Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Can anyone identify the following Rehoboth, MA Carpenters? With
a Priscilla in there one would think of the John son of William
and Priscilla Bennett. But I can't find anything on this John.
Any help appreciated.
Sharilyn
Vital Record of Rehoboth, 1642-1896.
A list of the Proprietors and Inhabitants of
Rehoboth, Feb. 7, 1689. Inhabitants
Name: John Carpenter
Name: John Carpenter, Jr.
Vital Record of Rehoboth, 1642-1896. Marriages, Intentions,
Births, Deaths, with Supplement etc.
Births
Name: Eliphilett Carpenter
Relative: son:John Carpenter
Birth Date: 17 Apr 1679
Vital Record of Rehoboth, 1642-1896. Marriages, Intentions,
Births etc.
Births
Name: Presillah Carpenter
Relative: dau:John Carpenter
Birth Date: 20 Jan 1680
Vital Record of Rehoboth, 1642-1896. Marriages, Intentions,
Births, Deaths, with Supplement containing the Record of 1896,
Colonial Returns,...Deaths
Name: Amos Carpenter
Relative: son:John Carpenter
Burial Date: 06 Jul 1681
Hi Stefani,
I have not been ignoring you. I have been doing some research on
this family and also fit the pieces into one big picture. I did find the
wedding list interesting and they petty much support the fact that they
are relatives or friends. I would suspect that Caleb, if he was in
attendance at the event, would not sign as a witness because he could not
write, as evidenced by his will that was signed by his "mark".
I did see two interesting individuals that sign as witnesses at
Phebe's wedding. The first was a William E. Carpenter, who was possibly a
young man that (according to the New York Quaker Monthly Meeting records)
was from "Pokeepsie" who died May 10th, 1826 at the age of 19 years s
months. I do not know who he is or what his Ancestor was so might pay to
look a little deeper her. The Second was a Miriah Albertson. This is
another person that should be checked out because of the purported
marriages to Dianah Albertson and Alvendon.
My instinct at this time, is that we must clarify who or what
Benjamin (I understand that there was 5 Benjamins in the area and that to
ease the confusion they were called by there trade such as "Benjamin the
saddler" etc.) was actually married to Lydia Thorn, Dianah Alverson, and
Dianah Albertson. At one point I thought the two Dianahs were the same
but information states that one is buried in the Old Danial Coles Burial
Ground at Glen Cove (Muskata Cove) and the other is buried with Benjamin
in the Chappaqua Monthly Meeting Cemetery, so they both apparently lived
in the area, but why would Alverson be buried in the Coles cemetery?.
In regard to Benjamin's son Caleb, who is listed under both
Dianahs in most files,is most probably the son of Alvenson, who was also
the choice of James Usher, when he merged the family into the lineage of
Cotleb Zimmerman. An action that has some far reaching results and to
this day can not be logically supported. In my opinion we can clean up
our family lineage, but the long term fix is to go back to Ushers book
and show the errors in his work and discredit his assumptions. Others
have tried this and many document still show the existence of the
problem. I recently saw a disclaimer in the work of Jan Robinson
(Robinson2(a)aol.com) that reads as follows:
" This Benjamin was thought to be son of Timothy Carpenter of
the Cotleb Zimmerman Line of LI, by James Usher in his book Genealogy &
Historic Record of the Carpenter Family- Pub-1883 NY City, was proven
wrong in 1901 by Daniel H. Carpenter, in his book on the RI branch &
again by American Genealogist Raymond G. Carpenter and his English
brother -in-law Harry Rodgers. Also this Coincides with Coles Family
records of children of Elizabeth Coles and Derrick Albertson. ! Number 24
in the Carpenter Family in America, 1901 book. AKA: Benjamin the
sadler.Benjamin married (1) Diana OR Dinah ALBERTSON-19813, daughter of
Derrick ALBERTSON-22385 and Elizabeth COLES-22328 on 30 Oct 1718 in LI,
NY. Diana was born 19 Mar 1698 in LI. She died 9 Feb 1738 in Queens, LI."
Another avenue we should consider is the information we can
obtain from associated area families. From what I can see is that the
Cornwell/Cornell lineage is to Long Island Carpenters as Arnolds are to
Rhode Island Carpenters. In a brief search I have found some twenty-five
marriages between the two families. I did find a Cornwell file I could
send to you if you wish.
I also found a file for the New York Quaker Records Index taken
from The Encyclopedia of Quaker Genealogy Vol III (1750-1930) and will
check it out for information on the local family as well as possible
leads in the true Lineage of our family.
