Robert Luce mentions that the forthcoming film presents the common understanding of the Pilgrims' fear of assimilation. I think there are two aspects that often are missed. The first is that the set of Dutch laws published in 1619 made it necessary to register half-orphans (when one parent had died) with the Dutch Reformed Orphanage, and gave authority for full orphans to be removed from wider familial contexts to be raised by the Dutch Reformed Orphanage. Forced assimilation was an imminent possibility. There is no indication that such measures were taken against any Pilgrims. The rule was, in fact, directed towards the Remonstrants, a group that had just been ejected from the Dutch Reformed Church. But in this way the fear of assimilation did not consist in worry about the Dutchifying effects of children merely playing with other children. We have little reason to suppose that Pilgrim children had much opportunity to play with children not a part of the congregation. The second aspect is that the words used by Bradford to describe the problem are something like being afraid that they might "lose the name of English." (That may not be exactly quoted, but it's close.) Losing the name of English was a question being debated in the first half of the seventeenth century; and it had nothing to do with playing with Dutch children. It's a legal question as to whether the children of people of the English nation (literally born in England), who themselves (the children) were not born in England, continued to be native English purely because they descended from English parents. Did such children enjoy full rights under English law, to inheritance from their English relatives (from their parents'rights to shares in the colony, for example)? So, - were Pilgrim children born in Leiden losing the name of English? The point had not been settled, but it was expected that if they moved to English territory in the New World, the question would be settled ! in their favor. That remained questionable, however. At a later point, Archbishop Laud and his supporters thought about denying the name of English to children born in New England, as part of their attempt to rescind the charters of the colonies. Non-English couldn't claim rights and complain under English law and they might be denied rights of property in the colonies that had been granted to their English parents. (And here we have another aspect of what happened when Strangers (i.e. the non-English) acknowledged themselves subjects of the English king, and consequently of English law, when they signed the Mayflower Compact. They acquired equal rights under English law - but that's a topic for another day.) That the film presents the commonly held, simplistic view of assimilation, interpreting the concerns of the Pilgrims as if they were the worries of modern immigrant groups hoping to maintain ethnic cultural continuity, but without the very specific legal aspects of the 17th-century inheritance problems, shows in yet another point that film producers aren't historians and that actors, no matter how well trained, are also not historians. But I am quite sure that actors in Royal Shakespere Company costumes look and sound convincing. And Plimoth Plantation's actors have been acting as historians for some time now. Part of the charm of Plimoth Plantation's first-person interpretation is that it is convincing even when it is not historically nuanced. We can easily imagine that this is how things were because it looks and smells like we think it should. I'm looking forward to seeing the film, but I think I'll still finish my book where details and conflicting interpretations can be discussed in footnotes. Jeremy Bangs Robert Luce <[email protected]> wrote: >I am also one of the reviewers of the film. I think Dr. Bangs' >comments are excellent and definitely on-topic. Yes, there are several >inaccuracies in the presentation. > >However, I think the number and importance of myths that it dispels >far exceeds those that it continues. > >The initial reviewer talked of economic reasons being promoted as the >main reason to leave Leiden. This wasn't my impression at all. They >talked of their children becoming Dutch, speaking Dutch, and this was >worrisome. Also they mentioned the fact that the English had been able >to force the Dutch government into stopping their printing of >religious pamphlets that they had been sending back to England. > >They did decrease the importance of the Mayflower Compact, but I >anticipated that, as it has been a bone of contention for the last >decade or more. > >My main disappointment was the "First Thanksgiving" when they showed a >huge roast turkey being served at an indoor sit-down dinner. At least >they didn't show them using forks! > >I still highly recommend that people watch it. If it increases >interest in our ancestors and in Thanksgiving (and keeps it from being >overrun by Christmas,) I'm all for it. > > >Robert Luce >Chilton's Children Family Association > > >Sunday, November 12, 2006, 3:12:12 PM, you wrote: > >> Dr. Bangs, > >> I'm sure all would agree that your comments are not only on-topic (i.e. >> Mayflower related), but they are more than welcome, and appreciated. Any >> serious scholar of our Mayflower ancestors will also be concerned over the >> "minor details" you speak of, particularly when historical inaccuracies are >> "sanctioned" simply by being presented on the screen. Unfortunately, if such >> inaccuracies are found in this newest presentment, it won't be the first >> time. > >> Susan E. Roser > >-- >Robert Luce <[email protected]> > On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. > L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. > -Antoine de Saint Exupéry > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I had heard for years that I had Mayflower ancestors, that we were descended on my Dad's side from William Brewster. It was a cool story as a kid, and a source of interest as I got older. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I actually started finding out that there were /eight/ lines back in my genealogy to the Mayflower. There are many, many people who are descended from those who crossed over on the Mayflower - and instead of being snotty and having an attitude about it as if 'we're better because we did the research' - there should be an encouragement and an attitude of excitement. If your family has a story, there is always a chance it is true. May myths and legends have a kernel of truth - and, isn't part of the reason we do this research and source-searching and proofing of lines so that /our/ descendants can say, with pride, that they, too, are descendants from the brave and desperate folks that came over on the Mayflower? Kess Leake-Campbell Lorton, VA

