Family Tree Maker
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ancestors and Descendants of Alfred T. Whitteker by Dolores Christophel D'Errico Dolores Christophel D'Errico 17000 N. W. 67th Avenue Apt 307 Hialeah, Florida 33015-4060 [email protected] Ancestors and Descendants of Alfred T. Whitteker Ancestors and Descendants of Alfred T. Whitteker Generation No. 1 1. JOHN2 WHITTAKER (ROBERT1)1 was born 27 Jun 1641 in Skipton, Yorkshire, England2, and died Aft. 1689. He married ELIZABETH LINFIELD3,4 Apr 1660 in Middlesex County, Massachusetts5,6, daughter of JONATHAN LINFIELD and MARY BARTLETT. She was born 05 May 1644 in Fittleworth, Sussex, England7, and died 08 Jan 1707 in Concord, Middlesex, MA8. Notes for JOHN WHITTAKER: Many in the past, including the Mormon Church, have believed that John Whittaker of Watertown was born in 1623 at Halesowen, Worcestershire, England, son of Nicholas Whittaker. I do not agree with this premise. The Mormon Church has this pedigree as part of the Ancestors of Brigham Young. Sarah, the daughter of John and Elizabeth Whittaker born 12 Jun 1666 at Watertown married William Young at Boston in 1694 and they were the Paternal Great Great Grandparents of Brigham Young. I think this is why many have accepted this hypothesis without question. The first problem in this idea is the age of John Whittaker of Watertown. "Ages From Court Records 1636 to 1700" by Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Page 216, gives his age at the time of the "1677 Hog Case" to be 36years. This would put his birth year at about 1641. We know that this is indeed the same John Whittaker of Watertown because his wife and two children were also deposed in the case; and, their ages are given also. Elizabeth is stated as being 35 years of age, John, Jr. 14 years of age and Mary 16 years old. This matches up with the exact names and dates of birth of his children. If he were born in 1623, he would be 54 years old. I believe that even if the ages were an estimate, which I don't think they are, it would be unusual to say the least to mistake a 54 year old man for a 36 year old. The second problem raises it's head in the "1660 Breach of Promise Case", where John pledges a debt owed to him by his brother, Richard, toward the 50 pound bond that he is re- quired to post. There is no record of Nicholas Whittaker ever having a son named Richard. The end of this case has also been described as John having married Elizabeth while he was still under legal age. A birth date of 1641 would fit in with this scenario. However, the birth date of 1623 would make him well over the legal minimum at 37 years old at the time of the marriage. I believe that John Whittaker of Watertown was born 27 Jun 1641 at Skipton, Yorkshire, England to Robert Whittaker and his wife, Ann Wright. John was named after an earlier born brother, also named John, who met an untimely death at the age of 11 in the year 1636. Among other siblings, he had a brother named Richard born 19 Jan 1634. It is said that the first settlers of Watertown were a rebellious lot, always arguing and refusing to kowtow to authority. John's personality seemed to fit that description. He was a real fireball with a chip on his shoulder from the moment he burst on the scene, which seems to be when he promised to marry Elizabeth Linfield; and, then apparently reneged. According to the depositions in the case, included in Folio numbers 18, 20, and, finally, 28 of the Middlesex County Court Records of 1660/1661, he set her up in a house; and after spending months there with her, was readying to leave for England, which he had done before. It seems to be at this point, that he decided he no longer wanted to marry her and left for another town, Cambridge. Elizabeth was in the town without family to protect her. Two men, Edward Oakes and William Manning, took up Elizabeth's cause and brought her to the Magistrate. John was brought back to town to explain himself. When asked why he no longer wished to marry Elizabeth, he was evasive, just stating that he had "lost affection" for her and that she had done no wrong. The court required him to 1 Ancestors and Descendants of Alfred T. Whitteker post a 50 pound bond, after which they gave him approximately two weeks to get his mind right about marrying her. If he had not married her by this time, then he would lose the 50 pounds; and then have to post another bond of 100 pounds, this time, in order to procure another couple of weeks to think....and so on. John apparently married Elizabeth before having to post any further bonds. This case has done more than any one thing to malign his character; and unfairly, at that. Due to a mistake in transcribing the court records, this case was listed in history books such as Bond's "History of Watertown" as "John promised marriage to Mary Linfield; but , did not perform". Right after this bomb was dropped, in the next paragraph, it was acknowledged that he married Elizabeth (no last name). For hundreds of years this has made it look as if he promised to marry one girl; but, instead, married another; when actually he not only did marry the same woman; but, stayed with her for the rest of his life and raised a large and very interesting family with her. There are those who have claimed to have researched this "Breach of Promise" case; and say that it proves that John was a cad and a rogue. I have found evidence that their claims are simply not founded in truth. I took the time to go through the films of all of the actual court cases of Middlesex County and found that on 25 June 1661 at a court in Charlestown, the magistrates Richard Bellingham, Richard Russell and Thomas Danforth returned the 50 pound bond which John Whittaker had forfeited when he had not shown up on 02 April 1661 at the court in Cambridge to either marry Elizabeth or prove that he had already married her. This appears in the later transcribed book of Pulsifer on pages 231-232. The proof also appears in the original transcript of the court records on pages 190 and 191. The wording is as follows: "John Whitticus discharged> John Whitticus (another spelling of Whittaker) appearing in court, is released of his bond for the good behavior and from the penalty of those bonds forfeited by his non-appearance at Cambridge court." I submit that there is no way that they would have released the bond to John Whittaker if he had not married the woman who had sued him for breach of promise. It also proves that the designation "Mary Linfield" was a mistake in the records because if he had promised to marry "Mary" and then married "Elizabeth" he still would have forfeited the bond money. The truth is that he promised to marry Elizabeth Linfield, got cold feet, was called in front of the magistrates to explain himself, posted bond, did not show up at the next court session; then did show up at the session at Charlestown with proof that he had married Elizabeth Linfield who became the mother of his children and lifetime companion. The above evidence for the return of the bond may be found on both LDS film #892250 and film #892251 covering the court records of Middlesex County Massachusetts. Another possible reason for Elizabeth Linfield being designated as "Mary Linfield" in some of the court records has been presented in "Connecticut, 1600s-1800s Local Families and Histories, New England Families, Volume 1, Genealogies and Memorials", Page 452, copyright by MyFamily.com, Inc., where it is stated that during the early 1700s it was still a legal custom to assume the name Mary when the given name of a woman was unknown. The Linfield Family in Sussex, England, where they seemed to have resided for hundreds of years became involved with the Quaker movement early on. I also plan to investigate whether the parents of Elizabeth were involved in this. If this is the case, it would go far to explain not only why John Whittaker may have had "cold feet" when it came to marrying Elizabeth; but why the Watertown neighbors may have looked upon both of them with such disdain. Quakers were not regarded with any degree of sympathy. Sometimes they were whipped and killed. This might also explain why John was quite evasive when asked for a reason why he changed his mind about marrying her, finishing up with "I have lost affection for her". The next most singly important litigation in the lives of the Whittakers occurred in 1673. At this time John Whittaker was leasing half of the Widow Eyre's farm in Watertown. The other half was leased to John Chenery, who agreed to improve the farm; and, agreed not to remove any wood from the property. Mrs. Eyre signed over power of attorney to John Whittaker to take Mr. Chenery to court for eviction from the property and damages done to it. The case comprises almost the whole of Folio number 63 for that year. At least a dozen of the townspeople testified that they had seen John Chenery removing rough wood and clapboards from the farm and taking them to his 2 Ancestors and Descendants of Alfred T.