 |
|
 |
|
Anonymous Wrote:
This line was researched decades ago: have you met A R Justice's book
on the Clarke family?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:46:32 -0700 (PDT), "mho...@mac.com" <...@mac.com
I would interject that Gary Boyd Roberts collects royal lines and
publishes them. He, himself, does not do any of the research. If you
look into his notes for Jeremiah Clarke you'll see the EO citation,
which refers to the English Origins series that the New England
Historical and Genealogical Register did. Since Gary edited that
series, he tends to cite to EO, although it would be more helpful to
cite directly to NEHGR since that is online. What you can do is slide
over to Doug Richardson's work, Plantagenet Ancestry and get the
specific cite which is NEHGR 74 (1920):131-32. Note also that Doug
calls him Jeremy Clarke rather than Jeremiah. So, there is some
discussion on his actual given name and that is was rendered in
several forms during his lifetime.
Reading that article, I would say that what connect Jeremy/Jeremiah
with William and Mary (Weston) Clarke is that Jeremiah named a son
Weston and Jeremy had a brother Weston whose will in London gave each
of his brothers 100 pounds each.
The same goes for Ligon, although in this case it seems that the
article in question would be in the William and Mary Quarterly 2nd
ser. 16 (1936):289-315.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
That Jeremiah Clarke had a son named Weston doesn't mean Jeremiah
Clarke was the son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke. The point is
that the actual parish register entry says "Jerum Clerk," which
appears to be just a spelling variation of "Jerome Clerke." Mary
(Weston) Clerke's father was Sir Jerome Weston, who was father to
Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland.
I know of no evidence linking Col Thomas Ligon of Henrico Co., VA to
Thomas and Elizabeth (Pratt) Ligon of co. Warwick, Eng. It's
chronologically possible, but that's it.
I own both of Douglas Richardson's books, and he doesn't cite a
primary source for these two. I didn't know that Roberts doesn't do
his own research.
It appears in both cases that the identification was made based upon
parish registers, but proving these colonists are the same persons as
in the registers is the problem here. If these older secondary
sources (written in 1920 & 1936) cite the required evidence, wouldn't
it be easier just to cite that evidence instead of the secondary
source? In other words, somebody reading this board is descended from
these men, and should know exactly how the lines are connected. Did
Weston Clerke's will give Jeremiah (or Jeremy) Clarke 100 pounds?
When was it proved?
So--the question remains: what evidence if any proves these men to be
sons of the alleged parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I'm assuming that the will mentioned above is that of Weston Clarke of
St. Albans, Wood St., London, dated 3 May 1626. (PCC Hele Quire)
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to give its particulars?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
It turns out that this 3 May 1626 record of Weston Clarke's will is
actually a record of the annullment of it. The will itself is lost,
so while his grandfather James Clarke/Clerke did direct Weston to pay
his brothers 100 pounds each, we have no record of who those brothers
were.
The East Farleigh, Kent, Eng. parish register shows William and Mary
(Weston) Clerk had the following children: Weston, William, James,
Essex, George, Jeram (Mrs. Mulvey gives it as "Jerum"), Richard, John,
and Mary.
Having looked at the Visitations, I find no mention of Jeremiah
Clarke. That of "Clerk of Allgate Ward, London," mentions only Weston
and James as children of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke with a note
"This descent not to be entered." Apparently the fee was unpaid.
It appears that the identification of Jeremiah Clarke as a son of
William and Mary (Weston) Clerke rests only upon the fact that
Jeremiah Clarke had a son named Weston. I know of no record that
actually shows he was. An assumption has been made here that Jeremiah
Clarke is the "Jeram" or "Jerum" in the East Farleigh, Kent, Eng.
parish register, but I see no warrant for it.
The only Clarke mentioned in the will of Sir Jerome Weston dated 28
Dec 1603 is a maidservant named Emme Clarke. Presumably he provided
for his daughter Mary (Weston) Clerke in some other fashion.
As it presently stands, support for the royal descent of Jeremiah
Clarke and Col. Thomas Ligon is lacking. The problem with "RD600" is
that most of the evidentiary citations are to secondary sources, which
may not point to a primary source that proves the descent. That
Douglas Richardson prints the line doesn't mean he's checked it. He
may simply have taken it upon the word of someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:59:57 -0700 (PDT), "mho...@mac.com" <...@mac.com
I would disagree. I think that Jeremy/Jeremiah Clarke named a son
Weston and we have a parish record for a baptism of a Jerum. Clerke
son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke, which fits chronologically,
would be slam dunk in the realm of English origins of immigrants to
New England. Sorry. People didn't pick the name Weston out of a hat.
The point is
Is that your opinion or do you have further examples? I think Jerum
(and I suspect no one has bothered to look at the original parish
records yet) can be a variation of many names including Jeremy or
Jeremiah.
I won't comment on the Ligon ancestry having not read the primary
article. I believe cites are given to these secondary articles
because we need to give the compiler/author/founder of the lineage
credit for his/her discovery. It also will give all the cites to the
primary sources used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Dear Mr. Anonymous ~
The issue of the name "Jerum" versus Jeremy/Jermiah is I think a
spurious one.
I just did a Google Book Search for Jeremiah Clarke and immediately
turned up the seminal article on the Clarke family in NEHGR vol. 74
(1920): 130- 140. This article was cited already by Martin Hollick in
his first response to your post. Interested parties may find the
Clarke article at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pssUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA132&dq=Jeremy+Clarke+Wes ton#PRA2-PA130,M1
Since you're questioning Mr. Roberts' work, I assume you've done your
basic research and read that article already. If not, perhaps you can
explain why you seemingly overlooked the comment on page 137 which
explains that the name of the immigrant's grandfather, Jerome Weston,
is found in contemporary records spelled as "Gerrom, Hierome, Jeromye,
etc." The author likewise points out that two of Jerome Weston's
daughters, Ann Williams and Mary Clarke, named sons Jeremy.
As for whether the immigrant's name was Jerome, Jeremy, or Jeremiah
Clarke, I might suggest that you examine the references cited in the
Clarke article which give contemporary references to the immigrant's
name, namely
Records of the Colony of Rhode Island, vol. I, pp. 87, 93, 98, 110,
121, 127, 148, 209, 210, 211, 213.
If you've already examined these records (and I hope you have done
that), perhaps you can share with us what spellings are used in those
records for the immigrant's given name. Without checking these
records myself, I can only assume that you will find that the
immigrant occurs there both as Jeremy and as Jeremiah, as we see the
author of the Register article on page 132 uses both of these forms
for the immigrant's name. The author of the Register article has
already established that Jeremy was a variant form of Jerome.
lastly, perhaps you can explain why you have chosen to contrast the
form Jeremiah against the archaic spelling, Jerum. If I did not know
better, I would think you were making a deliberate attempt to
misrepresent what is found in the contemporary records regarding the
variant forms of Jerome/Jeremy/Jeremiah. If you did not intend to
mislead your fellow posters, then perhaps you can share with us your
motive in creating a false smoke screen around the variant forms of
this given name. The author of the Clarke article makes it crystal
clear that there are multiple forms of the given name, Jerome, in
records of this period. And, I think even a novice would recognize
that "Jerum" as it occurred in the church records was merely a variant
form of Jerome, especially since we've all known since 1920 (if not
earlier) that the mother of the child in question was herself the
daughter of a man named Jerome.
It will be interesting to read your explanations in your followup
reply.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
<
< Roberts claims that Jeremiah Clarke of R.I. (d. ca. 1651/2) was the
< son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke of Kent, Eng. AR8 Line 11
< says Clarke was baptized there on 1 Dec 1605.
< The East Farleigh, Kent, England parish register, according to Mrs.
R.
< Mulvey, who transcribed it in the 1960s, shows that “Jerum Clerk,”
son
< of William Clerk, was baptized there on 1 Dec 1605. “Jerome” was a
< Weston family name, and Jerome Weston, 2nd Earl of Portland, would
< have been Jeremiah Clarke’s first cousin had Clarke been the
< individual in the parish register. However, the entry doesn’t say
< “Jeremiah Clarke.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
To help Mr. Anonymous, I thought I'd post various references to the
immigrant, Jeremy Clarke, found in Volume 1 of Records of the Colony
of Rhode Island. For starters, on page 90, there is a reference to
the immigrant as Jeremy Clarke:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=y_YLAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Jeremy+Clarke%3A&pgis=1# search_anchor
And, on page 98, 102, 219, there are references to the immigrant as
Jeremie Clarke:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=y_YLAAAAYAAJ&q=Jeremie&pgis=1#search_ancho r
According to Google Books, besides page 90, there are 13 other
references in the Colony Records, Volume 1 to Jeremy Clarke. There
are only two references to Jeremiah Clarke in this volume.