Dr. Bangs, I'm sure all would agree that your comments are not only on-topic (i.e. Mayflower related), but they are more than welcome, and appreciated. Any serious scholar of our Mayflower ancestors will also be concerned over the "minor details" you speak of, particularly when historical inaccuracies are "sanctioned" simply by being presented on the screen. Unfortunately, if such inaccuracies are found in this newest presentment, it won't be the first time. Susan E. Roser www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 4:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [MFLR] my comments on the new movie In fact, as my letter states, it was not intended to be sent to the entire Mayflower list. However, I have no particular objection to sharing those reservations - just not sure everyone on the list cares about it. Apologies to anyone who finds it off-topic, as it has nothing to do with Mayflower genealogy. Jeremy Bangs -------------------------------

I am also one of the reviewers of the film. I think Dr. Bangs' comments are excellent and definitely on-topic. Yes, there are several inaccuracies in the presentation. However, I think the number and importance of myths that it dispels far exceeds those that it continues. The initial reviewer talked of economic reasons being promoted as the main reason to leave Leiden. This wasn't my impression at all. They talked of their children becoming Dutch, speaking Dutch, and this was worrisome. Also they mentioned the fact that the English had been able to force the Dutch government into stopping their printing of religious pamphlets that they had been sending back to England. They did decrease the importance of the Mayflower Compact, but I anticipated that, as it has been a bone of contention for the last decade or more. My main disappointment was the "First Thanksgiving" when they showed a huge roast turkey being served at an indoor sit-down dinner. At least they didn't show them using forks! I still highly recommend that people watch it. If it increases interest in our ancestors and in Thanksgiving (and keeps it from being overrun by Christmas,) I'm all for it. Robert Luce Chilton's Children Family Association Sunday, November 12, 2006, 3:12:12 PM, you wrote: > Dr. Bangs, > I'm sure all would agree that your comments are not only on-topic (i.e. > Mayflower related), but they are more than welcome, and appreciated. Any > serious scholar of our Mayflower ancestors will also be concerned over the > "minor details" you speak of, particularly when historical inaccuracies are > "sanctioned" simply by being presented on the screen. Unfortunately, if such > inaccuracies are found in this newest presentment, it won't be the first > time. > Susan E. Roser -- Robert Luce <[email protected]> On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. -Antoine de Saint Exupéry

I enjoyed Dr. Bangs comments so much I printed the email and will save it with the rest of my Mayflower information. In my humble opinion it was right on topic and contained valuable information from a very knowledgeable gentleman. Thank you Dr. Bangs One of many of Richard Warren's very proud descendants , Jeanie Grant

