A few observations on this interesting new book - I have not read it but since statements were made on this list, I would like to comment (below with **). >All of Richard's siblings died in the crossing; he alone >survived to become one of the original Plymouth settlers. **I notice this statement is corrected in the book exerpt online but thought it should be corrected here as well - Richard's brother Jasper and sisters Ellen and Mary died during the sickness the first winter, not during the voyage. > Richard was not counted among the Separatists, as the >Pilgrims were then called, but among the so-called >Strangers, a secular crowd that had signed up for >passage at the last minute. That her entered the scene >under a cloud of scandal made him a stranger even >among the Strangers. That his assigned guardian was >William Brewster, nominal head of the Separatists, >rendered his dislocation complete. **I don't believe that Bradford, when he wrote his "Increasings & Decreasings", specified which passengers were "Saints" and which were "Strangers". The four children were put with the families of Brewster, Carver and Winslow - all three are known to have been a part of the Leyden congregation, therefore considered "Saints". It should also be noted that it is not known with certainty if the Pilgrims knew the history of the More children - Bradford certainly never hinted at it in his writings. (Carver and Cushman made the arrangements with Samuel More - even if they did know the story, would it have been made common knowledge?) Therefore, did these More children board the Mayflower in a "cloud of scandal" as stated, or is this a presumption? I find it interesting that the children were placed with good families and that each were regarded as shareholders. Their legal father, Samuel More paid 80 pounds (a double share per child) with an additional 20 pounds paid, therefore the childrens' passage was paid. At the end of 7 years, each child would receive 50 acres of land. In fact, Richard was included with the "Ancient Freemen" when he received a land grant in 1660 at Rochester and later at Swansea. >Richard's second born, Samuel, went as far as highway >robbery. **According to MF 15:155, Samuel2 More (bpt. 1642) was living in 1650 but nothing further is known about him after this date and he is not carried further. This is the case with two other sons as well, Thomas & Joshua. Has new research uncovered these children? Wonderful if this is the case, however I haven't heard of any. > The appointment of Andros as governor of New >England brought multiple hardships upon the Mores.... >And when it went looking for scapegoats, it found >Richard guilty of adultery. As punishment, this old >survivor of the Ancient Beginning had to wear the >infamous "A" on his chest. Knowing all too well of the >captain's wandering eye, the Salem church had little >choice but to follow suit and excommunicate him. The >following year, Boston rose up against the Andros >government, and not coincidentally, Richard was able to >regain his place in the Salem church **According to the records of the First Church in Salem, More had for some time been under suspicion for "lasciviousness" but all the Elders could do was talk to him because they had no direct proof of wrong doing. In 1688 this changed and he was convicted by three witnesses "of gross unchastity with another mans wife". In 1691 he repented and was forgiven by the church. I hadn't before heard of the Andros involvement (or the infamous letter "A"), however since the Andros government fell in 1689, I fail to see how it was a coincidence that More was reinstated in the church - as this occurred two years later in 1691. One last comment - Richard More was not a bastard and I would hazard a guess that his descendants might take exception to describing him as such. His legal father might not have recognized him as his son, but Richard was born to a legally married couple and I have never seen the More children referred to as "bastards" in the many legal documents cited in the article below. In fact, the article below states, "Any child conceived while the mother's husband was in England was considered in law to be legitimate (i.e., the husband's child)". An excellent 3 part article was written about the legal actions between Samuel & Katherine More and the fate of the children by Donald F. Harris of Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England in the 1993 and 1994 issues of The Mayflower Descendant. Susan E. Roser, Governor & Historian Canadian Society of Mayflower Descendants www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sigalit Trichter" <strichter@idealog.com> To: <MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:48 PM Subject: [MFLR] Mayflower Bastard - The Story of Richard More > Hello everyone, > > I'm writing from David Lindsay's (descendant of Richard More) literary agency to help spread the word about his new book, 'Mayflower Bastard: A Stranger Among the Pilgrims', which Caleb Johnson, author of The Mayflower Web Pages, says is, "thoroughly enjoyable, one of the best Mayflower passenger biographies to come out in a long time." > > Richard More was born in England, the product of an adulterous affair between his mother and a local rake. When he was six years old, his mother's lawful husband could no longer bear the disgrace of his four children having a very strong resemblance to this unsavory local character. As a solution, he shipped the children to the colonies on the Mayflower. All of Richard's siblings died in the crossing; he alone survived to become one of the original Plymouth settlers. > > Richard was raised through young adulthood as a foster child in the home of William Brewster. He then apprenticed himself as a shipboy to Isaac Allerton for the next seven years, and spent the rest of his life as a mariner and ship captain. In 1637 Richard married and left Plymouth for Salem, where he raised his family. He was also married to another woman in England, and spent his life in constant fear of having his bigamous marriage discovered by the Salem community. Richard survived to see his friends and neighbors getting arrested on charges of witchcraft during the famous Salem Witch Trials and died shortly thereafter. > > More information about the book, the author, and an excerpt can be found on the book's web site at http://www.idealog.com/books/mayflowerbastard.html > > If you post any questions about the book or Richard More to this list I will be happy to reply. I also look forward to any thoughts, reactions, comments, etc. you may have. > > > > Hope you enjoy the reading, > > > > -Sigalit. > > > > The following are introductory remarks by the author which are not in the book and were written exclusively for online readers: > > > > MAYFLOWER BASTARD: ONLINE INTRODUCTION, by David Lindsay > > > > > > As the 1600s drew to a close, Captain More was a common sight around Salem: grizzled gray beard, knife thrust into his belt, the loping gait of a man more accustomed to a deck than a floor. A veteran of the Ancient Beginning, he had seen New England grow from a single tenuous village into a sprawl of thriving colonies - seen indeed the whole span of the Atlantic coast, once solely the province of Indians, grow thick with English settlements. > > > > What did this old man know? What had he learned in his many travels? If we could talk to him today, what yarns would he tell? > > > > Certainly they would not include the standard story of the Thanksgiving dinner we know from textbooks. Like many since, More was drawn into the American dream before he knew what it meant or where it might lead. In so doing, he managed to be present for many of the high points of the 17th Century. From Mayflower passage to Salem witch trials, he was witness to the first stirrings of a nation. Yet because of his ignoble origins, he often found himself cast in the role of the outsider. And in cultivating his beginnings into a secret life of his own, he ultimately came to embody a conflict at the heart of the Puritan experiment. > > > > Born into Shropshire gentry, Richard no doubt would have assumed a life of ease had his legal father, Samuel More, not discovered that his wife, Katharine, was begetting her children by a local laborer named Jacob Blakeway. The Mores had been wed by arranged marriage, already an arcane practice by the early 1600s, and as time went by, there were fewer and fewer reasons to keep their union intact. Katharine continued to meet with Jacob while her husband was off in London, seeking advancement in the court of King James I. When at last Samuel inherited their combined estates, he waited for Katharine to give birth to her fourth