Given the preponderance of the given name, Jeremy/Jeremie Clarke, in
these contemporary records, I'd have to assume that the immigrant's
name was more correctly Jeremy Clarke, not Jeremiah Clarke as stated
in your post.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On p. 271 of the 2008 edition of "RD600," Gary Boyd Roberts calls this
man "Jeremiah." Mr. Richardson's sources show that he was also called
"Jeremy."
I've examined the 3 references Mr. Richardson mentions. Not one of
them provides solid evidence that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke of R.I. was
actually the son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke.
The argument that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke was their son is based only
on onomastic (naming) evidence. The name "Weston" could have entered
this colonist's family in any number of ways. In reality, there is no
record linking him to any proven member of William and Mary (Weston)
Clerke's family.
Until there is, this line should be labelled "speculative."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Your arguments are not terribly persuasive. I've already shown that
the immigrant was principally known as Jeremy Clarke, yet you persist
in calling him Jeremiah? Why? The author of the Clarke article in
NEHGR clearly states that Jeremy and Jerome are interchangeable. Are
you deliberately trying to create confusion when none exists? I
suggest you rexamine the contemporary records and confirm that Jeremy
and Jerome are in fact interchangeable. When you do, then you can say
"Gosh, I never knew this and never bothered to check the records or
read the pertinent secondary sources until Mr. Richardson prodded me
to do so. Thank you Mr. Richardson."
As for the the name, Weston, occurring among the children of Jeremy
Clarke, it surely happened the same way that the name Latham occurred
among Jeremy Clarke's children. Jeremy Clarke and his wife, Frances,
used these given names on purpose. Weston was the maiden name of
Jeremy Clarke's mother. And Latham was the maiden name of Jeremy
Clarke's wife.
If I didn't know anything about these people at all, I would be
looking for a Weston and Latham connection in the ancestry of these
people in England. Also, I would be looking for a Clarke family that
was of gentry background, as the immigrant was known as "Mr." Jeremy
Clarke. Very few of the colonists were known as "Mr." The assigned
origins of Jeremy Clarke fits both of these prerequisites.
Regardless, it is always good to question secondary sources including
my books. We all make mistakes. So questioning the findings of
another researcher is not a bad thing at all. If you are looking for
conclusive evidence to prove Jeremy Clarke's origins, though, you
probably need to rethink your approach. The people of this period
didn't have social security numbers to track them in the records.
When they moved, they simply stopped appearing in the records in one
place and then appeared in another. Demanding ironclad evidence to
prove each move can be difficult if not impossible. Often we simply
have suggestive evidence such as the given names assigned to a man's
children. If you say that sort of evidence isn't acceptable, I'd say
"Go fish."
Lastly, as to your assertion that most of the origins of the
immigrants are unknown, I believe the origins of approximately 25% of
the colonial New England immigrants are known. And, more are being
found all the time. So, it's not as hard as you think or claim to
find the origins of English immigrants to America. I've proven the
English origins of several immigrants in my own ancestry, so I know it
can be done. Perhaps you should study my articles in print and follow
my methodology.
Until you then, your research techniques may be at best labelled
"speculative."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:54:30 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Jeremy is a shortened form of Jeremiah.
Apart from that, does the primary source call him Jeremy or Jerem'h,
where the h looks like the thorn or y? Or haven't you seen the primarcy
source?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
If the reader of this column is wondering why onomastic (naming)
evidence is not of itself acceptable proof of the alleged royal
ancestry of Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke, allow me to explain:
There were millions of people living in Britain in the 17th century.
Gentry families were often large, and there were cadets (younger
members of families) of cadets and so forth. If you have a colonist
you want to link to a gentry family, it's not all that difficult to
find a name in a Herald's Visitation or parish register that COULD be
your ancestor. Families intermarry and become entwined. A family
might again intermarry with the same family down the road. Two or
more gentry families of the same surname can have children with the
same given names.
Crossing the Atlantic is a lot harder than most people imagine. The
ancestry of most colonists is unknown.
The real questions are these:
What proof is there that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke is the "Jerum Clerk"
baptized at East Farleigh, Kent, Eng. on 1 Dec 1605? What proof is
there that Col. Thomas Ligon of Henrico Co., VA is the same Thomas
Ligon baptized at Sowe, co. Warwick, Eng. on 11 Jan 1623/4?
In both cases, such proof is lacking, and until it's produced, both
lines should be labelled "speculative" or "possible."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
< If the reader of this column is wondering why onomastic (naming)
< evidence is not of itself acceptable proof of the alleged royal
< ancestry of Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke, allow me to explain:
<
< There were millions of people living in Britain in the 17th century.
I believe the population of England in 1775 was 3,000,000. Surely the
number was much lower in 1630, about when Jeremy Clarke immigrated to
New England.
Can someone post some proper population estimates?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:13:01 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Looks like you need to double your figures.
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/epop_02/epop_02_00201.html
Gregory King's estimate of the population of England and Wales in 1695,
5.5 million, compares with the Wrigley—Schofield figure of 4.95 million.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553483_23/United_Kingdom.html#p30
Following the union with Scotland in 1707, the British population stood
at about 6.5 million; a century later it had reached 15.75 million.
http://www.manx-research.com/madissertation/dissert009.php
In 1550 the population of England . . . was rising fairly quickly. From
about 2.3 millions, . . . for 1522-5, it had risen to 2.8 millions by
1541, 4.1 millions by 1601 and 5.281 millions by 1656. This was the peak
which marked the beginnings of a dramatic transition to a period of
population stagnation and even decline, . . . [90] [90 Coward, Social
Change and Continuity, 37.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Thanks, Renia, for posting this information. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 13, 3:13 pm, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Looking at the population figures in the previous post, it's clear
that there were 4-5 million people living in England in the first half
of the 17th century. Not every gentry family was descended from
medieval monarchs. Not every literate person was the son or grandson
of a knight.
In the case of Col. Thomas Ligon of Henrico Co., VA, there is not one
primary record linking him to Thomas and Elizabeth (Pratt) Ligon of
co. Warwick, England. He's of the same generation as the Thomas Ligon
bpt. at Sowe on 11 Jan 1623/4, but there's no proof that he was the
same person. Col. Thomas Ligon was a man of some importance in 17th
century VA, but so were other men who weren't royally descended.
Somehow this line went from "probably" and "almost certainly" to no
caveat at all. When that happens, people are misled into thinking the
line is proven, when it isn't. Both "RD600" and the Richardson
volumes should label this Ligon line as "conjectural," but neither
do. That's their call, but it's their credibility at stake.
As for Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke, the issue isn't which name is the one
he mainly went by, or whether a "Jerome" could also be called "Jeremy"
or "Jeremiah." Gary Boyd Roberts himself called him "Jeremiah." If
Richardson wants to call him "Jeremy," that's fine with me. The 1 Dec
1605 East Farleigh, Kent parish register, regardless of whether it's
"Jerum" or "Jeram" clearly means "Jerome." Onomastic (nameing)
evidence IS important, but here it's the ONLY evidence, and that's not
enough to prove this man to be the son of William and Mary (Weston)
Clerke. If there were two men of the same name in the same locality,
and we knew one of them had to be a son of that couple, then the
onomastic evidence could tilt the balance toward one of them. But
here it's the entire case, and that's just not enough. You're trying
to convince people that because "Jeremy" Clarke had a son named
"Weston" that the only solution to his ancestry is that Jeremy was the
son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke, and that's not true.
The fact is that we have no other record in England actually calling
the individual in the East Farleigh parish register "Jeremy." And no
record proving that "Jerum Clerk" came to RI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:09:20 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Very, very true. I have been saying this for years but no one listens,
citing the "small gene pool" in colonial America.
<small snip
People also gave their children the surnames of Godparents and not all
Godparents were relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
< As for Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke, the issue isn't which name is the one
< he mainly went by, or whether a "Jerome" could also be called
"Jeremy"
< or "Jeremiah." Gary Boyd Roberts himself called him "Jeremiah."
I didn't call him Jeremiah Clarke. I called him Jeremy Clarke. And
the contemporary records support that statement. To make sure the
truth is made crystal clear, I'll say it again. The immigrant was
principally known as Jeremy Clarke, and seldom as Jeremiah. I assume
you now agree with that statement. If so, why call the immigrant once
again Jeremiah? And, don't blame Mr. Roberts for confusing you on
that point. You already know better.
I still have hope for you, Bin, but it is fast fading.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:49:40 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Do the primary sources call him Jeremy or Jerem'h, where the h looks
like the thorn or y? Or haven't you seen the primarcy sources?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:26:53 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Do the primary sources call him Jeremy or Jerem'h, where the h looks
like the thorn or y? Or haven't you seen the primarcy sources?
This is the third time I am asking this question. Are you ignoring it?
Surely you know whether you have seen the original document or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
There are memorial tombstones to both him and his wife, on both of
which his name is expressed as "Jeremiah"
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: roya...@msn.com
To: gen-...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 5:17 pm
Subject: Re: A challenge to the validity of Gary Boyd Roberts' Jeremiah
Clarke and Col. Thomas Ligon lines
< As for Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke, the issue isn't which name is the one
< he mainly went by, or whether a "Jerome" could also be called
"Jeremy"
< or "Jeremiah." Gary Boyd Roberts himself called him "Jeremiah."