In a message dated 11/12/2006 4:27:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: In fact, as my letter states, it was not intended to be sent to the entire Mayflower list. However, I have no particular objection to sharing those reservations - just not sure everyone on the list cares about it. Apologies to anyone who finds it off-topic, as it has nothing to do with Mayflower genealogy. Jeremy Bangs I, for one, am quite glad that Mr. Bangs (or is it Dr. Bangs?) comments were on the Mayflower list for us all to read. I can't keep up with all the research and keeping it all straight. It is on topic and it is about our ancestors! Gail Adams Editor, The Howland Quarterly

In fact, as my letter states, it was not intended to be sent to the entire Mayflower list. However, I have no particular objection to sharing those reservations - just not sure everyone on the list cares about it. Apologies to anyone who finds it off-topic, as it has nothing to do with Mayflower genealogy. Jeremy Bangs

I run into a lot of the same. People who claim to have relatives that came over from the Mayflower. Just simply let them know that, "wow! I did too! Can we compare notes?" and then proceed to ask what organizations they gleaned their information from. If they're serious about it, you'll get a serious conversation and, no doubt, a lot of really good information that can help you in your own research. If they just heard it through the grapevine, then dismiss it as something they just want to say because it's sounds good. Stubby Tate "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: I don't think there will ever be a way other than to just tell them they must "work with what they know and then backwards" documenting everything till they can trace ANY line back to what the Society has already proven. I belong to and ADAMS list and couldn't begin to tell you how many people have been told by family tradition that they are related to the Presidents' Adams. (in addition to Pres. Wilson) Just as MY family was told. My grandmother's mother was a Wilson and HER mother was an Adams. So my grandma's Grandmother was the Adams. You'd think that would be a relatively close source. Well my Adams line came from Ireland into SC. The presidents weren't Irish and were in what CT? like in the 1700's. My Adams were in SC pre-1820. I was lucky enough that my Mayflower line was well documented prior to me so all I had to do was trip over it.... Then began my document searching. You'll never fix your problem I'm afraid. Janean Original Message: ----------------- From: [email protected] Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 08:54:20 -0500 (EST) To: [email protected] Subject: [MFLR] General Hi, In my conversations with people, I generally bring out in conversation about genealogy. People invariably tell me there relative came over on the Mayflower. Its almost always a surname that was not on the Mayflower. Its always thru a relative. then like the latest its thru Alice Atwood , William Mullins wife. Except Alice doesn't-T have a surname. I guess I should keep quiet, unless they intend to really follow it thru. Its the same in the Francis Cooke association. They will see some bodies name in the 10th generation. That's the same as there name. And think they are related to Francis Cooke. Any suggestions on how I should deal with these people? Scott ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Hi Stacy and Joe, (Stacy, please forward this to Joe . The shift keys are screwed up and I can´t type his email address in the `copy to` space.) I haven't seen the film "Desperate Crossing." I'm sure, having read several reviews, that it is visually appealing and has actors in accurate clothing. I am also sure that it's a dazzling film with a huge budget. It must be convincingly presented and it is certainly widely advertised. From one review I learned the following (I'm numbering the points): [1] "People also tend to assume that the Pilgrims came to America to flee persecution, but by then they were already in Holland where they had religious freedom. Religion was a factor, but the documentary makes it clear that economic opportunities were probably more important. [2] It's common to act as though the Mayflower was an exclusively Pilgrim ship when in fact they were a minority aboard, numbering only 35 out of 102 (though the documentary could have made their final tally a bit clearer). [3] The Mayflower Compact is often regarded as the origin of American democracy, but it wasn't created out of any high-minded respect for democratic principles. Instead, it was created out of necessity: there were arguments over where to land, and this was a way to give everyone a voice in the new community, thus encouraging the non-Pilgrims to go along with the final site. [4] First Thanksgiving What about Thanksgiving itself, perhaps the best-known event associated with the Pilgrims? Most treat it as a religious feast where the Pilgrims give thanks to God for surviving the past year — and of course to the Wampanoag, without whom they would have surely died. In fact, the day didn't start out as anything special. The Wampanoag simply showed