Jack
One thing the bequests to Sarum cathedral does show
for William and Robert, is their loyalty to the Church of
England. This is interesting for Robert because he died
well after the1580s when the puritan movement began. William
was a bit early, but not to early to show his loyalty to English
Protestantism after Queen Mary. Her successor Queen Elizabeth
made Salisbury cathedral a center of the new English Protestantism with the
appointment of a John Jewel as bishop in 1560. Later in the 1500s
the area becomes a center of the new puritan movement.
As far as I can tell thus far, a bequest to a cathedral is a rarity in
English wills. I have found a few examples, but FEW.
William and Robert's bequests may have been expressions
of their religious position. In Williams day this was a radical
position and like Edward Seymour your land or even your head was at risk.
BC
"of Robert
Carpenter of Upton Scudamore "
I hope Gene can post the Scudmore will on the forum as well.
Also there are a series of Newton Tony associated wills that
I have seen fragmenty references to. Does anyone have copies of them
to post on the forum?
BC
Yesterday a very well informed researcher of Loomis/Carpenter in
Tolland, CT sent me some records she had transcribed some time
ago from those published in the Boston Transcript. Among them
was one that said:
"Izabell, d. BARNARD and Mary, 20 May 1718"
This Izabell is widely assigned to Benjamin and Mary Barney, so
this may simply be an error in transcription, but my particular
John Carpenter of New York, gave precedence to the name BARNARD
in his issue, so I'd like to make SURE this is a transcription
error and not an early BARNARD that was overlooked.
Can someone with access to the Swansea records check this one
out, and tell me what name it gives for the faher of Izabell
born 20 May 1719?
Thanks very much!
Sharilyn
Hi Suzanna,
I know vary little regarding the book Genealogy and Historical
Record of the Carpenter Family, by James Usher other than that there was
a disputed on the validity of it's content on the Carpenter forum a while
ago.
I do know that there is some kind of a problem in the area starting with
Timothy (b. 1665) and Mercy (Coles) Carpenter and leading down to
Benjamin and Freelove (Fowler) Carpenter, and that this problem seams to
hinge on Caleb Carpenter (b. 1735). Actually, I am inclined to believe
that the Benjamin Carpenter b. 1696 is a combination of two different
people and that this is the cause for the wrong Benjamin being specified
as the son of Caleb (b. 1735). I have absolutely no documentation or
facts to support this theory at this time, other than what has been
presented on the forum to date.
In reviewing this area On John R. Carpenter's CE CD I have found that who
ever provided this file to him used "Page 30 regarding The Carpenter
Family of Long Island and NY" as a reference, (I would call it a source
but don't want to get into that forum discussion).
I don't know if the data needed is on only one page as it
indicates or if there are several pages involved. If you could advise me
on this matter I can better convey my needs to you.
Thanks so much for the offer,
Jack
J.Schoedinger(a)juno.com
BC writes:
<< Through Gene stated it was typical in wills for money to be given to the
local church as well as, in the case of William and Robert, to the cathedral,
I can't seem to find any. I looked through pages and pages of 1600s wills in
the CD English Origins of New England Families. Couldn't find one example. I
also noticed in the case of Isabel, she gave only to the local church, while
her husband gave to the Sarum Cathedral Did this mean she didn'd have blood
relatives buried in the catherdral, but Robert did? >>
The question had been whether or not bequests to both local and cathedral
churches were "typical" or "formulaic." My answer was that, "in my
experience," they were. Perhaps I should have added that the amount of
English research I've done is comparatively limited. Nevertheless, all four
Carpenter wills of which I have copies, including Isabel's and that of Robert
Carpenter of Upton Scudamore (1545)--the latter's relationship, if any, to
the Marden Carpenters has not been established--include bequests to both
local and cathedral churches.
Even if these bequests to the Sarum cathedral church do imply that relatives
are buried there (I'm not convinced they do), I fail to see what relevance
this presently has in tracing the ancestry of the immigrant Carpenters.
Gene Z.
Sharilyn,
Thanks for posting some good hard questions about the two John Carpenters.
This
is supposedly the origin for my husband's line, so the more of us that are
working to straighten it out the confused parts the better. I'm glad to see
that
others want DOCUMENTATION with original governmental or church records
rather than book references. Keep up the questioning.
Suzanne Carpenter
Comstock Park, Michigan
Jack,
I have photocopies of pg. 30 from the Usher book. What would you like to
have me post from that page? I also have a Benjamin/Caleb knot in my
husband's Carpenter line.