I didn't call him Jeremiah Clarke. I called him Jeremy Clarke. And
the contemporary records support that statement. To make sure the
truth is made crystal clear, I'll say it again. The immigrant was
principally known as Jeremy Clarke, and seldom as Jeremiah. I assume
you now agree with that statement. If so, why call the immigrant once
again Jeremiah? And, don't blame Mr. Roberts for confusing you on
that point. You already know better.
I still have hope for you, Bin, but it is fast fading.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
That may be, Will, but exactly when were the gravestones erected?
The bill for the gravestones will suffice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Since Mr. Richardson is so enamoured of onomastic (nameing) evidence,
let me propose another solution to the ancestry of Jeremiah/Jeremy
Clarke:
That he was the illegitimate son of Sir Jerome Weston by Sir Jerome's
maidservant, Emme Clarke. That would explain why Jeremiah/Jeremy
named a son "Weston," wouldn't it? And since Mr. Richardson has so
amply shown that a "Jerome" can be a "Jeremy," it does fit the facts,
n'cest pas? Sir Jerome Weston made his will in 1603, and there's not
a lot of difference between 1603 & 1605... right?
I mean, it wasn't until about 1900 or so that the ancestry of Jeremiah/
Jeremy was "discovered." And yet, he was allegedly the first cousin
of the 2nd Earl of Portland... all that time... who knew?
There are few certainties in life, but I'll wager anything on this--
you guys don't like this theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:26:37 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <...@aol.com
-------------
Or that Jerome was another legitimate son to Sir Jerome by Mary Cave.
Mary's birth date is known. When she died she was only 46. She had
children pretty regularly, ten known to me, but there are gaps where
she could certainly have had another child. It is known that they had
a son Jerome bap 12 Dec 1585 who died a month later. I see no reason
not to think they may have had another son and named him Jerome/Jeremy
as well.
Will Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:27:27 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
But why give him the surname, Clarke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:27:22 -0700 (PDT), "mho...@mac.com" <...@mac.com
Up to now you hadn't voiced the theory, you were merely stating that
you didn't like the published line. You are not letting the records
tell the story. You have the story made up in your mind and you are
trying to fit the records to the story. That's not research
(genealogical or historical) by anyone's standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:28:17 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Binky is being rather tongue-in-cheek and accusing Mr Richardson of
doing what you suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
The interesting thing to me is that in both your books you call
his wife Frances Latham "widow of Thomas Dungan, Gent., of Lincoln's
Inn".
Frances was widow of WILLIAM Dungan, perfumer of London and
purported (incorrectly) son of Thomas Dungan of Lincoln's Inn.
Some way that William and Thomas (of Lincoln's Inn) were cousins, on very tenuous
evidence indeed.
Doug McDonald
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:44 am, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
< The interesting thing to me is that in both your books you call
< his wife Frances Latham "widow of Thomas Dungan, Gent., of Lincoln's
< Inn".
<
< Frances was widow of WILLIAM Dungan, perfumer of London and
< purported (incorrectly) son of Thomas Dungan of Lincoln's Inn.
< Some way that William and Thomas (of Lincoln's Inn) were cousins, on
very tenuous
< evidence indeed.
<
< Doug McDonald
Doug, I definitely appreciate your comments. When you have a moment,
perhaps you can cite your source(s) and provide weblinks, if you have
them.
This particular error is one I inherited from Dr. Faris, as you can
see in the weblink below.
http://books.google.com/books?q=Faris+widow+Thomas+Dungan&btnG=Search+Books
I've since corrected it in my manuscripts.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Best is a book.
A quest for origins : the search for the parentage of William Dungan, perfumer of St.
Martin-in-the-Fields by Thomas P. Dungan
FHL catalog number 929.242 D918d
You could look it up.
The same guy has a web site
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mylines/dungan_royal_myth.htm
He thoroughly dismantles the royal connection, but what he proposes
instead is built of toilet paper. Maybe right, but quite hypothetical.
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:54 pm, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME...@scs.uiuc.edu
wrote:
Thanks, Doug.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
< Looking at the population figures in the previous post, it's clear
< that there were 4-5 million people living in England in the first
half
< of the 17th century. Not every gentry family was descended from
< medieval monarchs. Not every literate person was the son or
grandson
< of a knight.
I've read similar population estimates which are lower than those
provided by Renia. As I recall, I've read statements that the
population of England stood at 3,000,000 in 1750, on the eve of the
American Revolution. Even this figure is a "guesstimate," however, as
there were NO official censuses taken in England in this time
period. So much for clarity.
As such, perhaps before you say that "it's clear" (your words) that
there were 4-5 million people living in England in the first half of
the 17th Century, you should do more research. The only thing that is
certain is that any of these census total are mere guesses. That
means these totals even more unreliable that your current research
methodology.
I recommend you do additional research before latching onto any census
estimates, either mine or Renia's. Perhaps you can familiarize
yourself with Google Book Search and see what you find.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:45:15 +0930 (Cen. Australia Standard Time), "Merilyn Pedrick" <...@internode.on.net
I'm sure I can remember reading somewhere (maybe Sir Iain Moncreiffe?) that
the population of England after the Plague and Great Fire of London in the
17th Century, was only about one and a half million.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: roya...@msn.com
Date: 14/04/2009 9:35:28 AM
To: gen-...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: A challenge to the validity of Gary Boyd Roberts' Jeremiah
Clarkeand Col. Thomas Ligon lines
On Apr 13, 5:38 PM, bin....@gmail.com wrote:
< Looking at the population figures in the previous post, it's clear
< that there were 4-5 million people living in England in the first
Half
< of the 17th century. Not every gentry family was descended from
< medieval monarchs. Not every literate person was the son or
Grandson
< of a knight.
I've read similar population estimates which are lower than those
Provided by Renia. As I recall, I've read statements that the
Population of England stood at 3,000,000 in 1750, on the eve of the
American Revolution. Even this figure is a "guesstimate," however, as
There were NO official censuses taken in England in this time
Period. So much for clarity.
As such, perhaps before you say that "it's clear" (your words) that
There were 4-5 million people living in England in the first half of
The 17th Century, you should do more research. The only thing that is
Certain is that any of these census total are mere guesses. That
Means these totals even more unreliable that your current research
Methodology.
I recommend you do additional research before latching onto any census
Estimates, either mine or Renia's. Perhaps you can familiarize
Yourself with Google Book Search and see what you find.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:47:47 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/life.html
The total population of England in 1086 cannot be calculated accurately
from Domesday for several reasons: only the heads of households are
listed; major cities like London and Winchester were omitted completely;
there are no records of nuns, monks, or people in castles. The
population of England at the time of Domesday has been tentatively
estimated at between 1¼ and 2 million. However, these figures are much
lower than the 4 million people there are estimated to have been in
Roman times.
However this site briefly gives population estimates:
http://members.tripod.com/Angel_Princess1/Timeline.html
1085
Population of England estimated at about 2 million
1348-1349
Black Death, kills 1/3 English population of about 4 millions, villein
class cut by 1/2, price of labour doubles
1603
At end of Elizabeth's reign, English population estimated at 4 million,
4/5 living in rural areas
1665
Black Death arrives once more, not worst but last full-scale epidemic,
kills 1/5 London pop; Great Fire of London (burns five days) one year
later, destroys most of city, 89 churches destroyed, founding of Wren's
St. Paul's; city rebuilt in brick, wider streets, more difficult for
plague to prosper and spread to provinces; London pop. estimated at just
under half million
1688
Gregory King's Tables (from Charles Davenant's Works, 1771), estimates
over one million people (nearly 20% of pop.) in occasional receipt of
alms, mostly in form of public relief from parish
1700
Pop. of English colonies in America, 200,000
1714-1742
No big increase from pop. of about 5.5 million but distribution changes:
East Anglia loses; West Country, South and East Midlands, East Riding
and North (except Tyneside) fairly static; West Riding and South
Lancashire increase; West Midlands, Surrey and Middlesex grow rapidly
with London (London 500,000, Bristol 50,000; Manchester, Liverpool,
Sheffield, Leeds, Halifax, Birmingham and Coventry, no longer sprawling
villages, but still under 50,000); cause = immigration from cities and
(in NW) from Ireland
1750
pop. England and Wales est. 6.5 million
1801
Pop. of England and Wales now 10 million (first census)
1831
Pop. of England and Wales now 14 million
1870
Britain's pop. est. at 26 million
1920
Population: England/Wales - 37,887, [i.e. almost 38 million]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:14:06 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
3 million is too low. England was not a village in the 17th century.
Wrigley and Schofield are pretty reliable and have done a lot of
demograhic work for the University of Cambridge. The figure may be lower
than they suggest, but not as low as you suggest.