up with 90 warriors and an unknown number of women and children for a three day visit which probably ate the Pilgrims out of house and home (just before the winter, to boot). For the Wampanoag, this sort of behavior was natural for allies and they wouldn't have raised an eyebrow had the Pilgrims done the same. It's how kin treat one another. [...] Thanksgiving, then, was the Pilgrims and Wampanoag coming together as allies and kin, strengthening a military and social alliance which both needed." Regarding the first point: Religious toleration in Holland ended in June, 1619, by law. The Pilgrims were not persecuted there by the Dutch, but they were no longer legal, and the Dutch bowed to English diplomatic pressure to suppress the religious publishing activities of the Pilgrims; and the Pilgrims had reason to fear increasing interference and suppression by the English authorities whose military presence was part of the preparations for resumption of war with Spain. A Spanish victory would have brought even worse persecution than they had previously experienced in England. No evidence exists to support the claim that economic motivations were more important than religious motivations. Regarding point two: At least half the passengers on the "Mayflower" were from Leiden. The point, however, is in itself not very important, because, on the one hand, the numbers include children and servants (who did not have a voice in planning decisions), and, on the other, all the leaders among the colonists were from Leiden (with the exception of Christopher Martin, whose role as a colony leader is moot). Regarding point three: The Mayflower Compact established a democratic government in the first colony in New England. It was continuously remembered and referred to as the basis of the colony's government, and all further charters were identified as augmentations of it. To describe it as not a high-minded expression of democratic principle ignores its subsequent history and its origins in the Pilgrims' contemplation of possible forms of government (i.e. - the development of democratic, representative government in the colony's constitutional laws of 1636 which were the expanded expression of the principles of the Mayflower Compact; and the sentiments of equality expressed by John Robinson in his advice to the colonists). This diminished view of the significance of the Mayflower Compact has been pushed by Plimoth Plantation during the last ten years or so. Regarding point four. My interpretation of Thanksgiving is explained in my articles posted online at the Sail 1620 site. Reading Winslow´s description of the harvest thanksgiving, published in Mourt´s Relation, I find no evidence that would support the idea that the 1621 Thanksgiving did not start out as something special but merely developed as an unintended response to the arrival of ninety Natives. It´s a bit discouraging to work carefully in an attempt to arrive at an accurate assessment of the evidence and be trumped by a million dollars worth of gloss. But I have no doubt that `Desperate Crossing` will set the story permanently in the public mind so that inaccurate presuppositions determine the discussion. And I have no doubt that the film looks great. To criticize it publicly would make me look like a griping complainer worried about minor details. But my objections are to the misunderstanding of the whole story. Perhaps a few people will, in any case, read my book. For the moment, having the first two chapters online is the only statement I can make. I greatly appreciate the time and effort that you and Joe are putting into that. Sincerely, Jeremy "STACY WOOD" <[email protected]> wrote: >A review by Pilgrim Henry Samson Kindred officer, Valeria Reckert, of the History Channel's upcoming documentary "Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the Mayflower," has been posted on the Kindred's website, www.PilgrimHenrySamsonKindred.org. The show runs 3 hours and will be broadcast on Sunday, 19 November at 8 pm EST. The show will give many a new understanding of the Pilgrims. See the preview and be sure to play the included game! An excellent show for the entire family. >Stacy Wood >Chair, PHSK Website Committee > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

In a message dated 11/12/2006 9:53:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I'm just going to lurk on this list for awhile to see whether anyone here is doing serious research into the mystery of Hezekiah Bonham's second marriage (was there one?) - if yes, when, where whom did he legally marry? - and do the children from that wrong second wife Anne remain in place for whoever any "real" second wife might have been? Janet Janet, I have and now cannot find my source for his second marriage. The Edward Fuller Silver Book said that Hezekiah Bonham married Mary Dunn daughter of Hugh Dunn and Elizabeth Drake. Mary Dunn died in Piscataway NJ on Nov 7, 1699. My records have his second marriage in 1700 to Mary Hunt. I am a direct descendant of Mary Bonham, Hezehiah's sister, and didn't document this source for her brother. Maybe this lead can help you out. Dave from Long Island