Suzanne Carpenter
I am researching John Carpenter who married (1) 1749 Rehoboth VR
Judith Horton (2) 1757 Bible Ruth Horton (3) Ann surname
unknown. He died in 1804 in Saratoga County, New York, leaving a
will mentioning third wife and issue from both marriages.
John Carpenter of New York is frequently confused with the John
Carpenter, called "John Carpenter of Norwich" by his son Josiah,
who married Mary Loomis in Tolland, CT in 1755, had eleven
children by her there, and died there in 1816 at the age of 88.
This confusion originated with "The Carpenter Memorial" because
it makes these two distinct men appear to be the same man, John,
the son of John Carpenter and Sarah Thurston, who was born to
this couple 04 January 1728/29 Swansea Vital Records Pg.89.
This is, obviously, impossible.
I need the DOCUMENTED issue, with birth dates and locations, for
John Carpenter and Sarah Thurston. I need to know where John
Carpenter and Sarah Thurston WERE until 1728, and if, and when
they went to Connecticut.
John Carpenter who married Sarah Thurston is said to have died
in Tolland, CT, in 1766 at the age of 74 years, and to have been
"in the Mansfield and Stafford area by 1760".
In Conn. Vital Records...Norwich Vol I. John Carpenter & wife
Sarah (no last name given) children: Sarah b.1720 d. 1724, Lois
b.1722, Mehitabell b. 1724, Huldah b. 1726, and **John b. 30
Apr 1728**
These children are commonly attributed to John and Sarah
Thurston, but note that the birth date and birth location for
this John DIFFERS from the birth record for John the son of John
and Sarah Thurston born in Swansea,MA and mentioned above.
I know what The Carpenter Memorial says, and I have many
versions of the issue of John Carpenter and Sarah Thurston, but
I need primary records here, or as close as I can come.
Who were the DOCUMENTED chidren of John Carpenter and Sarah
Thurston, and where were they DOCUMENTED to be born?
Does anyone have any incidental "sightings" of John Carpenter
and Sarah Thurston that might establish their whereabouts at
various times?
I would truly appreciate the help of experienced Carpenter
researchers on this one.
Sharilyn
Hi Stefani,
I have been reviewing the information you provided, and I agree with you
regarding the fact that the Benjamin Carpenter who married Freelove
Fowler is not the Benjamin Carpenter who was the son of Caleb. However,
my reasons for agreeing with you are somewhat different than yours. I
really don't have a problem
with the naming patterns and can even expand on your listing with Zeno b.
1722 as Caleb's Brother and thus Benjamin's uncle and Zero's son was
named Henry, Benjamin's cousin.
As for the Wills I also find no relationship between Caleb and Benjamin's
Wills except for the name "Benjamin" and the location of probate as
"Pleasent Valley". What makes me agree with you is that Daniel Hoogland
Carpenter, (author of Carpenter Family In America) reported " 199
Benjamin Carpenter, son of Caleb, was born at New Castle, Westchester
County, April 1, 1762. His wife was Freelove Fowler. He was a farmer at
Clintondale, where he died in 1839". However, the Probate for Benjamin's
Will states that he died December 7, 1843 in the town of Pleasent Valley.
In addition to this, Caleb,s Will is vary specific and provided for all
his children and grandchildren, with the exception of Benjamin's family.
I must admit that he was vary generous with his oldest son Benjamin, but
to disregard his children is inconsistent with the way he wrote his will,
unless Benjamin was not married or at least had no children at that time.
With regard to Robin's comment, I feel there may be merit in what she
stated regarding the Will reference to "son Zeno Cornwell" should read "
son Zeno OF Cornwell. However, it is not really relevant in this
particular case because the Cornwall's settled that area and according to
a file I found in Ancestory.com this family started using a more a more
prestigious version that eliminated the "w" and made it "Cornell".
I am still working on possible candidates and am not sure of Joseph
Carpenter and Elizabeth Townsend. I do feel that there is a book, or at
least a copy of page 30 from that book, that is needed to Possibly help
resolved this problem,or at least answer some questions, since we seem to
disagree with Daniel Hoogland Carpenter. The book referenced is the "
Genealogy and History Record of the Carpenter Family, by James Usher". If
you know of anyone that could help with this it would be appreciated.
Will write more soon,
Jack
J.Schoedinger(a)juno.com
<< It was nice of Gene to share the existance of yet another Marden Carpenter
will, one which I didn't know existed. Perhaps if he has any others he might
share them as well. >>
Neither the will's existence nor my possession of a copy has been a secret.