I believe the population before the Black Death of 1347 was about 3 or 4
million and about one third died. A lot of people can be born in 300 years.
Census estimates? Where do you get that from? Demography is obviously
not your field. Read up on Wrigley and Schofield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:14 pm, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr<
< Census estimates? Where do you get that from? Demography is
obviously
< not your field. Read up on Wrigley and Schofield.
I've never claimed to be a demographer, Renia. Nor are you one.
Regardless, however good Wrigley and Schofield are, their figures are
only "guesstimates." So is the estimate I quoted. Such estimates
are based on the "assumptions" made by the individual demographer.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:48:44 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
Actually, I am.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
You previously admitted to be a copy editor, Renia. So when did you
become a demographer? What books or articles have you published on
the subject?
In any case, you're still ducking the issue regarding these population
"guesstimates."
I suspect all of these estimates are fundamental flawed to some
degree, as they are heavily dependent on certain assumptions made by
the demographers when creating these estimates.
If the assumptions are valid, the estimates will be spot on. If they
are not, they can be way, way off. Myself I doubt I would be willing
to create an estimate that required so many unverifiable assumptions.
But, that doesn't stop others from doing so, or people like Bin
quoting them as if they are "factual" data which they are not.
In any case, please know that I'm not disputing your figures, so much
as I'm questioning the underlying methodology which created them. The
figures you quoted could be quite accurate. And, I'm certainly glad
you posted this information. I suspect, however, the numbers are
inflated.
Doing a Google Search, I see there is material on the population of
England and Wales in the book, The Pre-industrial Economy in England,
1500-1750, by Leslie Clarkson published in 1971. He states on page 26
that "most historians believe that the population of England and Wales
was between 2.5 million and 3.0 millions" and refers to TABLE 1.
Table 1 covers population estimates between 1480 and 1750. Since I'm
unable to see Table 1 in the Google Snippet view, I can't see when the
population matched this estimate.
However, I find elsewhere on page 27, Mr. Clarkson further states that
"Professor J.C. Russell has put the population in 1545 at about 3.5
millions although his estimates are not accepted by all historians."
See the weblink below for that statement:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=kKBeAAAAIAAJ&dq=England+population+1750&q= three+millions&pgis=1#search_anchor
As we can see, Mr. Clarkson has placed a caveat or warning on Mr.
Russell's population figures, which I think is just being sensible.
You quoted similar figures for other dates, Renia, but without the
appropriate caveat.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Not to belabor the point, but I just found another discussion of
population estimates for England in the period, 1700-1777. The
author talks about double estimates, and "factors of correction."
This underscores the fact that demographers can and do waffle about
population estimates for this time period, even though some of the
corrections seem to be rather minor.
This interesting discussion can be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_STyxqSm3QYC&pg=PA19&dq=England+population+175 0&lr=
Again, I point out that these estimates are heavily dependent on the
basic assumptions made by demographers when making these population
estimates. If the assumptions are correct, then the estimates will be
correct. If the assumptions are flawed, then the estimates will
likewise be flawed. There is no way to tell if the demographer's
assumptions are flawed or correct without actually tearing into the
records of the period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:25:50 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
I'm afraid you are stating the obvious, Douglas. Go through the
1841-1901 censuses and plot the rise in population. Add to that the
numbers emigrating to America, Australia and elsewhere, and the numbers
immigrating from France, Ireland, Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and you
can plot average population growth. You can use this information to work
backwards, and come up with some projections as to past population
numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:23:11 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
No, I wasn't a copy editor. I was a sub-editor. One of my degree courses
was a demographics course and my 30 years of research into my one-name
study necessitates demographic knowledge.
And the issue is, that they don't agree with your theories.
Of course they are. So is most historical research.
There are people out there who are specialists in particular subjects,
and in particular aspects of history, such as demography. Wrigley and
Schofield (among others) are one such. They use whatever data they have
to come up with population theories. (All history is theory, even
genealogy.)
If you want to create your own population theories, then by all means,
do so. One way of doing it is to take data relevant to the period and
make calculations. For example, the nationwide window tax of the 1660s
lists those who paid the tax on windows and who didn't. These will only
be heads of household. Some people only had one window. Others had 4, or
7, or 16. The numbers of windows will determine the approximate size of
the house. Of course, people were busy filling in their windows at the
time. However, this source is a census substitute, naming heads of
households. From this, can be estimated how many people lived in each
house, including servants. Taken alongside other data for the period,
for example, Recusant rolls, which can name the entire family, a theory
of the population number can be presented. And that is what many people
have done for many periods in history.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of books containing population
estimates, and even more web sites doing so. Some are serious studies,
as outlined above, and others pure guesstimates.
See para above.
You wanted figures. I gave you some. You could have done the same
AltaVista search yourself and come up with the same information. Why
should I provide a caveat? Such caveats are intrinsic in all historical
study.
If you don't trust others' population estimates and want to create your
own population estimates, then I suggest you get some tax lists,
passenger lists and other demographic data, and come up with theories of
your own.
Otherwise, trawl through the thousands of books and estimates, do some
sums, and come up with some statistics of averages of your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:23 am, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr< you
< on
< <
< No, I wasn't a copy editor. I was a sub-editor. One of my degree
courses
< was a demographics course and my 30 years of research into my one-
name
< study necessitates demographic knowledge.
Your claim to be a demographer is nothing short of outrageous, dear.
Having "demographic knowledge" and taking one course in a subject
hardly makes you a qualified demographer. Anymore than knowing about
groceries makes you a farmer.
Even so, I still appreciate the population figures you posted. Thanks
once again.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity then, following the lead of
another eminent genealogist here, to declare that I am also an
archaeologist, a physicist, a linguist and a sociologist.
I might be more, I have to review my college transcript to see what
other specialties I can claim.
Will "modern Renaissance Man" Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:40:08 +0300, Renia <...@DELETEotenet.gr
People do wear many hats. My student hat was was an historian's hat. One
of my employment hats was a genealogist's hat and a later one was a
sub-editor's hat. My 30 years' genealogical and historical study
comprises all three of those hats, with my historical bent being
demographics and social history, both of which are closely related to
genealogy. The older you are, the more hats you have had time to wear
and should wear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
My point is that the pedigree of Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke is based
solely upon onomastic evidence. He had a son named Weston, and from
this it's surmised he must have been the son of William and Mary
(Weston) Clerke. By any estimate, there were a lot of people living
in Britain in the first half of the 17th century--too many to make
that assumption.
That he might have been Sir Jerome Weston's illegitimate son is only
half tongue in cheek--it's certainly possible, and there could be
other possibilities. Of the two royal lines claimed by Gary Boyd
Roberts, "Clarke" is probably stronger than"Ligon," but neither is
adequately supported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Actually you're overlooking several things, Bin, which seems to be a
bad habit with you. First is chronology. We know that Jeremy
Clarke's wife, Frances Latham, was born in 1610. So, we would be
looking for a Jeremy Clarke in England that was born about that time.
Second, we know that Jeremy Clarke was known as "Mr." Clarke in New
England. So, we would be looking for a Jeremy Clarke in England who
was likely from a family with gentry connections. That alone narrows
the field considerably.
Third, we have the names Weston and Latham which occurred among Jeremy
Clarke's children. So, we would be looking for a Jeremy Clarke in
England who had connections to the Weston and :Latham families. That
narrows the field even more.
In the case of Jeremy Clarke of East Farleigh, Kent, he fits all three
clues. He was born about the right time. He was from a gentry
family. And, his mother was a Weston and his wife was a Latham.
I might add that if I had more knowledge about Jeremy Clarke's life
and his associates, I probably could find further confirmation for his
origins.
I personally have no problem with Jeremy Clarke's assigned parentage.
Your "theory" about him being an illegitimate son of Jerome Weston has
no basis in fact.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Those interested in the English origins of the immigrant, Mr. Jeremy
Clarke, of Newport, Rhode Island, will doubtless enjoy reading the
material on his father-in-law, Lewis Latham, Gent., of Elstow,
Bedfordshire, King's Falconer, which is found in James Edmund Harting,
Bibliotheca Accipitraria (1891): 250–251. This material may be found
at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pauEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=Jeremiah+Clarke+Latha m&lr=#PPA250,M1
The author Mr. Harting indicates that an original portrait of Lewis
Latham passed down among the descendants of Jeremy Clarke. This is
yet another clue that Jeremy Clarke and his wife, Frances Latham, came
from a gentry background.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
There is yet another piece of evidence which ties the family of the
immigrant, Jeremy Clarke, to the Weston family in England. Josiah
Granville Leach in his book, Genealogical and Biographical Memorials
of the Reading, Howell, Yerkes, Watts, Latham, and Elkins Families
(1898), reports on page 220 the following information:
"In a manuscript written in the eighteenth century, by James Barker,
one of Frances Latham's descendants, is the following mention:
"Frances, wife of William Vaughan, died September 1677 in the 67th
year of her age. She was a daughter of Lewis Latham. She was
sometime the wife of Lord Weston, then wife of William Dungan, by whom
she had a son and three daughters .... After William Dungan died, she
married Mr. Jeremiah Clarke, and came over to New England with her
children above named. She had by her husband, Clarke, five sons.