The problem is the fact that no one so far has ever located a second marriage record of any kind for Hezekiah Bonham (May 6, 1667-1738, son of Nicholas Bonham and Hannah Fuller). Date I have - 1700 in NJ - places the second marriage shortly after his first wife's death. I didn't bother to list all the siblings who originated as a result of the alleged second marriage. My particular ancestor was Nehemiah Bonham, child # 6 of Hezekiah Bonham & 2nd wife (Ann Hunt? Mary Bishop?) was born ca 1703, Piscataway, Middlesex Co., NJ. He married ca 1723 Anne Stout, b. 1704, dau of Jonathan and Anna (Bollen) Stout , in Hopewell, Hunterdon Co., NJ. Janet

[email protected] wrote: >>I'm just going to lurk on this list for awhile to see whether anyone here is doing serious research into the mystery of Hezekiah Bonham's second marriage (was there one?) - if yes, when, where whom did he legally marry? - and do the children from that wrong second wife Anne remain in place for whoever any "real" second wife might have been?<< Janet ~ A quick look turned up these two in books and censuses......Hezekiah and Jane and Hezekiah and Beulah were both still in the 1870 censuses......Are either of these two families the ones you're looking for? Dianne * * * * * * * From: The descendants of Edward Fitz Randolph and Elizabeth Blossom 1630-1950 by Louise Aymar Christian and Howard Stelle Fitz Randolph, 1950 Page 74. 302. Jacob6 FitzRandolph (158) b. Shiloh, N.J., Aug. 28, 1775; died there Sept.20, 1845; married there July 28, 1800, Margaret Ayres, b. there Sept. 13, 1778, d. there May 13, 1864, dau. Elijah and Anna (Dunn) Ayres. Children, born in Shiloh, N.J. [there were 7 children....the fourth child was] iv. Beulah Maria, b. June 8, 1809; married Jan. 3, 1833, Hezekiah Bonham, b. Jan. 11, 1812, son of Enoch & Sarah (Townsend) Dunham. * * * * * * indexed as Hezckiah Bonham.... Hezekiah, age 38 Beulah, age 37 Cinderella, age 15 Lucius, age 12 Anna M., age 8 Jacob, age 5 Year: 1850; Census Place: Stow Creek, Cumberland, New Jersey; Roll: M432_446; Page: 288 * * * * * indexed as Kezekiah Bonham...... Hezekiah, age 48 Beulah, age 52 Lucius, age 22 Hannah M., age 15 Jacob, age 14 Year: 1860; Census Place: Hopewell, Cumberland, New Jersey; Roll: M653_687; Page: [written 611] * * * * * * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~* * * * * * * Family records, or, Genealogies of the first settlers of Passaic Valley (and vicinity) above Chatham : with their ancestors and etc. by John Littell, 1851 Page 237. Charles Buxton (son of Edmund) and Rebeccca Ferguson had children [there were 8 listed] the third was: 3. Jane, born July 4, 1817, married Hezekiah Bonham and had children: 1. John Bonham 2. Ellis Bonham 3. Eliza Jane Bonham 4. Tyler Bonham. * * * * * * H. Bonham, 45, b. NJ "Jana" Bonham, 43 with children: John, 18 Eliza A., 17 "N.S.", age 15 "Tyle", age 12 Henry, age 9 Henrietta, age 5 Jesse W., age 3 Year: 1860; Census Place: Columbia, Hamilton, Ohio; Roll: M653_981; Page: 331 * * * * *