child, Mary, then repudiated all four children (Richard being third in age) and put them in the charge of a tenant living on his land. Enraged, Katharine burst in and tried, unsuccessfully, to retake her children by force. > > > > Richard thus spent the remainder of his early childhood, from the ages of three to five, under the storm of marital discord. Samuel brought criminal proceedings against the lovers, which they defied as long as they could. Confronted at last with a large fine, Jacob fled, presumably never to be seen again. Samuel then filed for divorce. Katharine fought tooth and nail against him, hoping to retain either some income for herself, some chance at a normal life for her children, or both, but in the end even her appeal of the divorce ended in failure. Henceforth Katharine would be a dispossessed soul with no means of support. Worse, her children were to be shipped off to the New World, where, Samuel hoped (or claimed to hope), they might live free of the shame that family scandal had brought upon them > > > > After a few weeks, amidst much organizational disarray, Richard and his siblings were trundled aboard the Mayflower and shipped off to the west, beyond the end of the earth. > > The 1620 voyage, along with the killing winter and autumnal feast that followed, has of course been much documented. Richard's three siblings did not stand out for dying; only half the original party survived the mysterious epidemic that swept through their midst. The famous story, however, does not entirely gibe with Richard's experience. > > > > Richard was not counted among the Separatists, as the Pilgrims were then called, but among the so-called Strangers, a secular crowd that had signed up for passage at the last minute. That her entered the scene under a cloud of scandal made him a stranger even among the Strangers. That his assigned guardian was William Brewster, nominal head of the Separatists, rendered his dislocation complete. > > > > When the seven-year arrangement for Richard's guardianship came to an end, Richard went to sea, where he progressed from shipboy to deck hand and sailed the waters of the Northern Atlantic. It was during this time, no doubt, that he learned to hate the French, who were just then regaining several trading outposts on the Maine coast from Plimouth and other English groups. > > > > In 1635, Richard surfaced on a ship bound from England to Boston as "a laborer and retainer" for Richard Hollingsworth, a shipwright and fellow passenger. Before long, Richard More had struck a fancy for a young woman in Hollingsworth's care named Christian Hunter. As it turned out, their romance bloomed just as panic was sweeping Massachusetts: a sexually lax Christian sect known as the Familists appeared to be infiltrating the colonies by stealth. Richard and Christian accordingly married in Plimouth, in 1637, and lived for a time on a small parcel of land beside William Brewster's farm before moving to Salem. But in fact, Richard had picked up a thing or two from the Familists, because before long there was somebody else in his life. > > > > Exactly when and under what circumstances Richard met Elizabeth Woolnough in unknown. What is certain is that her father sailed to Virginia in the 1630s, only to be overtaken by Spanish pirates, and that he was still seeking for redress for that act on his deathbed in 1645, when Elizabeth married Richard in a mariners' church just outside London. Around them the successes of Cromwell and the Roundheads swelled the air. The Bigamous couple's daughter, also named Elizabeth, was baptized in the same church before half a year was out. > > > > Now Richard harbored a secret that, if discovered, was punishable by death. The appearance of pious Mayflower passenger Edward Winslow in London did much to keep him away from his English family after that. Back in Salem, he and Christian turned out children at a faster rate, ultimately producing a total of seven. Meanwhile, he shifted his mercantile focus to Manhattan and Maryland, trading mostly in tobacco. > > > > Richard did maintain ties to his London family, however. In 1653, once Cromwell's control over Great Britain was assured, the royal palace at Hampton went up for sale. A piece of this outrageously sumptuous estate was sold to one Joshua Woolnough apparently a relative of Richard's English wife, with whom Richard was then doing business through intermediaries in Maryland. Sadly, Richard never got to enjoy the windfall firsthand. By the time he arrived in England, Cromwell had appropriated the palace by fiat. As compensation, Richard was assigned as supply ship commander on a raid against the French in present-day Nova Scotia. > > > > Richard next encountered world history on his home turf. In the late 1650s, Massachusetts transferred its earlier fears of Familists onto the Quakers, who seemed only too happy to martyr themselves for their cause. Called to sit on a jury in a case involving some local Quakers, Richard watched as they entered the courthouse.with their hats on. > > > > Something of a blasphemer himself, Richard had to tread a careful balance during the Quaker hysteria. On the one hand, he was among the captains who famously refused to deport a pair of Quaker children into slavery. On the other, he had no qualms about transporting a virulently anti-Quaker minister into the colony. And all the while, he kept his eye on the main chance, using his jury appearances to parlay a personal debt into the acquisition of the Swan, a larger ship than any he had yet owned. > > > > With the Restoration of the monarchy in the 1660s, New England became isolated from the mother county, and Richard in turn lost touch with his London family. There is no evidence that he returned to England after 1667. Perhaps in response to this loss, he began to adopt wayward individuals from up and down the North American coast, at times bringing them into his household. Even a business voyage to the fledgling plantation of Carolina takes on a plaintive tone in this context. The colony was starving and terrified; Richard the rescuer sailed in with provisions. > > > > And so the autumn of his life arrived - minus the desired quietude. At the age of 60, Richard said farewell to the sea and opened a tavern in Salem, where he quickly became embroiled in the growing tumult on land. The Narragansetts and New England fell to war - the first full-scale example of a conflict that would continue across the continent in later centuries. Internally, Massachusetts was becoming fractious enough as well. The thunderings of the preachers did little to quell the bar fights, drunkenness and incessant squabbling. Richard's second born, Samuel, went as far as highway robbery. > > > > Meanwhile, harsh trading laws imposed by the king (who in fact was taking a page from Cromwell) had more or less assured that the colonies would develop smuggling into a way of life. A seasoned seafarer, Richard aided the colonial cause as a surveyor of "damaged" goods, but in this he was hardly exceptional. More notable was the attitude of his fourth-born, Richard junior, who, while in the good port of Manhattan, openly taunted the authority of Edmund Andros, the royally appointed governor of New York. > > > > The appointment of Andros as governor of New England brought multiple hardships upon the Mores. When the Andros government went looking for smugglers, it seized one of the More family ships. When it decided to appropriate real estate (as a way of funding its operations), Richard was forced to sell off most of his land to friends. And when it went looking for scapegoats, it found Richard guilty of adultery. As punishment, this old survivor of the Ancient Beginning had to wear the infamous "A" on his chest. Knowing all too well of the captain's wandering eye, the Salem church had little choice but to follow suit and excommunicate him. > > > > The following year, Boston rose up against the Andros government, and not coincidentally, Richard was able to regain his place in the Salem church. But was it secure? By the 1690s, the chaos of Massachusetts was bearing strange fruit. Girls playing games began to act oddly, then more so, and soon the Devil was in it. As accusation followed upon accusation, the Salem jail swelled with accused witches, among them some of Richard's longtime friends and acquaintances including John Proctor and Giles Corey. This was no mere political jockeying: men and women were going to the gallows. > > > > It was a spectacular climax to a life that, if gritty and at times even grim, nevertheless stood as a fully realized example of the penchant for self-invention that the following generations would come to exalt. >