After he died she married a Mr. Vaughan." END OF ABOVE
The above material may be viewed at the above weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tEtMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA218&dq=Lewis+Latham+Falconer #PPA220,M1
As we can above, the manuscript material though late date gives a
fairly accurate record of the life of Frances Latham, wife of Jeremy
Clarke. It preserves the tradition of a connection between the family
of Jeremy Clarke and his wife, Frances Latham, and Lord Weston.
Lord Weston can, of course, be readily identified as Jeremy Clarke's
own uncle, Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland. For a Wikipedia
biography of Richard Weston, see the following weblink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Weston,_1st_Earl_of_Portland
I might note that it is certain that Frances Latham did not marry
first Lord Weston as claimed. Her marriage to her first husband,
William Dungan, is recorded under her maiden name, Latham, as shown
abstract of their marriage record cited in the following weblink (see
third reference to page 182):
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xd1nAAAAMAAJ&q=William+Dungan+1629&dq=William+ Dungan+1629&pgis=1
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:24:45 -0400, Nathaniel Taylor <...@nltaylor.net
In article
Barker's statement about Frances Latham was quoted and carefully
discussed in Alfred R. Justice's 1920 NEHGR article, which Douglas
already cited and web-linked yesterday in this same thread. People
interested in this topic might actually wish to read that article.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:46:28 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <...@aol.com
A very annoying source.
I *know* that it is not his point to go into the genealogy, but does
he really have to present the nonsense that Lewis was a hundred years
old when he was buried?
In addition, he states that names of the children from Lewis' will,
apparently having seen it, and *neglects* to tell us that Lewis' will
actually gives each daughter her already married surname, which is
quite important to work out the family connections.
Will Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT), ABB <...@gmail.com
Well said Doug,
I might ad that it would be good to have a professional quality
article on Clarke showing the results of a thorough examination of
court records, manorial records, etc. in Kent and New England to
provide as close to an airtight argument as can be made for this
identification. i have seen that many articles on NE origins from the
early 20th century did not make use of (for many reasons i would
presume) the vast number of records now available through the National
Archives website.
ADRIAN BENJAMIN BURKE
New York City
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Mr. Richardson is alleging that research which should have been done
in the first place will confirm an identification which is presently
unsupported by solid evidence. Perhaps this is why his two volumes of
medieval pedigrees (much of the material having been cadged from the
work of others) are now out of print, and he finds himself peddling
them here. He has no problem laying the blame for his cock-ups
elsewhere, and now wants to blame me for daring to demand of Gary Boyd
Roberts proof of his claimed descents. I didn't know Roberts was
beyond having to defend his statements.
For his own part, Roberts, who hasn't proved his Ligon line, now
claims Col. Thomas Ligon MAY have an Edward III descent. That's a
good indicator of his priorities.
I'm not saying that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke didn't come from a gentry
background. I'm saying that there's no proof that William and Mary
(Weston) Clerke were his parents--it's not the same thing.
I hope that Roberts ends the "RD" series with his 2008 edition, and
that Mr. Richardson likewise retires. Both would like to pretend
their books are used only by a specialist audience that understands
the limitations, when in fact the kitchen-and-sink philosophy of
printing virtually anything disguises the fact that some of the lines
are wrong. Those impressive piles of references at the end of the
lines often lead nowhere, and "Clarke" and "Ligon" are excellent
examples of that.
I see no point in arguing with Mr. Richardson. It's up to his readers
to decide if he's reliable enough to warrant an investment in his
books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
The issue is not whether Gary Boyd Roberts had proof of Jeremy
Clarke's origins. It's clear now that he had sufficient proof. Nor
is the issue whether or not it is appropriate to review the research
findings of another genealogist or historian. I wholeheartedly agree
with that process, otherwise I wouldn't post my own research findings
here on the newsgroup.
Rather, what's become the issue is your own failure to do any basic
research on the Clarke family BEFORE suggesting Mr. Roberts was in
error. Furthermore, attacking me or my books won't get you off the
hook. You've either done your Clarke homework, or you haven't. I
say you haven't.
Saying there is no evidence when you haven't bothered to look at the
contemporary records or secondary works doesn't help your credibility
as a serious genealogist.
Do you have any contrary evidence? Or, are you still confused by the
variant forms of Jerome/Jeremy/Jeremiah? Please post something,
anything of substance on the Clarke family, beside your uninformed
opinions. Be sure to cite your sources, and provide weblinks if you
have them. I'm rooting for you, Bin. I say go for it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Mr. Richardson is alleging that research which should have been done
< in the first place will confirm an identification which is presently
< unsupported by solid evidence. Perhaps this is why his two volumes
of
< medieval pedigrees (much of the material having been cadged from the
< work of others) are now out of print, and he finds himself peddling
< them here. He has no problem laying the blame for his cock-ups
< elsewhere, and now wants to blame me for daring to demand of Gary
Boyd
< Roberts proof of his claimed descents. I didn't know Roberts was
< beyond having to defend his statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:14:43 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" <...@excelsior.net
Who is this "bin", Douglas?
Do you know?
Cheers,
DSH
<...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The issue is not whether Gary Boyd Roberts had proof of Jeremy
Clarke's origins. It's clear now that he had sufficient proof. Nor
is the issue whether or not it is appropriate to review the research
findings of another genealogist or historian. I wholeheartedly agree
with that process, otherwise I wouldn't post my own research findings
here on the newsgroup.
Rather, what's become the issue is your own failure to do any basic
research on the Clarke family BEFORE suggesting Mr. Roberts was in
error. Furthermore, attacking me or my books won't get you off the
hook. You've either done your Clarke homework, or you haven't. I
say you haven't.
Saying there is no evidence when you haven't bothered to look at the
contemporary records or secondary works doesn't help your credibility
as a serious genealogist.
Do you have any contrary evidence? Or, are you still confused by the
variant forms of Jerome/Jeremy/Jeremiah? Please post something,
anything of substance on the Clarke family, beside your uninformed
opinions. Be sure to cite your sources, and provide weblinks if you
have them. I'm rooting for you, Bin. I say go for it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Mr. Richardson is alleging that research which should have been done
< in the first place will confirm an identification which is presently
< unsupported by solid evidence. Perhaps this is why his two volumes
of
< medieval pedigrees (much of the material having been cadged from the
< work of others) are now out of print, and he finds himself peddling
< them here. He has no problem laying the blame for his cock-ups
< elsewhere, and now wants to blame me for daring to demand of Gary
Boyd
< Roberts proof of his claimed descents. I didn't know Roberts was
< beyond having to defend his statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:20:07 -0400, Nathaniel Taylor <...@nltaylor.net
In article
To be fair to Mr. Chipman (the poster is, of course, Jeff Chipman), I
think that Douglas is taking him to task somewhat wrongheadedly here.
Mr. Chipman brought up the point--correctly, strictly speaking--that the
Jeremiah Clarke case is based on circumstantial evidence. This is a
point worth making, though it is hardly surprising. The 1920 article,
like many of its era, jumps to the identification without using what I
would consider appropriate qualifying language, and the identification
has stood without insertion of such qualification ever since. But it is
not necessarily to bring up contradictory evidence or even an
alternative theory, to point out that the 1920 solution is a
circumstantial one. There are many such circumstantial identifications
still lurking in the established gateway literature, but many of them,
like this one, remain pretty convincing, and it is no crime not to
dismiss them all wholesale (though there would be merit if that were
done consistently too).
So, like Douglas and like most posters on this thread, I agree that the
1920 identification of Clarke is very unlikely to be wrong. Given that
the Westons had so recently attained prominence it is chronologically
and statistically unlikely (all talk of the population of Britain aside)
that there would be another Clarke-Weston connection somewhere else
which would result in a string of 'Weston Clarkes'; and in Kent we find
such a Clarke family with an unaccounted-for child who is a perfect
candidate for the Rhode Island man. The majority of people, both back
in 1920 and now, who have looked at this case are quite comfortable
accepting Clarke of RI as the 1605 baptism.
Mr. Chipman's axe-griding may seem inept, but it has a purpose, for him.
Sensationally revealing the limitations of the Clarke case gives him an
opportunity to cast himself as an expert, and to cast Roberts and
Richardson as deceitful--though I shuld point out that at least Roberts
cheerfully admits, up front, the methodological limitations and
fallibility of his compilations. Nevertheless, for Chipman to be able to
abuse them allows him to feel better about their exclusion of his
beloved ancestor Katherine Dale Carter from their compilations.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:19:18 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <...@aol.com
At one point I had remarked to Douglas that there are extant
tombstones for Jeremiah and his wife, in Rhode Island, naming him as
"Jeremiah" on both. He had remarked back to me that these could have
been erected later.