Ask a few questions to show you're interested, such as: Would you like to find out more about your ancestry? Can I help you with this? Tell them that there are a lot of Mayflower descendants (something like 30+M, I think, although not all living), but it's always nice to know for sure. If they don't care to pursue it, smile and ask them about their Revolutionary War ancestors. They'll have some of those, too <BG>! Karen -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [MFLR] General Hi, In my conversations with people, I generally bring out in conversation about genealogy. People invariably tell me there relative came over on the Mayflower. Its almost always a surname that was not on the Mayflower. Its always thru a relative. then like the latest its thru Alice Atwood , William Mullins wife. Except Alice doesn't-T have a surname. I guess I should keep quiet, unless they intend to really follow it thru. Its the same in the Francis Cooke association. They will see some bodies name in the 10th generation. That's the same as there name. And think they are related to Francis Cooke. Any suggestions on how I should deal with these people? Scott ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

At 09:48 AM 11/12/2006, Janet McCrosky wrote: >I'm just going to lurk on this list for awhile to see whether anyone here is >doing serious research into the mystery of Hezekiah Bonham's second marriage When and where? Dale H. Cook, Member, NEHGS and MA Society of Mayflower Descendants; Plymouth Co. MA Coordinator for the USGenWeb Project http://members.cox.net/plymouthcolony/index.shtml

I don't think there will ever be a way other than to just tell them they must "work with what they know and then backwards" documenting everything till they can trace ANY line back to what the Society has already proven. I belong to and ADAMS list and couldn't begin to tell you how many people have been told by family tradition that they are related to the Presidents' Adams. (in addition to Pres. Wilson) Just as MY family was told. My grandmother's mother was a Wilson and HER mother was an Adams. So my grandma's Grandmother was the Adams. You'd think that would be a relatively close source. Well my Adams line came from Ireland into SC. The presidents weren't Irish and were in what CT? like in the 1700's. My Adams were in SC pre-1820. I was lucky enough that my Mayflower line was well documented prior to me so all I had to do was trip over it.... Then began my document searching. You'll never fix your problem I'm afraid. Janean Original Message: ----------------- From: [email protected] Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 08:54:20 -0500 (EST) To: [email protected] Subject: [MFLR] General Hi, In my conversations with people, I generally bring out in conversation about genealogy. People invariably tell me there relative came over on the Mayflower. Its almost always a surname that was not on the Mayflower. Its always thru a relative. then like the latest its thru Alice Atwood , William Mullins wife. Except Alice doesn't-T have a surname. I guess I should keep quiet, unless they intend to really follow it thru. Its the same in the Francis Cooke association. They will see some bodies name in the 10th generation. That's the same as there name. And think they are related to Francis Cooke. Any suggestions on how I should deal with these people? Scott ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

I'm just going to lurk on this list for awhile to see whether anyone here is doing serious research into the mystery of Hezekiah Bonham's second marriage (was there one?) - if yes, when, where whom did he legally marry? - and do the children from that wrong second wife Anne remain in place for whoever any "real" second wife might have been? Janet

Hi, In my conversations with people, I generally bring out in conversation about genealogy. People invariably tell me there relative came over on the Mayflower. Its almost always a surname that was not on the Mayflower. Its always thru a relative. then like the latest its thru Alice Atwood , William Mullins wife. Except Alice doesn't-T have a surname. I guess I should keep quiet, unless they intend to really follow it thru. Its the same in the Francis Cooke association. They will see some bodies name in the 10th generation. That's the same as there name. And think they are related to Francis Cooke. Any suggestions on how I should deal with these people? Scott