Bob, Harlow is quite right, this subject has been covered at different times over the years by both Bette and myself. The society doesn't care a whit about a line carrier being born out of wedlock. It doesn't affect the validity of the line as long as parentage is proven. You will see in MF 17:82 that Thomas6 Cushman, son of Thomas5 Cushman and Alice Hayward is listed with the other children as an accepted child thru which descent is accepted. Susan E. Roser www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html ----- Original Message ----- From: <R1946AT@aol.com> To: <MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:23 PM Subject: [MFLR] Susan Roser - membership? > This question is for Susan, but if you know the answer then please feel free to jump in and answer the question. > > My question has to do with descendants of children born out of wedlock where the parents never married. Would those descendants be able to join the Mayflower Society? The line I have interest in is the Isaac Allerton/Cushman lines. Thomas Cushman had a son, Thomas Cushman, born out of wedlock to Alice Hayward. Since they never married will the descendants of Thomas Cushman, out of Alice Hayward, who married Bethia Thompson be eligible to join the Mayflower Society, thru his father,Thomas Cushman, son of Robert Cushman and Persis Lewis? > All responses will be greatly appreciated. (There are way too many Thomas Cushman's in this family. <G>) > Bob Trapp > > ______________________________

Hello everyone, I'm writing from David Lindsay's (descendant of Richard More) literary agency to help spread the word about his new book, 'Mayflower Bastard: A Stranger Among the Pilgrims', which Caleb Johnson, author of The Mayflower Web Pages, says is, "thoroughly enjoyable, one of the best Mayflower passenger biographies to come out in a long time." Richard More was born in England, the product of an adulterous affair between his mother and a local rake. When he was six years old, his mother's lawful husband could no longer bear the disgrace of his four children having a very strong resemblance to this unsavory local character. As a solution, he shipped the children to the colonies on the Mayflower. All of Richard's siblings died in the crossing; he alone survived to become one of the original Plymouth settlers. Richard was raised through young adulthood as a foster child in the home of William Brewster. He then apprenticed himself as a shipboy to Isaac Allerton for the next seven years, and spent the rest of his life as a mariner and ship captain. In 1637 Richard married and left Plymouth for Salem, where he raised his family. He was also married to another woman in England, and spent his life in constant fear of having his bigamous marriage discovered by the Salem community. Richard survived to see his friends and neighbors getting arrested on charges of witchcraft during the famous Salem Witch Trials and died shortly thereafter. More information about the book, the author, and an excerpt can be found on the book's web site at http://www.idealog.com/books/mayflowerbastard.html If you post any questions about the book or Richard More to this list I will be happy to reply. I also look forward to any thoughts, reactions, comments, etc. you may have. Hope you enjoy the reading, -Sigalit. The following are introductory remarks by the author which are not in the book and were written exclusively for online readers: MAYFLOWER BASTARD: ONLINE INTRODUCTION, by David Lindsay As the 1600s drew to a close, Captain More was a common sight around Salem: grizzled gray beard, knife thrust into his belt, the loping gait of a man more accustomed to a deck than a floor. A veteran of the Ancient Beginning, he had seen New England grow from a single tenuous village into a sprawl of thriving colonies - seen indeed the whole span of the Atlantic coast, once solely the province of Indians, grow thick with English settlements. What did this old man know? What had he learned in his many travels? If we could talk to him today, what yarns would he tell? Certainly they would not include the standard story of the Thanksgiving dinner we know from textbooks. Like many since, More was drawn into the American dream before he knew what it meant or where it might lead. In so doing, he managed to be present for many of the high points of the 17th Century. From Mayflower passage to Salem witch trials, he was witness to the first stirrings of a nation. Yet because of his ignoble origins, he often found himself cast in the role of the outsider. And in cultivating his beginnings into a secret life of his own, he ultimately came to embody a conflict at the heart of the Puritan experiment. Born into Shropshire gentry, Richard no doubt would have assumed a life of ease had his legal father, Samuel More, not discovered that his wife, Katharine, was begetting her children by a local laborer named Jacob Blakeway. The Mores had been wed by arranged marriage, already an arcane practice by the early 1600s, and as time went by, there were fewer and fewer reasons to keep their union intact. Katharine continued to meet with Jacob while her husband was off in London, seeking advancement in the court of King James I. When at last Samuel inherited their combined estates, he waited for Katharine to give birth to her fourth child, Mary, then repudiated all four children (Richard being third in age) and put them in the charge of a tenant living on his land. Enraged, Katharine burst in and tried, unsuccessfully, to retake her children by force. Richard thus spent the remainder of his early childhood, from the ages of three to five, under the storm of marital discord. Samuel brought criminal proceedings against the lovers, which they defied as long as they could. Confronted at last with a large fine, Jacob fled, presumably never to be seen again. Samuel then filed for divorce. Katharine fought tooth and nail against him, hoping to retain either some income for herself, some chance at a normal life for her children, or both, but in the end even her appeal of the divorce ended in failure. Henceforth Katharine would be a dispossessed soul with no means of support. Worse, her children were to be shipped off to the New World, where, Samuel hoped (or claimed to hope), they might live free of the shame that family scandal had brought upon them After a few weeks, amidst much organizational disarray, Richard and his siblings were trundled aboard the Mayflower and shipped off to the west, beyond the end of the earth. The 1620 voyage, along with the killing winter and autumnal feast that followed, has of course been much documented. Richard's three siblings did not stand out for dying; only half the original party survived the mysterious epidemic that swept through their midst. The famous story, however, does not entirely gibe with Richard's experience. Richard was not counted among the Separatists, as the Pilgrims were then called, but among the so-called Strangers, a secular crowd that had signed up for passage at the last minute. That her entered the scene under a cloud of scandal made him a stranger even among the Strangers. That his assigned guardian was William Brewster, nominal head of the Separatists, rendered his dislocation complete. When the seven-year arrangement for Richard's guardianship came to an end, Richard went to sea, where he progressed from shipboy to deck hand and sailed the waters of the Northern Atlantic. It was during this time, no doubt, that he learned to hate the French, who were just then regaining several trading outposts on the Maine coast from Plimouth and other English groups. In 1635, Richard surfaced on a ship bound from England to Boston as "a laborer and retainer" for Richard Hollingsworth, a shipwright and fellow passenger. Before long, Richard More had struck a fancy for a young woman in Hollingsworth's care named Christian Hunter. As it turned out, their romance bloomed just as panic was sweeping Massachusetts: a sexually lax Christian sect known as the Familists appeared to be infiltrating the colonies by stealth. Richard and Christian accordingly married in Plimouth, in 1637, and lived for a time on a small parcel of land beside William Brewster's farm before moving to Salem. But in fact, Richard had picked up a thing or two from the Familists, because before long there was somebody else in his life. Exactly when and under what circumstances Richard met Elizabeth Woolnough in unknown. What is certain is that her father sailed to Virginia in the 1630s, only to be overtaken by Spanish pirates, and that he was still seeking for redress for that act on his deathbed in 1645, when Elizabeth married Richard in a mariners' church just outside London. Around them the successes of Cromwell and the Roundheads swelled the air. The Bigamous couple's daughter, also named Elizabeth, was baptized in the same church before half a year was out. Now Richard harbored a secret that, if discovered, was punishable by death. The appearance of pious Mayflower passenger Edward Winslow in London did much to keep him away from his English family after that. Back in Salem, he and Christian turned out children at a faster rate, ultimately producing a total of seven. Meanwhile, he shifted his mercantile focus to Manhattan and Maryland, trading mostly in tobacco. Richard did maintain ties to his London family, however. In 1653, once Cromwell's control over Great Britain was assured, the royal palace at Hampton went up for sale. A piece of this outrageously sumptuous estate was sold to one Joshua Woolnough apparently a relative of Richard's English wife, with whom Richard was then doing business through intermediaries in Maryland. Sadly, Richard never got to enjoy the windfall firsthand. By the time he arrived in England, Cromwell had appropriated the palace by fiat. As compensation, Richard was assigned as supply ship commander on a raid against the French in present-day Nova Scotia. Richard next encountered world history on his home turf. In the late 1650s, Massachusetts transferred its earlier fears of Familists onto the Quakers, who seemed only too happy to martyr themselves for their cause. Called to sit on a jury in a case involving some local Quakers, Richard watched as they entered the courthouse.with their hats on. Something of a blasphemer himself, Richard had to tread a careful balance during the Quaker hysteria. On the one hand, he was among the captains who famously refused to deport a pair of Quaker children into slavery. On the other, he had no qualms about transporting a virulently anti-Quaker minister into the colony. And all the while, he kept his eye on the main chance, using his jury appearances to parlay a personal debt into the acquisition of the Swan, a larger ship than any he had yet owned. With the Restoration of the monarchy in the 1660s, New England became isolated from the mother county, and Richard in turn lost touch with his London family. There is no evidence that he returned to England after 1667. Perhaps in response to this loss, he began to adopt wayward individuals from up and down the North American coast, at times bringing them into his household. Even a business voyage to the fledgling plantation of Carolina takes on a plaintive tone in this context. The colony was starving and terrified; Richard the rescuer sailed in with provisions. And so the autumn of his life arrived - minus the desired quietude. At the age of 60, Richard said farewell to the sea and opened a tavern in Salem, where he quickly became embroiled in the growing tumult on land. The Narragansetts and New England fell to war - the first full-scale example of a conflict that would continue across the continent in later centuries. Internally, Massachusetts was becoming fractious enough as well. The thunderings of the preachers did little to quell the bar fights, drunkenness and incessant squabbling. Richard's second born, Samuel, went as far as highway robbery. Meanwhile, harsh trading laws imposed by the king (who in fact was taking a page from Cromwell) had more or less assured that the colonies would develop smuggling into a way of life. A seasoned seafarer, Richard aided the colonial cause as a surveyor of "damaged" goods, but in this he was hardly exceptional. More notable was the attitude of his fourth-born, Richard junior, who, while in the good port of Manhattan, openly taunted the authority of Edmund Andros, the royally appointed governor of New York. The appointment of Andros as governor of New England brought multiple hardships upon the Mores. When the Andros government went looking for smugglers, it seized one of the More family ships. When it decided to appropriate real estate (as a way of funding its operations), Richard was forced to sell off most of his land to friends. And when it went looking for scapegoats, it found Richard guilty of adultery. As punishment, this old survivor of the Ancient Beginning had to wear the infamous "A" on his chest. Knowing all too well of the captain's wandering eye, the Salem church had little choice but to follow suit and excommunicate him. The following year, Boston rose up against the Andros government, and not coincidentally, Richard was able to regain his place in the Salem church. But was it secure? By the 1690s, the chaos of Massachusetts was bearing strange fruit. Girls playing games began to act oddly, then more so, and soon the Devil was in it. As accusation followed upon accusation, the Salem jail swelled with accused witches, among them some of Richard's longtime friends and acquaintances including John Proctor and Giles Corey. This was no mere political jockeying: men and women were going to the gallows. It was a spectacular climax to a life that, if gritty and at times even grim, nevertheless stood as a fully realized example of the penchant for self-invention that the following generations would come to exalt.

***-----Original Message----- ***From: R1946AT@aol.com [mailto:R1946AT@aol.com] ***Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:24 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Susan Roser - membership? *** *** ***This question is for Susan, but if you know the answer then ***please feel free to jump in and answer the question. *** ***My question has to do with descendants of children born out of ***wedlock where the parents never married. Would those ***descendants be able to join the Mayflower Society? Hi Bob, Bette Bradway answered this question a couple of years ago. Back in Sep. of 2000 Bette wrote a lengthy reply which was forwarded to the list and included this: "The Society of Mayflower Descendants has never excluded membership because of illegitimacy, as long as the lineage can be PROVEN." You can find the original message in the list archives http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/M/MAYFLOWER +2000+334644323+F

This question is for Susan, but if you know the answer then please feel free to jump in and answer the question. My question has to do with descendants of children born out of wedlock where the parents never married. Would those descendants be able to join the Mayflower Society? The line I have interest in is the Isaac Allerton/Cushman lines. Thomas Cushman had a son, Thomas Cushman, born out of wedlock to Alice Hayward. Since they never married will the descendants of Thomas Cushman, out of Alice Hayward, who married Bethia Thompson be eligible to join the Mayflower Society, thru his father,Thomas Cushman, son of Robert Cushman and Persis Lewis? All responses will be greatly appreciated. (There are way too many Thomas Cushman's in this family. <G>) Bob Trapp

Donna, The best thing to do would be to write a letter to your state contact. Perhaps their computer is down or they are having server problems. Susan E. Roser, Historian, Canadian Society www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.htm > > Message Board Post: > > I've sent 3 or 4 emails to Mayflower society contact listed for my state. I haven't gotten a reply. What do I do to get my application for membership & review of ancestry looked at? Is there an alternate I can send it to? I have found 6 Mayflower ancestors so far but Brewster & Winslow easiest to prove. Thanks Donna > > ______________________________

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/msg/5538/FO.2ADI/181.1 Message Board Post: Thank you to everyone who has e-mailed me. I have the information I need now. I really appreciate everyone who took the time to help me. Donna Pfitzner

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/msg/5538/FO.2ADI/161.1 Message Board Post: I AM A DESCENDANT OF WILLIAM WHITE. I AM NOT SURE HOW. I AM ALSO IN RELATION TO FRANCIS SCOTT KEY. HOPE WE CAN CONNECT,. THANK YOU

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Brewster,Winslow Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/msg/5538/FO.2ADI/181 Message Board Post: I've sent 3 or 4 emails to Mayflower society contact listed for my state. I haven't gotten a reply. What do I do to get my application for membership & review of ancestry looked at? Is there an alternate I can send it to? I have found 6 Mayflower ancestors so far but Brewster & Winslow easiest to prove. Thanks Donna

http://www.alden.org/

Regarding the engraving of Priscilla Mullins and John Alden - "My Mystery Picture" - two gentlemen responded and wished to view the picture in question. I e-mailed Mitzi Mullins Smith and asked her to invite them to her website but their e-mail addresses did not work...she would love to have anyone interested see this picture. If the persons who responded (or others) would like to see this engraving on the net - please notify Mitzi at: Mitzinays@aol.com Thanks. Fran in SC

Scott said: > Hi, I could not find this descendency in Alden Kindred of America. Its the > fifth generation where the problem starts. 1. John Alden m. Priscilla Mullins > 2. Dr. Thomas Delano m. Mary Alden(I think he was also married to her sister > Rebecca) 3.Benoni Delano m. Elizabeth Drew 4. Amasa Turner m. Rebecca Delano. > 5. Ichabod Turner m. Lydia Allen b. 1745 6.Edmund Pattee b. 1764 m. > Elizabeth Turner b. 1766. > ______________________________ Scott, The problem does appear to be in generation #5. As Harlow pointed out, Ichabod Turner married Sarah Winter and according to MF 16:1:535 his second wife was named "Sabra" - not Lydia. (There is n.f.r. in MF)This doesn't mean he could not have married a Lydia Allen, only that we would need proof that wife "Sabra" died and he married Lydia in time for the birth of a child Elizabeth Turner in 1766 as you have above. Unfortunately I don't have access to the CT vitals to check this out. Susan. www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html

Does anyone know if there are any documenaries about the Mayflower or Pilgrims to be televised this month? TTYS, Dawn Green

Hi, this information, on the Turner family comes from a hand written copy of a DAR application prepared by Lucy Ball Owsley. The Ball name is part of the Ball Fruit Jar company.Tthats about all I know. Hi, I could not find this descendency in Alden Kindred of America. Its the fifth generation where the problem starts. 1. John Alden m. Priscilla Mullins 2. Dr. Thomas Delano m. Mary Alden(I think he was also married to her sister Rebecca) 3.Benoni Delano m. Elizabeth Drew 4. Amasa Turner m. Rebecca Delano. 5. Ichabod Turner m. Lydia Allen b. 1745  6.Edmund Pattee b. 1764 m. Elizabeth Turner b. 1766. Any help would be fine. Thankyou, Scott mcKay

***-----Original Message----- ***From: Scottsfamilytree@aol.com [mailto:Scottsfamilytree@aol.com] ***Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:27 PM ***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com ***Subject: [MFLR] Possible Alden relation *** *** ***Hi, I could not find this descendency in Alden Kindred of ***America. Its the ***fifth generation where the problem starts. 1. John Alden m. ***Priscilla Mullins ***2. Dr. Thomas Delano m. Mary Alden(I think he was also married ***to her sister ***Rebecca) 3.Benoni Delano m. Elizabeth Drew 4. Amasa Turner m. ***Rebecca Delano. ***5. Ichabod Turner m. Lydia Allen b. 1745 6.Edmund Pattee b. 1764 m. ***Elizabeth Turner b. 1766. ***Any help would be fine. ***Sincerely, Scott McKay Scott, where are you finding this? It's always helpful to know what's already been checked and what areas to look at. I don't know a thing about these people, and in looking at what I have on hand I can only see that it appears that Ichabod Turner married a Sarah Winter at Killingly, Windham, CT and that she died in 1761, which gives him plenty of time to marry again. [Susan Roser's _Mayflower Births & Deaths_ 1:48 has this Ichabod and says that "Mrs ( ) Turner, wf of Ichabod...d. 6 Feb., 1761" and cites the Lancaster ChR 1:324. The Barbour Collection has in Killingly, Windham, CT BMD the marriage of Ichabod Turner to Sarah Winter, Feb. 8, 1753 (1:70) and then the death of Sarah, 7 Feb. 1761 (1:157). But I don't see anything about a remarriage or a Lydia Allen or an Elizabeth Turner in Killingly.] An article in NEHG Register 147:174-5 "Peter Pattee of Haverhill, Massachusetts" by Scalisi and Ryan has (p. 175) Edmund Pattee and Elizabeth Turner, and says she was b. Killingly 17 April, 1766, but says nothing about who she was. Have you got something to connect these people?

Well, according to the Delano Gen. (p. 155), Rebecca Delano (b. 1702) was the daughter of Dr. Benoni Delano (son of Dr. Thomas Delano) and she married Duxbury 2 Mar 1727 Amasa (son of Daniel and Hannah (Randall) Turner) b. Scituated. Lancaster. Benoni's will mentions daughter "Rebecca Turner." I don't see more of that family in the Delano Gen. Blessings, Father John >From: "Harlow Chandler" <chandler@firstva.com> >To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [MFLR] Possible Alden relation >Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:42:26 -0500 > > > >***-----Original Message----- >***From: Scottsfamilytree@aol.com [mailto:Scottsfamilytree@aol.com] >***Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:27 PM >***To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com >***Subject: [MFLR] Possible Alden relation >*** >*** >***Hi, I could not find this descendency in Alden Kindred of >***America. Its the >***fifth generation where the problem starts. 1. John Alden m. >***Priscilla Mullins >***2. Dr. Thomas Delano m. Mary Alden(I think he was also married >***to her sister >***Rebecca) 3.Benoni Delano m. Elizabeth Drew 4. Amasa Turner m. >***Rebecca Delano. >***5. Ichabod Turner m. Lydia Allen b. 1745 6.Edmund Pattee b. 1764 m. >***Elizabeth Turner b. 1766. >***Any help would be fine. >***Sincerely, Scott McKay > > >Scott, where are you finding this? It's always helpful to know what's >already been checked and what areas to look at. > >I don't know a thing about these people, and in looking at what I have on >hand I can only see that it appears that Ichabod Turner married a Sarah >Winter at Killingly, Windham, CT and that she died in 1761, which gives him >plenty of time to marry again. [Susan Roser's _Mayflower Births & Deaths_ >1:48 has this Ichabod and says that "Mrs ( ) Turner, wf of Ichabod...d. 6 >Feb., 1761" and cites the Lancaster ChR 1:324. The Barbour Collection has >in Killingly, Windham, CT BMD the marriage of Ichabod Turner to Sarah >Winter, Feb. 8, 1753 (1:70) and then the death of Sarah, 7 Feb. 1761 >(1:157). But I don't see anything about a remarriage or a Lydia Allen or >an >Elizabeth Turner in Killingly.] > >An article in NEHG Register 147:174-5 "Peter Pattee of Haverhill, >Massachusetts" by Scalisi and Ryan has (p. 175) Edmund Pattee and >Elizabeth >Turner, and says she was b. Killingly 17 April, 1766, but says nothing >about >who she was. Have you got something to connect these people? > > > >==== MAYFLOWER Mailing List ==== >Check out the Mayflower FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)page at >http://www.macatawa.org/~crich/mayfaq.htm . _________________________________________________________________ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

Here is my Mayflower line. I have all the documentation I need (I think) to join, now I just have to come up with the money. Does anyone out there fit in this line? Has anyone else joined using this line? Descendants of Pilgrims My family line (XX = came on Mayflower) William Mullins 1578-1621* 10-G-Gr.father XX m. Alice (UNKNOWN) 10-G-Gr.mother XX John ALDEN 1599-1687 * 9-G-Gr.father XX m. Priscilla MULLINS 1602-? * 9-G-Gr.mother XX their daughter was Elizabeth ALDEN 1623-1717 * 8-G-Gr.mother m. William PABODIE 1619- 1707 * their daughter was Lydia PABODIE 1667-1748 * 7-G-Gr.mother m. Daniel GRINNELL 1658-1740 * their daughter was Rebecca GRINNELL 1695-1762 6-G-Gr.mother m. John DOWD Jr their son was Peleg DOUD 1734-1806 5-G-Gr.father m. Merab WARD 1733-1806 their daughter was Asenath DOUD 1773-1854 4-G-Gr.mother m. Jeremiah RUMSEY 1763-1842 (I got the info from John Alden to here from Plymouth, MA Genealogical Society summer of 2001.) their daughter was Almira RUMSEY 1810-1881 ** 3-G-Gr.mother m. Martin MOORE 1811-1894 ** (info from Presidents, soldiers, statesmen. I have a copy, but it is also on the TRI-COUNTIES web page, and from Plymouth, MA Genealogical Society ) their son was Seymour MOORE 1844-1909 ** G-G-Gr.father m. Sarah BARBER 1846-1923 ** (info from Seymour's pension) their daughter was Sally Adeline MOORE 1879-1942 + G-Gr.mother m. Judar ALLEN 1873-1937 + (info from mariage license and Seymour's pension) their daughter was Leona Emma ALLEN 1899-1986 + Gr.mother m. Wilhelm Julius Hillmann HUONKER 1894-1960 + their daughter was my mother TTYS, Dawn Green Genealogy is not a matter of life and death, it is much more important than that!!!