Here is a source claiming to be contemporary which also calls him
Jeremiah.
http://books.google.com/books?id=tEtMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA219&dq=Lewis+Lathom+winifred #PPA221,M1
It calls itself the "Records of Friends' Meetings at Newport" under
date 1652 (or something like that). So there is at least one source
that could evidently be viewed to confirm that it indeed says
"Jeremiah" as opposed to "Jerry" or "Garry" or whatever else might
have been glossed over.
Will Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:32:59 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" <...@excelsior.net
Where are these tombstones in Newport, Rhode Island -- when were they
erected -- and what are the inscriptions?
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"wjhonson" <...@v1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I'm not sure, but I think the current tombstone of Frances Latham Dungan Clarke Vaughan
was erected in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Five, or thereabouts. At least
there was a big effort to get a new one.
What matters is the original.
The person to ask about all this is Thomas Dungan. I referenced
his book and web site.
Doug McDonald
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:01:07 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines" <...@excelsior.net
I was hoping someone here who is an alleged descendent of Jeremy Clarke or a
relative would actually know about his alleged tombstone.
Pretty basic stuff in Genealogy.
Certainly a stone on a 17th Century person not erected until 2005 has very
little credibility as proof of anything without further evidence.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@...@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
There's no axe to grind here. The issue is about standards.
If Mr. Richardson or anyone else is satisfied that the circumstantial
evidence in the "Clarke" case is sufficient, that's their right.
Readers of the Roberts and Richardson books interested in a specific
pedigree should examine the sources and reach their own conclusions.
Frequently those sources are secondary sources and will lead to more
secondary sources.
That an individual in a parish register is otherwise "unaccounted" for
doesn't mean he emigrated to RI. There is no primary record
identifying Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke of RI as a son of William and Mary
(Weston) Clerke. I'm not concerned about appearing to be an "expert"
to other posters.
I'm concerned that many people purchasing these books don't understand
how the pedigrees were constructed. There is a world out there that
has never heard of "soc.genealogy.medieval." It doesn't seem like
"soc.genealogy.medieval" has heard of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:24:11 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <...@aol.com
That's poetic, but it's a bit of back-hand to this list, of which you
yourself are a member, don't you think? Are you studying at my school
for How To Win Friends and Influence People?
Will "The Kiss off Champion of the World!" Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
The argument that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke was the son of William and
Mary (Weston) Clerke can be summarized as follows:
a) The given name "Jerome" can also be "Jeremy;" The name he mostly
used was "Jeremy," not "Jeremiah."
b) He had a son named Weston.
c) He was of gentry origin.
d) There weren't enough Clarkes/Clerkes and Westons in early 17th
century Britain for another solution to his ancestry to be credible.
e) His wife was of gentry origin.
f) He named a son "Weston," and the name continued to be used by his
descendants.
What's missing here is a contemporary primary record that Jeremiah/
Jeremy Clarke was the son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke. Some
people find this circumstantial evidence convincing proof of his
ancestry--I don't. I hope new research is conducted on this
colonist. I ask that discussion of this topic be confined to the
thread, not my email inbox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I should also add:
g) He was a contemporary of the "Jerum Clerk" in the East Farleigh,
Kent parish register and "Jerum Clerk" is otherwise unaccounted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
To summarize and present together the main points as I understand them
in support of the contention that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke of RI, d.
1651/2, was the son of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke:
a) “Jeremy” is a derivative of “Jerome,” and he mostly used “Jeremy,”
not “Jeremiah.”
b) He was a contemporary of the “Jerum Clerk” in the East Farleigh,
Kent parish register and that “Jerum Clerk” is otherwise unaccounted
for.
c) He was of gentry origin.
d) His wife was of gentry origin, and a portrait of her father, Lewis
Latham, was handed down in the family.
e) He named a son “Weston.”
f) His descendents continued to use the name “Weston.”
g) There weren’t enough other Clarke/Clerke and Weston families in
early 17th century Britain for another solution to his ancestry to be
credible.
h) William and Mary (Weston) Clerke had a daughter named Mary who had
a son named “Jeremy.”
I think points B and G are a stretch. Of point B it would be more
fair to say, “We don’t know what happened to ‘Jerum Clerk,’ and
therefore it’s possible he was ‘Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke” of RI. Of
point G, has any study been done to see what the actual distribution
of these surnames was in early 17th century Britain and their families
studied?
What I see here is nothing that rules out this identification, but no
contemporary primary record that proves it. I understand this
individual has many descendants who want to see the account of his
life fairly treated, and I hope they and others will conduct fresh
research and firmly establish his ancestry, whatever that may
ultimately be shown to be.
So, at least in my view, and perhaps in many of the readers of this
message board, the ancestry of Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke is presently
unproved, but the best theory is that he was a descendant of Sir
Jerome Weston through Weston’s daughter Mary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:58:17 +0200, James Hogg <...@gOUTmail.com
Strictly speaking, Jeremy is a derivative of the Hebrew name
Jeremiah. Jerome is the English derivative of the totally
unrelated Greek name Hieronymus.
This is not to say that people in the past didn't assume a
connection between the names, especially back in the days when
Jerome was stressed on the first syllable. They might easily have
been confused.
--
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I only have one other thing to add:
The Visitation of Kent 1619 p. 7 has a large chart of the Clerke
family that shows, among others, James Clerke (m. Mary Saxby), the
alleged grandfather of Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke of RI. I did a quick
count and found there were about 20 males in the chart, of which only
about half are listed with wives.
The chart in the 1633 London Visitation p. 172 begins with James
Clerke, and only shows two children of William Clerke: Weston and
James (James was a grocer in London). We know from the East Farleigh
parish register that William Clerke had more children. It also shows
Sir Jerome Weston's name as "Hierom," which supports Mr. Hogg's
statement above. And surely there were more Weston families than the
family of Sir Jerome Weston.
The theory that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke was the son of William and Mary
(Weston) Clerke may be the best present theory of his origins. But in
the absence of a contemporary primary record attesting to it, it
remains a theory, however convincing some might find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Dear James ~
Evidently the Weston and Clarke families treated the names, Jerome and
Jeremy, as being interchangeable. If you look at the pedigree of the
Weston family in the 1612 Visitation of Essex, you will find that the
immigrant, Jeremy Clarke's grandfather is there called "Sir Gerrom
Weston." But the name of another grandson is recorded in the same
visitation as "Jeromye [Weston]." This "Jeromye" was later known as
an adult as Jerome Weston. He became the 2nd Earl of Portland.
Interested parties may view the 1612 visitation at the following
weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA319&dq=%22Gerrom+Weston%22
So we see the grandfather Sir Jerome Weston called "Gerrom" and his
grandson, Jerome Weston, is called "Jeromye" in the visitation.
Same name, different spellings. I don't think the Weston family were
"confused" at all about how to spell the name, Jerome. In fact,
"confused" is the wrong term to use. My immigrant ancestor, Amos
Richardson, of Massachusetts and Connecticut, who lived in the same
time period spelled the surname Richardson three different ways in his
60-odd letters which have survived. In a period where there were no
dictionaries, variant spellings of names or words were obviously not
considered to be wrong in any way.
As such, we should avoid judging the cultural practices of medieval
and colonial people by our modern standards. And, THAT seems to be
what started all of this. Bin naively assumed that the name "Jerum"
was not the same name as "Jeremy." The 1612 Visitation shows he is
quite wrong. If "Gerrrom" is the 17th Century equivalent
of :Jeromye" (as indicated by the 1612 Visitation), then "Jerum" (the
baptismal name of the immigrant, Jeremy Clarke) would surely be the
equivalent of "Jeremy" or "Jeremie."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Apr 15, 8:58 am, James Hogg <...@gOUTmail.com
> James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:22:42 +0200, James Hogg <...@gOUTmail.com
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT), roya...@msn.com
wrote:
We all know that spelling wasn't standardised, but there's a
difference between the single name Richardson being spelled in
three different ways and the possible convergence of two names
that were originally quite distinct: Hebrew Jeremiah ("May
Jehovah exalt") and Greek Hieronymus ("Holy Name").
Still on the subject of names, Bin calls himself Binky9. It's
only because you voluntarily use Google Groups that you see
his nym as "Bin".
--
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Bin has done a nice job of summarizing my statements regarding the
evidence concerning the origins of Jeremy Clarke.
However, he left off the tradition recorded by an 18th Century
American descendant named James Barker that Jeremy Clarke's wife,
Frances Latham, married first to "Lord Weston."
Traditional accounts of families are often garbled. In this case,
most of what was recorded by the American descendant was rather
accurate. So some credence should be given to the descendant's
statements. At this point, it would appear that the American
descendant did not know that Jeremy Clarke was the nephew of Lord
Weston, or that Jeremy Clarke had a brother named Weston Clarke. Nor,
was it known (or remembered) that Frances Latham's first marriage was
to William Dungan, not to a man named Weston.