Robert Charles Anderson in his "The Pilgrim Migration: Immigrants to Plymouth Colony 1620-1633" (Boston, MA: NEHGS, 2004) on page 340 states: "MARRIAGE: By 1593 Alice ______ (assuming she is the mother of all the children). She died at Plymouth in the first winter." Stacy Wood www.SAIL1620.org www.PilgrimHenrySamsonKindred.org ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 11:50 PM Subject: [MFLR] William Mullins wife Alice Surname According to Caleb Johnson, William Mullins wife, Alice,her maiden name has not been proven. Any new news on her maiden name? Also is there a Mullins Society? Scott McKay William Mullins ____________________________________ BORN: c1572, probably Dorking, Surrey, England, possibly son of John Mullins and Joane Bridger DIED: 21 February 1620/1, Plymouth MARRIED: Alice (---) ____________________________________ CHILDREN: NAME BIRTH DEATH MARRIAGE William probably Dorking, Surrey, England 12 February 1672, Braintree, MA (1). name unknown (2). Ann (---) Bell Sarah probably Dorking, Surrey, England after 1621 Mr. Blunden, before 1621 Priscilla probably Dorking, Surrey, England between 1650 and 1687 _John Alden_ (http://members.aol.com/calebj/alden.html) , c1623, Plymouth Joseph probably Dorking, Surrey, England cir. April 1621 unmarried ____________________________________ ANCESTRAL SUMMARY: William Mullins does not have any Molyneaux ancestors--one of the most common (and most absurd when you examine the "evidence") claims in all of Mayflower genealogy. He has no proven royal ancestry, no proven Huguenot ancestors, and the names of his parents have never been proven (though John Mullyns and Joane Bridger of Dorking seem to be the best candidates). [Mayflower Descendant 44:41] Further, the maiden name of his wife Alice is not known. It has not been shown to be Atwood, Poretiers, or any of the other identifications that are floating around. [Mayflower Descendant 44:44]. The identification of her as Alice Atwood is based solely on the fact that William Mullins mentions a "Goodman Woodes" in his will. That is clearly not enough evidence to make a genealogical connection! There is no evidence at all to show that Alice was the daughter of Nicholas Atwood of Westminster, Middlesex as claimed by the I.G.I. and Ancestral Files of the Morman church. The occasionally published death date of 15 March 1620/1 for Alice is totally absurd--no such record exists. Alice was alive on April 2, 1621, as evidenced by the will of William Mullins. No doubt she was also alive three days later on April 5, 1621 when the Mayflower finally set sail--otherwise the will would have been changed. _Will of William Mullins_ (http://members.aol.com/calebj/will_mullins.html) ____________________________________ BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY: (http://members.aol.com/calebj/bradford_list.html) William Mullins was a fairly well-to-do shoe and boot dealer from Dorking, Surrey, England. He purchased a number of shares in the Pilgrims joint-stock company, becoming one of the Merchant Adventurers. He brought his wife Alice, daughter Priscilla and son Joseph to America on the Mayflower. Only Priscilla would survive the first winter, however. William Mullins made out his death-bed will on 21 February 1620/1, in which he mentions his wife Alice, daughter Priscilla, son Joseph, and married children William and Sarah who were still in Dorking. He also mentions a "Goodman Woodes" who remains unidentified, and a "Master Williamson" which was likely a Dutch pseudonym for William Brewster who was a fugitive at the time (for printing illegal religious pamphlets in Leyden). ____________________________________ SOURCES: 1. Mayflower Descendant 1:231-232, "The Will of William Mullins" 2. Mayflower Descendant 7:37,179, "The Estates of William(2) Mullins", by George Bowman 3. Mayflower Descendant 44:39-44, "The Mullins Family", by Alicia Crane Williams 4. Mayflower Quarterly 39:83, "William Mullin's Grandchildren in England", by Robert S. Wakefield 5. Alicia Crane Williams, Families of Pilgrims: John Alden and William Mullins, Mass. Soc. of Mayf. Desc., 1986 ____________________________________ _Mayflower Web Pages_ (http://members.aol.com/calebj/mayflower.html) . Caleb Johnson © 1997 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

