to the 2nd edition of > Burke's "Vicissitudes of Families", 3rd Series, 1863, and reprinted in "The > Battle Abbey Roll: with some Account of the Norman Lineages", I, xxxi-xxxv, > (by the Duchess of Cleveland, 1889 in 3 vols),and in "Falaise Roll", pp. > 216-219.The list seems to be taken from Domesday Book, but the Duchess of > Cleveland said "it is to be regretted that he has in no case cited an > authority or given a reference"." (For this reason, this list is generally > ignored by genealogists.) [From "My Ancestor Came With TheConqueror", by > Anthony Camp.] > > > I hope this helps. > > Jno > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >