I found this marriage of RI folks in the Bellingham, MA VR Vol 389:299 on NEHGS. I could not resist copying it for this board since it has so much detail and hope that it may be useful to someone out there. 25 Dec 1888 Burrillville, RI Marriage: William H Wells of Bellingham, age 42, Farmer, b. RI son of Alfred and Annie Wells to Elsie A Bennett of Burrillville, RI age 44 b. Georginville[this is a guess of spelling as the record was not clear], RI daughter of William and Susan Green 2nd marriage for both, by Rev. Mr. Granger, Harrisville,RI -- Sandy in Colorado

census images coming to your address ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Scott" <squirejack@suscom.net> To: <RIGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: [RIGENWEB] Bennett - Searle - Hudson @ Cranston/Prov - census ... > Married at Providence in 1848 was one Daniel H. Bennett to Roby W. Searle. > > I suspect this is the Daniel Bennett who was b. 1822 at Cranston - was in Fall River in 1840 but back at Prov. in 1850. > > I would love to see this guy in the 1850 or or 1860 census .... if anyone was kind of enough to extract him. > > the childrens names if any would be of interest. i woudl also like to look at their dates of birth - as another Roby Bennett appears in the cemetery records as being born 1793 - so i am not sure if this marriage was a late in life one or more contemporary. > > A Daniel H. Bennett dies in 1902 with the approx birth of 1824. i hope this is the Daniel H. Bennett who i am looking for. I beleive stringly that the (H) in his middle name stabds for Hudson not Henry. > > In 1820 at Cranston Jospeh Bennett Jr is enunerated next to Daniel Hudson. this is the connection i am trying to establish. > > also ... anyone have an idea who Roby W Searle is ??? > > > jack > > Hanover,Pa > > > ==== RIGENWEB Mailing List ==== > Providence County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~riprovid/ > Submit your Rhode Island Query at http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/queries.html

Has anyone been to the RI alms house cemetery in the Pastore complex in Cranston? Is it accessible? Also, which one of those buildings used to be the State Alms house? I drove all around the complex and couldn't see any cemetery. Is it just overgrown or has it been built upon?

REFERENCE: Arnold's VR of RI, Vol. 4, page 450 BENNETT, Daniel H., of Providence, son of George W., of Foster and Robey W. Searle of John, of Providence; m. by Rev. Z. Bradford, Nov. 16, 1848. Bonnie

The only thing in my notes is that a Roby Searle and Thomas Kilvert were married on June of 1835 at Providence, Rhode Island. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Scott" <squirejack@suscom.net> To: <RIGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 12:20 PM Subject: [RIGENWEB] Bennett - Searle - Hudson @ Cranston/Prov - census ... > Married at Providence in 1848 was one Daniel H. Bennett to Roby W. Searle. > > I suspect this is the Daniel Bennett who was b. 1822 at Cranston - was in > Fall River in 1840 but back at Prov. in 1850. > > I would love to see this guy in the 1850 or or 1860 census .... if anyone > was kind of enough to extract him. > > the childrens names if any would be of interest. i woudl also like to look > at their dates of birth - as another Roby Bennett appears in the cemetery > records as being born 1793 - so i am not sure if this marriage was a late > in life one or more contemporary. > > A Daniel H. Bennett dies in 1902 with the approx birth of 1824. i hope > this is the Daniel H. Bennett who i am looking for. I beleive stringly > that the (H) in his middle name stabds for Hudson not Henry. > > In 1820 at Cranston Jospeh Bennett Jr is enunerated next to Daniel Hudson. > this is the connection i am trying to establish. > > also ... anyone have an idea who Roby W Searle is ??? > > > jack > > Hanover,Pa > > > ==== RIGENWEB Mailing List ==== > Providence County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~riprovid/ > Submit your Rhode Island Query at > http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/queries.html > >