According to Caleb Johnson, William Mullins wife, Alice,her maiden name has not been proven. Any new news on her maiden name? Also is there a Mullins Society? Scott McKay William Mullins ____________________________________ BORN: c1572, probably Dorking, Surrey, England, possibly son of John Mullins and Joane Bridger DIED: 21 February 1620/1, Plymouth MARRIED: Alice (---) ____________________________________ CHILDREN: NAME BIRTH DEATH MARRIAGE William probably Dorking, Surrey, England 12 February 1672, Braintree, MA (1). name unknown (2). Ann (---) Bell Sarah probably Dorking, Surrey, England after 1621 Mr. Blunden, before 1621 Priscilla probably Dorking, Surrey, England between 1650 and 1687 _John Alden_ (http://members.aol.com/calebj/alden.html) , c1623, Plymouth Joseph probably Dorking, Surrey, England cir. April 1621 unmarried ____________________________________ ANCESTRAL SUMMARY: William Mullins does not have any Molyneaux ancestors--one of the most common (and most absurd when you examine the "evidence") claims in all of Mayflower genealogy. He has no proven royal ancestry, no proven Huguenot ancestors, and the names of his parents have never been proven (though John Mullyns and Joane Bridger of Dorking seem to be the best candidates). [Mayflower Descendant 44:41] Further, the maiden name of his wife Alice is not known. It has not been shown to be Atwood, Poretiers, or any of the other identifications that are floating around. [Mayflower Descendant 44:44]. The identification of her as Alice Atwood is based solely on the fact that William Mullins mentions a "Goodman Woodes" in his will. That is clearly not enough evidence to make a genealogical connection! There is no evidence at all to show that Alice was the daughter of Nicholas Atwood of Westminster, Middlesex as claimed by the I.G.I. and Ancestral Files of the Morman church. The occasionally published death date of 15 March 1620/1 for Alice is totally absurd--no such record exists. Alice was alive on April 2, 1621, as evidenced by the will of William Mullins. No doubt she was also alive three days later on April 5, 1621 when the Mayflower finally set sail--otherwise the will would have been changed. _Will of William Mullins_ (http://members.aol.com/calebj/will_mullins.html) ____________________________________ BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY: (http://members.aol.com/calebj/bradford_list.html) William Mullins was a fairly well-to-do shoe and boot dealer from Dorking, Surrey, England. He purchased a number of shares in the Pilgrims joint-stock company, becoming one of the Merchant Adventurers. He brought his wife Alice, daughter Priscilla and son Joseph to America on the Mayflower. Only Priscilla would survive the first winter, however. William Mullins made out his death-bed will on 21 February 1620/1, in which he mentions his wife Alice, daughter Priscilla, son Joseph, and married children William and Sarah who were still in Dorking. He also mentions a "Goodman Woodes" who remains unidentified, and a "Master Williamson" which was likely a Dutch pseudonym for William Brewster who was a fugitive at the time (for printing illegal religious pamphlets in Leyden). ____________________________________ SOURCES: 1. Mayflower Descendant 1:231-232, "The Will of William Mullins" 2. Mayflower Descendant 7:37,179, "The Estates of William(2) Mullins", by George Bowman 3. Mayflower Descendant 44:39-44, "The Mullins Family", by Alicia Crane Williams 4. Mayflower Quarterly 39:83, "William Mullin's Grandchildren in England", by Robert S. Wakefield 5. Alicia Crane Williams, Families of Pilgrims: John Alden and William Mullins, Mass. Soc. of Mayf. Desc., 1986 ____________________________________ _Mayflower Web Pages_ (http://members.aol.com/calebj/mayflower.html) . Caleb Johnson © 1997

A review by Pilgrim Henry Samson Kindred officer, Valeria Reckert, of the History Channel's upcoming documentary "Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the Mayflower," has been posted on the Kindred's website, www.PilgrimHenrySamsonKindred.org. The show runs 3 hours and will be broadcast on Sunday, 19 November at 8 pm EST. The show will give many a new understanding of the Pilgrims. See the preview and be sure to play the included game! An excellent show for the entire family. Stacy Wood Chair, PHSK Website Committee