Hi, I could not find this descendency in Alden Kindred of America. Its the fifth generation where the problem starts. 1. John Alden m. Priscilla Mullins 2. Dr. Thomas Delano m. Mary Alden(I think he was also married to her sister Rebecca) 3.Benoni Delano m. Elizabeth Drew 4. Amasa Turner m. Rebecca Delano. 5. Ichabod Turner m. Lydia Allen b. 1745 6.Edmund Pattee b. 1764 m. Elizabeth Turner b. 1766. Any help would be fine. Sincerely, Scott McKay

This is a little off the beaten path - but I found - some years back in Charleston, SC - an engraving of Priscilla Mullins and John Alden. I call it my "Mystery Picture" as I have no idea who the artist was or even when it was done. I sent a copy to the Alden Museum but they have never replied to my letter or answered my e-mails. (On the Alden Museum site, they are searching for the artist of this same picture.) As far as I know, unless Leah Warren - a dtr of Lot Warren of Georgia - is a descendant of Richard Warren - I am not related to either the Mullins or Alden lines...or any Mayflower people... However, if there are any art experts in the Society who may be familiar with "Pilgrim art" - I would certainly like to have their assistance. I am hoping to get this fine engraving into the hands of Mullins/Alden descendants...as I think it must be quite rare. I am 65 and when I pass on - my children will probably donate it to the local Goodwill store...a sad thought indeed for such a beautiful and historic picture. Any art experts out there??? Fran in SC

In reading the William Bradford's accounts of their faith and values (which was sustained even through great challenges that would have caused many to lose faith, or give up), I find that I admire the Pilgrims FAR MORE than had their goal been to attain monetary riches. Granted -- according to earthly standards, Plymouth Colony "did not greatly flourish." However, did the Pilgrims possess great treasure? Oh, yes. IN THE MIDST of life's storms (and, there were many in Plymouth) -- Bradford's entries strongly suggest that at times, the Pilgrims came to know "a peace that surpasses all understanding." GOD'S peace. <>< ================================================== Subj: RE: [MFLR] Plymouth Colony "did not greatly flourish" Date: 11/3/2002 1:13:32 PM Central Standard Time From: <A HREF="mailto:chandler@firstva.com">chandler@firstva.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com">MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Well, Ed, here's my opinion. What Howe says I think is true in its way. Plymouth Colony was always a poor colony whose poor soil and modest harbors offered no foundation for economic growth. It was soon hemmed in by better financed, more aggressive colonies with better harbors and better access to the interior, and it finally faded away as an independent colony after only about seven decades. So if success is measured by material wealth and the power to impose one's will on others Plymouth Colony was a failure. William Bradford wrote that before the people who were to become those Plymouth colonists we think of as the Pilgrims left England for Holland they, "saw the evil of these things in these parts, ...and as the Lord's free people joined themselves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate, in the fellowship of the gospel, to walk in all His ways made known, or to be made known unto them, according to their best endeavors, whatsoever it should cost them, the Lord assisting them. And that it cost them something this ensuing history will declare." (p. 9) Bradford's history of Plymouth Colony is in part a history of misadventures, of betrayals, and if you will of failures. It is a history of costs. But more than that it is a history of people who kept their faith and were sustained. Early in the history Bradford recounts an event which might be considered a pattern for the events which follow. The men of the congregation had been separated from the women and children.. The men were on the ship which was to take them all to Holland. While they were preparing to leave "the master espied a great company, both horse and foot, with bills and guns and other weapons, for the country was raised to take them." The master, "Swore his country's oath_sacremente_, ..weighed his anchor, hoised sails, and away," leaving the women and children behind. The men were soon caught in a fierce storm, the mariners themselves often despairing of life, and once with shrieks and cries gave over all, as if the ship had been foundered in the sea and they sinking without recovery. But when man's hope and help wholly failed, the Lord's power and mercy appeared in their recovery; for the ship rose again...And if modesty would suffer me, I might declare with what fervent prayers they cried unto the Lord in this great distress...even without any great distraction. When the water ran into their mouths and ears and the mariners cried out, 'We sink, we sink!' they cried (if not with miraculous, yet with a great height or degree of divine faith), 'Yet Lord Thou canst save! Yet Lord Thou canst save!' ...Upon which the ship did not only recover, but shortly after the violence of the storm began to abate, and the Lord filled their afflicted minds with such comforts as everyone cannot understand. (13) Again and again in the history Bradford recounts occasions upon which the colony faces disaster, often brought on through the perfidy of people they counted upon as friends. And again and again they turn to their faith and they are sustained. At one point they lose their patent--the legal foundation of their right to colonize--and Bradford writes that this is, "A right emblem...of the uncertain things of this world, that when men have toiled themselves for them, they vanish into smoke." (35) No, the Plymouth Colony did not "flourish." It did not enjoy material prosperity or political or military power. But Bradford wrote, "What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say:'Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and he heard their voice and looked on their adversity." (63) As an old man Bradford was grieved to see the people of Plymouth turning more and more to "the uncertain things of this world." But his words have survived as a testament to a people who left behind their goods, their homes, their friends, and often their families, trusting not in their own strength, but in something larger than themselves, and living not for themselves, but for something greater. It seems to me that people who do not share the particular faith of the Pilgrims can appreciate what they did, and it seems to me that in the light of what they did, the fact that they did not "flourish" doesn't matter very much. citations from William Bradford's _Of Plymouth Plantation_, ed. Samuel Eliot Morison, in the Modern Library edition of 1967 published by Randonm House of New York. ====================================== -----Original Message----- From: Ed Finigan [mailto:efinigan@attbi.com] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:32 AM To: MAYFLOWER-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [MFLR] Plymouth Colony "did not greatly flourish" While scanning "The Puritan Republic of The Massachusetts Bay" by Daniel Wait Howe (Cornell On-Line Books), I was surprised to read on page 4 that the Plymouth colony "did not greatly flourish. Eleven years after it was founded it had only about 500 population, and it never became an important factor in American colonial history.) On the eve of our annual First Thanksgiving celebration, this is an awful revelation to digest. I'm crushed. I wonder if Howe is expressing a minority opinion? [end]