Hi Laurie, That was in 1998 if I recall! I have also heard elsewhere that local Quakers met in unmarked houses because of fears of persecution but it also make sense that they simply did not believe in ornamentation of any type. It could well be that people have attached a meaning based on history - ie the Quakers were persceuted almost everywhere they went and therefore they tried to hide their identities. I descend from Lawrence and Cassandra Southwick who were sent to Long Island from Mass to die in the wilderness for their Quaker beliefs. Donna ---- LAURIE4756@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/9/2006 9:57:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > uriramfan@cox.net writes: > > Hi Laurie and others, > I seem to remember the day that you (Laurie) and I and some others went to > the old Quaker meeting house in Portmouth and that Sheila Barker's uncle had > told us that the meeting house was kept plain and the graves were not marked > in the very early years because even in RI they still feared persecution. > Later on the graves were marked and there were a lot of stones there but I know > there were rows of unmarked graves there as well. > Donna > > > > > Hi Donna- > I recall the visit (was that back in 1998??? Yikes the years have flown!) I > don't recall the mention of persecution fear! The plainness I always believed > was based on their religious tradition of simplicity . Simplicity and > plainness (no stained glass, no ornamentation, no music was based on their belief > that these things "detracted one from silently waiting upon God". I have a > great book.."The Quakers" by Barbour and Frost..a fantastic book for people who > want to learn more about Quaker traditions, history, etc.) Unfortunetly there > is no mention about gravestones that I can find. > > My great grandmother taught school in the Middletown Quaker school in the > latter 1800s and Prov. Friends and her father was a teacher at Providence's > Friends School (now Moses Brown) 1860s onward.. since the discussion yesterday > about head stones I've pulled out my boxes of journals/letters they wrote > (seems every page mentioned a funeral of someone!) to see if there is mention of > stones (they themselves both have them). So far no mention. > > ~ Laurie > > > ==== RIGENWEB Mailing List ==== > Kent County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~rikent/ > Search the RIGenWeb Pages http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/search.html >

Married at Providence in 1848 was one Daniel H. Bennett to Roby W. Searle. I suspect this is the Daniel Bennett who was b. 1822 at Cranston - was in Fall River in 1840 but back at Prov. in 1850. I would love to see this guy in the 1850 or or 1860 census .... if anyone was kind of enough to extract him. the childrens names if any would be of interest. i woudl also like to look at their dates of birth - as another Roby Bennett appears in the cemetery records as being born 1793 - so i am not sure if this marriage was a late in life one or more contemporary. A Daniel H. Bennett dies in 1902 with the approx birth of 1824. i hope this is the Daniel H. Bennett who i am looking for. I beleive stringly that the (H) in his middle name stabds for Hudson not Henry. In 1820 at Cranston Jospeh Bennett Jr is enunerated next to Daniel Hudson. this is the connection i am trying to establish. also ... anyone have an idea who Roby W Searle is ??? jack Hanover,Pa

Hi Stefani- I have no doubt that what you wrote about (domed tops/ 15 inches in height) is accurate. I think my general question is, from the various Quaker burial grounds and the varied styles of stones (from crude field stones of earlier years to huge granite monuments I've seen in Portland Maine) there must be an explanation for the differences. I know that there were 3 divisions at one point of Quakers : Orthodox (Gurneyites), Hicksites and Conservatives (Wilborites)..the latter being named for John Wilbor of Hopkinton, RI who espoused a traditional following. It is possible that different time periods, different followings (conservative toward more liberal) set their own burial traditions. In England in the 1600s stones were not used at all. I suppose because the religion is based on personal relationships with God, and that God leads people through his own personal revelations, the traditions evolved and at different rates depending on the location. Quakers are an interesting study and certainly had a great impact on New England, Rhode Island in particular. As to vanity and photography... like gravestones, I'm not sure if this too was regional, time period dependent but in the "Images of America; Portsmouth, RI" pg 117 there is a picture of women dated 1883 called women from the Friend's School in Providence" (one being y grgrandmother Annie Earle) where the editor even comments they look a little "dressy" for Quakers.. So by 1883 they were photographed and their dress had changed as well. Maybe your friend knows how different Meetings held onto traditions. You say she in Bristol County, MA (as am I) is she from the Dartmouth Meeting? Anxious to learn more! Laurie

My "new to me cousin" is a meeting historian at her meeting house. She is the one who told me about the headstones and showed me some documentation about it. She lives in Bristol County, MA. She also told me the reason was based on their belief that vanity was a sin. My 6th GGF, Wilson Wing, was a hatter and a Quaker. I have copies of the business ads he put in the local newspaper about his hats being guaranteed not to cause a sanction for vanity. I would surely love to see a picture from back then but I guess that would have fallen under vanity also. Sigh, Stefanie