Regardless, the Weston claim preserved by the descendant suggests that
the American family remembered that Lord Weston was in some way
related to the Clarke-Dungan family of America. It's not the best
evidence, but it's still evidence.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
If you consult the DNB (1899) Vol. LX, pp. 358-379, there are a lot of
Westons, some related, some not. It's isn't a scientific survey, but
there were other families of some prominence than that of Sir Jerome
Weston, and they came from somewhere.
I agree that family traditions are evidence. The closer to the event
the tradition is, the more reliable it may be. And I've worked with
enough traditions to know they often contain a kernel of truth, but
are frequently garbled. That a descendant didn't know that Jeremiah/
Jeremy Clarke was the "nephew" of an earl doesn't mean he wasn't.
We're dealing here with a very old colonial family, and over the
course of time an accurate account of the family origins can be
forgotten or mixed up with other events. Families, particularly in
the era from the French & Indian War to the War of 1812 split up and
migrated to other sections. At least that's been my experience.
As it stands, the conjecture that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke was the son
of William and Mary (Weston) Clerke may be the best shot at the
problem, but at the present time it's a theory, however it fits the
known facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
I note that the article on Jeremy Clarke's origins in New England
Hist. Gen. Register, 74 (1920): 130–140 discusses the parentage of
Jeremy Clarke's paternal grandmother, Mary (Saxby) Clarke. In a
footnote on pages 130 and 131, it identifies Mary Saxby as the
daughter and heiress of Edward Saxby (or Saxilby), Baron of the
Exchequer, by his 2nd wife, Elizabeth, widow of William Woodliff, and
daughter of _____ Fisher, Esq., of Longworth, Yorkshire.
Chalmers, General Biograhical Dictionary, 29 (1816): 447 indicates
that Mary Saxby's mother, Elizabeth, was the widow of William
Woodcliffe, of London, not William Woodliff.. Also, according to an
epitaph found in Wormley, Hertfordshire for Mary Saxby's half-sister,
Angelot (Woodcliffe) Tooke (who died in 1598), Mary's mother,
Elizabeth Fisher, is there identified as the daughter of ____ Fisher,
Esq., of Longworth, Oxfordshire, not Longworth, Yorkshire. The
information in Chalmers may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3B8IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA447&dq=Fisher+Longworth&lr=
Foss, Judges of England 5 (1857): 539 (biog. of Edward Saxby, or
Saxilby) likewise states that Longworth is in Oxfordshire, not
Yorkshire. See the following weblink for that reference:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CXgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA300&dq=Edward+Saxby+Baron&lr =#PPA539,M1
But, Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1546
(H.S.P. 22) (1886): 161 (Appendix II) (Purvey pedigree) indicates that
Yorkshire is the correct county:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wos_cFDb2_AC&pg=PA161&dq=William+Woodliff+Lond on&lr=#PPA161,M1
Elsewhere, however, I find a reference in a contemporary letter dated
1600 to a certain John Fisher, Esq., of Longworth, Berkshire. See the
following weblink for that reference:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-vQnooubLgAC&pg=PA383&dq=Fisher+Longworth&lr=
Here is another reference to John Fisher, Esq., in 1616 at Longworth,
Berkshire:
http://books.google.com/books?id=BGdnAAAAMAAJ&q=Fisher+Longworth+Berkshire&dq=F isher+Longworth+Berkshire&lr=&pgis=1
VCH Berkshire, 4 (1924): 466-471 indicates that the manor of West
Longworth (in Longworth), Berkshire was held by Christopher Fisher,
died 1572, in right of his wife, Mary, daughter and heiress of Thomas
Edmay. The manor subsequently passed to Christopher Fisher's son and
heir, John Fisher, who sold the manor in 1618.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BGdnAAAAMAAJ&q=Fisher+Longworth+Berkshire&dq=F isher+Longworth+Berkshire&lr=&pgis=1
Thomas Edmay was living in the period, c. 1544/1551. If so, it seems
just possible chronologically that Mary Saxby's mother, Elizabeth
Fisher, was a daughter of Christopher Fisher and a granddaughter of
Thomas Edmay.
Elsewhere, I see that LDS Temple work has been done to seal Elizabeth
Fisher to another set of parents, Edward Fisher and Elizabeth Todd, of
county Durham (how did Durham get into it?). See the weblink for that
information:
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=sssara6&id=I39584
No sources are given for that parentage except the LDS International
Genealogical Index.
Can anyone provide evidence that proves which county is correct:
Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, or gosh Durham?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
At this point I'll bid Mr. Richardson farewell. Having failed to
prove Clarke's parentage, he moves on to Clarke's "grandmother." Four
assumptions have been made here:
1. Clarke named a son "Weston" after Clarke's mother's maiden name.
Won't admit any possiblity it could be for another relative. It's out
of the question.
2. The only marriage between a Clerke and a Weston prior to the the
birth of Clarke was that of William Clerke to Mary Weston. How does
he know? This despite the fact that the Clarkes/Clerkes were quite
numerous and the Westons hardly on the brink of extinction.
3. That "Jerum Clerk" in the East Farleigh, Kent parish register is
identical with Jeremy/Jeremiah Clarke of RI. No explanation as to why
Clarke was sometimes called "Jeremiah." Richardson leaves the
impression that was an error. No record in RI proving a relationship
to anyone, much less to anyone in the family of William and Mary
(Weston) Clerke.
4. Onomastic evidence is sufficient proof of a pedigree. I have a
ancestor who named one of his sons "Admiral Nelson Stafford." Without
heading to the library or logging on to Ancestry.com, I can guarantee
you my ancestor had no relationship to Nelson's family. I'm sure none
of Nelson's descendants became farmers in the American midwest.
It's a good gig if you can get it. Get your hard drive to burp up the
word processing program--after the recession's over you too might land
a book deal at GPC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
< At this point I'll bid Mr. Richardson farewell. Having failed to
prove Clarke's parentage, he moves on to Clarke's "grandmother." No
explanation as to why Clarke was <sometimes called "Jeremiah."
Richardson leaves the impression that was an error.
Unfortunately, Bin, I'm not finished with you yet. You launched your
attack on Mr. Roberts because you were certain that the baptismal name
of the immigrant, "Jerum Clark," was different from the name, Jeremiah
Clarke, which is the name that the immigrant, Jeremy Clarke, was
occasionally called in contemporary records. When I pointed out that
the immigrant was principally known as Jeremy Clarke in contemporary
records, you continued to call him Jeremiah Clarke.
I then called on you to document from contemporary records that the
names, Jeremy/Jerome/Jeremiah, were all interchangeable in records of
this time period. However, you've refused to do this. As such, I
first proved that the names, Jerome and Jeremy, were treated as the
same name by this family. Now you insist that an "explanation" needs
to be made "as to why [Jeremy] Clarke was sometimes called
'Jeremiah." (your words)
Since you won't explain this, I'll do it for you.
There are several fines for the immigrant, Jeremy Clarke's
grandfather, Sir Jerome Weston, published in F.G. Emmison, ed., Feet
of Fines for Essex 6 (1993): 26, 49, 93, 101, 104, 117, 159.
If you had looked at these fines, you would have immediately
discovered that Jerome Weston appears in two of these fines as Jeremy
and one of them as Jeremiah.
pg. 93 Date: Easter term, 1592. Jeremy Weston, esq., def.
pg. 117. Date: Easter, 1595. Jeremy Weston, esq. and Rowland
Vaughan, gent., pl.
pg. 159. Date: Michaelmas, 1599. Jeremiah Weston, esq. & Jane
Elyott, wid., pl.
You seem to have the idea that people spelled the name, Jerome, only
one way in the colonial period. You have likewise assumed that they
never used the form, Jeremiah, for Jerome. You are wrong on both
accounts. As shown above, the contemporary evidence shows that Jerome
Weston occurs in contemporary records as BOTH Jeremy and Jeremiah.
It should noted once again that the matter of the many variant
spellings of Jerome Weston's name was covered back in 1920 by the fine
article on the Clarke family in NEHGR 74 (1920): 68–76, 130–140. The
one name left off that list of variant spellings was Jeremiah. Now
that it has been shown that Jeremiah is another variant spelling, I
believe you owes Mr. Roberts a sincere apology.
As I've stated previously, I believe the accepted English origins of
the immigrant, Mr. Jeremy Clarke, are quite sound.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Mr. Richardson--
You don't understand--what you need to show is that Jeremiah/Jeremy
Clarke of RI is the same person as "Jerum Clerk" in the East Farleigh,
Kent parish register. You need a contemporary primary record to make
that connection--which you don't have.
You haven't shown the variation in HIS name--you've just shown that
variation in the name of his putative grandfather. You don't have a
single record in which the "Jerum Clerk" in the parish record can be
shown to be a "Jeremy," much less a Jeremiah. In fact, it appears
that beyond the parish register entry of 1 Dec 1605, you have no
further record at hand of this individual in England at all. "Jerum
Clerk" could have died and been buried anywhere. William Clerke's son
Weston died in London in 1626--and that's another problem with this
line. It's been stated that Weston Clarke's will gave each of his
brothers 100 pounds upon the direction of his grandfather James
Clerke. The problem is that Weston Clarke's will is lost--the record
that remains is of the will's annullment, so we don't know who it
named.