In a message dated 6/9/2006 9:57:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, uriramfan@cox.net writes: Hi Laurie and others, I seem to remember the day that you (Laurie) and I and some others went to the old Quaker meeting house in Portmouth and that Sheila Barker's uncle had told us that the meeting house was kept plain and the graves were not marked in the very early years because even in RI they still feared persecution. Later on the graves were marked and there were a lot of stones there but I know there were rows of unmarked graves there as well. Donna Hi Donna- I recall the visit (was that back in 1998??? Yikes the years have flown!) I don't recall the mention of persecution fear! The plainness I always believed was based on their religious tradition of simplicity . Simplicity and plainness (no stained glass, no ornamentation, no music was based on their belief that these things "detracted one from silently waiting upon God". I have a great book.."The Quakers" by Barbour and Frost..a fantastic book for people who want to learn more about Quaker traditions, history, etc.) Unfortunetly there is no mention about gravestones that I can find. My great grandmother taught school in the Middletown Quaker school in the latter 1800s and Prov. Friends and her father was a teacher at Providence's Friends School (now Moses Brown) 1860s onward.. since the discussion yesterday about head stones I've pulled out my boxes of journals/letters they wrote (seems every page mentioned a funeral of someone!) to see if there is mention of stones (they themselves both have them). So far no mention. ~ Laurie

Hi Laurie and others, I seem to remember the day that you (Laurie) and I and some others went to the old Quaker meeting house in Portmouth and that Sheila Barker's uncle had told us that the meeting house was kept plain and the graves were not marked in the very early years because even in RI they still feared persecution. Later on the graves were marked and there were a lot of stones there but I know there were rows of unmarked graves there as well. Donna ---- LAURIE4756@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/9/2006 3:10:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > Usaf1135@aol.com writes: > > Quaker graves were usually unmarked. They did not believe in gravestones. > > > > > > I don't believe this is completely accurate, or perhaps its "era" dependent. > I have found 3 generations of Quaker ancestor stones (behind Quaker meeting > houses in Maine and RI) from 1820s-1898. All were clearly marked and made of > stone/granite. > > Laurie > > > ==== RIGENWEB Mailing List ==== > Newport County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~rinewpor/ > To unsubscribe: http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/mailist.html#unsubscribe >

The Quaker cemeteries around here all have grave stones. Maybe a certain era had no markings. ----- Original Message ----- From: <LAURIE4756@aol.com> To: <RIGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [RIGENWEB] Quakers- how to tell?? > > In a message dated 6/9/2006 3:10:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > Usaf1135@aol.com writes: > > Quaker graves were usually unmarked. They did not believe in > gravestones. > > > > > > I don't believe this is completely accurate, or perhaps its "era" > dependent. > I have found 3 generations of Quaker ancestor stones (behind Quaker > meeting > houses in Maine and RI) from 1820s-1898. All were clearly marked and made > of > stone/granite. > > Laurie > > > ==== RIGENWEB Mailing List ==== > Newport County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~rinewpor/ > To unsubscribe: http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/mailist.html#unsubscribe > >

Another idea is to verify the Cemetery the person is buried in, often the RI Arnolds's entries reference a grave record and if you go to the Key page it will list the affiliated religious denomination of the cemetery, i.e. Catholic, Quaker, etc. -- Sandy from Colorado

In a message dated 6/9/2006 3:33:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, CercaPenna@comcast.net writes: In 1851 the Quakers approved gravestones saying they were no longer considered an act of vanity. They also had very specific requirements as to the shape. They could be no more than 15 inches high and had to have a domed top. After this many families including my own started to put gravestones on family graves that had died previous to 1851. Hmmm. I wonder if this is regional or certain branches of Quakers (Orthodox/Hicksites). My ancestors in the Oaklawn (Cranston) Meeting House burial ground have quite large stones and the ones behind the Portland, Maine Friends Meeting house are quite large too. Some are "domed tops" but looking at the photos I have many are not. Anyone know if this was regional/branch, etc? Laurie

I am sure there were exceptions. That's why I posted "usually". Glad to be set straight by Stefanie and Laurie. http://www.rootsweb.com/~quakers/

In 1851 the Quakers approved gravestones saying they were no longer considered an act of vanity. They also had very specific requirements as to the shape. They could be no more than 15 inches high and had to have a domed top. After this many families including my own started to put gravestones on family graves that had died previous to 1851. Stefanie

In a message dated 6/9/2006 3:10:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Usaf1135@aol.com writes: Quaker graves were usually unmarked. They did not believe in gravestones. I don't believe this is completely accurate, or perhaps its "era" dependent. I have found 3 generations of Quaker ancestor stones (behind Quaker meeting houses in Maine and RI) from 1820s-1898. All were clearly marked and made of stone/granite. Laurie

http://www.cyndislist.com/quaker.htm http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/friends/geneal.htm

Quaker graves were usually unmarked. They did not believe in gravestones.