In RI, there is not one record linking Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke to ANY
family in England. You claim that he named one of his sons "Weston"
in honor of his mother, when in fact the name "Weston" could be for
any relative or even some prominent person he admired. Who told you
it had to be for his mother? There was a William Weston (d. 1540) who
was the last resident grand prior of the Hospitallers in England--
maybe Clarke admired him. And as for the name "Jeremy" itself, it
could have been from another Clerke family and named for some
relative, perhaps from a family more prominent than his.
I'm not surprised you continue to support this identification--you
published it without caveat in both of your books, concealing from the
reader the fact there's no primary evidence linking this man to his
alleged co. Kent family. That's what's objectionable here: If you
believe the identification is correct, and GPC wants to publish it,
great--but let the reader know how you got there and that it's
completely circumstantial When they tear the pedigree down into its
components, they're going to find that it's all in a name, and they're
not going to be very happy about it.
This is a very common problem--picking out a name in a parish register
or Visitation and concluding it's a colonist. You're confusing "what
might be true" with "what's been demonstrated to be true" and they
aren't the same thing. It might be true that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clerke
is the son of William and Mary (Weston) Clarke, but all you've
demonstrated is that a "Jerome" could be a "Jeremy" and that a Clerke
married a Weston and they might be his parents.
This would all be academic if you had a contemporary primary source
showing that Jeremiah/Jeremy Clarke was the son of William and Mary
(Weston) Clarke. If you look at the title of this post, it doesn't
say it's a "refutation," it's a challenge. And you haven't met the
challenge, which is to prove the line to be true; you've just staved
off elimination and placed it in the same limbo with all other
unproved lines.
My understanding is that the "Royal Bastards" has accepted, and may
still accept this line, which is surprising--I thought they required a
contemporary primary source, but apparently not in this instance.
You have committed a genealogical sin avoided by all but rank
beginners--you've taken evidence that most people regard as just a
good clue for further research, and elevated it to proof--because this
man is alleged to have royal ancestry. I don't know why you want to
keep this thread going, because it's going to come back to the same
thing every time: Where is the contemporary primary source you need
to prove this man's pedigree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:56:06 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <...@aol.com
-----------------------
If this has indeed been stated as you say, whoever stated it is wrong.
We do not know what Weston Clarke's will said, because it was annulled
and lost. We have the notation that it was annulled and that is all.
The 100 pounds was in the Will *of* the grandfather James, not in the
Will of Weston (which we don't know what it says).
I had told you this earlier Jeff, but I guess you didn't understand
me.
James Clerke, the grandfather also left a will. In HIS will he
directs Weston to give each of Weston's brothers 100 pounds.
Weston also left a will apparently because we have the notation that
it was annulled. We do not have Weston's will. We do have James'
Will Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Bin, you keep changing the criteria.
First it was that "Jerum Clark" couldn't be Jeremiah Clark. You
never bothered to check it out yourself.
Then you said there was there wasn't any evidence for the
identification of the immigrant's origins. You never bothered to
look.
Then when good evidence was advanced, you said it was insufficient
to support the identification. You never bothered to look.
Then you objected that the name Jerome wasn't the same name as Jeremy
or Jeremiah. You never bothered to look.
Now that ALL of your objections have been answered (and you haven't
lifted a finger to do any research yourself), you still object.
I say you owe a sincere apology to Mr. Roberts. If you need an e-mail
address for him, I can forward it to you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Mr. Richardson--
I owe Mr. Roberts and you nothing. You both owe your readers (of
which I am one) an apology for misrepresenting some medieval pedigrees
as proven when they are inadequately supported. You do it because you
want as large a consumer base as possible for your publications.
You're not helping anyone, you're muddying the waters and creating a
mess.
Would you like to know why I issued this challenge?
When I checked Mr. Roberts' Ligon and Clarke lines, I found the
evidence supporting them to be inadequate. Specifically, there was
nothing linking Col. Thomas Ligon to Thomas and Elizabeth (Pratt)
Ligon of co. Warwick--nothing, except it was chronologically possible,
and maybe some tract of land he'd surveyed in VA had been named after
something that could correspond to a geological feature in England
that was near a family seat of a Ligon family, and Ligon hadn't
obtained a legacy because he was in VA and didn't know the old boy had
croaked in Barbados but in reality he could have collected it quite
easily, blah blah blah. It was all smoke and mirrors, and the
citations at the end of the line mainly kept returning to the same 3
journal articles.
So I didn't have much hope for Clarke, either, and having spent a
reasonable amount of time looking at the line, I concluded it was
based upon nothing but onomastic evidence, mainly that Clarke had
named a son "Weston."
I used these lines because they were the author's lines, and how he
treated his own lines said something about how he generally treated
lines in his book.
And I was right: in a thread that now contains 83 posts, you have
produced nothing BUT onomastic evidence in the Clarke case. It's all
very interesting, but where's the contemporary primary source?
The problem here is this: it's all onomastic evidence. As onomastic
evidence goes, it looks promising. What I can't understand is why do
you think it's proof? I think that's the real problem here: why do
you think onomastic evidence is conclusive proof? There's an
excellent textbook on colonial British genealogy entitled "Applied
Genealogy." Maybe you even know the author. Chapter 6 is devoted to
exactly the kind of situation we have here. Onomastic evidence can be
a great help in developing a research strategy. But one point in the
chapter is that surnames can become given names (over time) without
any family relationship.
Let's say one of William Clerke's children wrote someone a letter, and
said "My brother Jeremy went to RI." That's proof. Even if there
were, say, two Jeremy Clarke's in RI at the same time, but only one
had a son named "Weston," I'd say that's good enough. We don't have a
time machine to follow these guys around and personally view every
event in their lives. We know this brother went to RI, and the one
that has a son named "Weston" is more than probably the right one.
I descend from a colonial Bailey family. In all branches of this
famly, the name "Carr" is found as a given name. There was a Bailey
who married a Carr. Sounds like a lock that these Bailey families all
have this marriage as their root, right? Wrong! There are so many
Carr Baileys, and the chronology makes it difficult to see how all of
them could descend from this one marriage. But maybe people just
liked the name "Carr" and it came to be used without there necessaily
being any Carr ancestry in that branch of the Bailey family.
What you've ignored is that there is a fashion in names. Certain
names become popular, and just because they're used doesn't
necessarily mean all of those people in a given family are related.
Your response to this is to say: "But look at all of this evidence!
You haven't looked at all feet of fines, manorial rolls, etc. You
haven't proved me wrong!"
The purpose of the challenge was for YOU to prove the line! And you
didn't. You seem to think this is a variant of "King of the Hill,"
and it's my job to knock you off your perch. It isn't. My objections
are simply to show you that your evidence (which apparently you think
is beyond reproach) is just not enough. You need more than that to
prove the line.
You need to take "Jerum Clerk" from cradle to grave. The first thing
you need to do is to examine the East Farleigh parish register and
determine if "Jerum" was ever buried there, because if he was, you're
out of luck. Look at all of William Clerke's children and find out if
any of them died there. Take the remaining children and follow them
as much as you can. Examine every possible record about them you can
find to see if any of them mention "Jerome" (or any variant) or a
brother in RI. Essex Clarke was a minister, so that's a good start--
he may have left some information about his larger family. And don't
confine it just to the children, see if any cousins mention a relative
in RI. And do it until you solve the problem. And you may never
solve it. A lot of English records have disappeared over the years
for a variety of reasons. Maybe every available record in RI has been
sifted through, I don't know. And a lot of obscure records are
beginning to become widely available. But it's not somebody else's
job to do it for you. You're the one putting his reputation on the
line when you print the pedigree.
And right now, although you could write an interesting article about
Jeromes and Jeremys and Jeremiahs (and maybe should), what you really
need is a contemporary primary source linking the guy in the East
Farleigh parish register with the guy in RI. Is it my fault you don't
have it?
This is my last contribution to this thread. Feel free to
characterize me as fleeing the field. But I think the subject has
been covered, and for me you don't have the necessary evidence to
support the Clarke claim. You have some good reasons to pursue a
certain line of research, and I hope for Clarke's descendants it
yields success one day, or another connection is firmly established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:12:19 -0500, Doug McDonald <...@NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu
Dear Mr. ?:
If you address your posts to
"Mr. Richardson", don;t you think it fair that
you allow him to address his to
"Mr. ....." whatever you name is? Tell us your real name.
Oh yes.... there are worse lines in RD600 than Jeremy Clarke,
that you are not harping on. Hint: one of them is one of mine.
(I am also, of course, a Latham/Dungan descendant.)
Doug McDonald
|
|
|
|
|
|
|