It was a flawed interpretation of Isabel's will that produced the mistaken
notions, widely circulated since 1971, that she was the mother of Marden
Robert's wife, Elinor, and that the latter was his Carpenter cousin. A
detailed discussion of this matter is found in my typescript "Corrections and
Remarks Pertaining to Selected Sections of ANCESTORS OF JOHN ROBERT CARPENTER
- A BRIEF SECTION OF THE CARPENTER CD PROJECT." A month or two ago, I posted
to this list the URL of John R. Carpenter's Website, indicating that his
homepage has a link ("Gene Zubrinsky Provides a Critical Look at the CE") to
a copy of the typescript, which John had put online a couple of months
earlier.
I had not mentioned Isabel's will in previous postings to this list simply
because it--as with most postings of pre-17th-century Carpenter data--fails
to advance our knowledge of immigrant-Carpenter ancestry. It, and they,
contribute nothing to the search for the paternal grandparents of either
Rehoboth or Providence William.
Gene Z.
I have a Benjamin Carpenter in my family Born In Rothoboth,Bristol County,
Ma. in Jan.19.1657 death May 22.1727 in Swansea Bristol Co.... Ma. Spouse
Rene Weeks and Martha Toogood.
n Parents are Joseph Carpenter and Margaret Sutton
Through Gene stated it was typical in wills for
money to be given to the local church as well as, in the
case of William and Robert, to the cathedral, I can't seem to find any.
I looked through pages and pages of 1600s wills in the CD
English Origins of New England Families. Couldn't find one example.
I also noticed in the case of Isabel, she gave only to
the local church, while her husband gave to the Sarum Cathedral
Did this mean she didn'd have blood relatives buried in the catherdral,
but Robert did?
Clarification please.
BC
It was nice of Gene to share the existance of yet another
Marden Carpenter will, one which I didn't know existed.
Perhaps if he has any others he might share them as well.
There was a James Clark who was a land broker connected
to Hungerford estate land. A Henton (Hinton) family was
also active in Hungerford estate land. (Victoria History of Berkshire)
I could find no references to Hintons or Clarks for Wiltshire.
The Isabel will certainly discounts them as Berkshire people.
BC
I tried to take this off line, but did not succeed and so will continue
in the public forum.
The other John wrote:
> April 1 was part of the Spring Solstice and was used as the first day of
> the new year after a week of celebration starting March 25.
Wrong on several counts. First, Spring doesn't have a solstice, but
rather an equinox. Second, the vernal equinox has been firmly defined
ever since the year 322 as March 21, not March 25. Third, the date
that matters for us is not when the festival ends, but rather when the
clerks who are sober, if any, start writing the new year number in
their records, and that was March 25 in England. In France in the
middle ages, it was generally Easter, but that's another story.
> we use January 1 after the celebrations starting with December 25.
In this case, January 1 isn't the end of the celebrations anyhow.
Christmas runs for 12 days.
> John Chandler wrote:
>
> "By accepting the term "primary source", you implicitly accept the
> existence of "secondary source". Everyone else in the world would
> call ABC's book a secondary (or perhaps tertiary) source, so why
> wouldn't you? I will admit that I have sometimes disparaged certain
> works by saying that they are not really sources at all ..."
>
> Exactly and you are right. There are many who call a genealogical
> record a "Source" incorrectly and because they are not really sources at
> all.
No, you have cut off the important part of what I said and thereby
twisted the rest. I said, "not really sources at all, but messes."
In other words, certain works are so full of mistakes and other garbage
that it would be crazy to accept anything from them. Let's put aside
the definition of "record" for the moment.
> If we wish to be precise in what we call a genealogical "Source," we
> need to define what type of source it is.
No. A source in genealogy is the same as a source in any other field
of research. It is a thing where the researcher has found information
of some value in the study at hand. That is my definition, and I think
most people would agree with that.
> A genealogical book (such as
> the ABC 1898 book) without citing primary sources is a compilation of
> various records. It should not be used as a proof or "primary source."
Again, I will defer discussion of the word "record". I think you are
confusing "source" with "primary source". A source need not be proof
of anything, and even primary sources can, in fact, be wrong. The
mere fact that the Carpenter Memorial doesn't cite sources doesn't make
it any less a "thing where lots of people find useful information." It
is therefore a source by my definition.
> Where we got the information should be labeled properly. Primary or
> Original sources and compilations from those should be labeled as an
> Original or Primary sources.
That depends on what you mean by compilations. Indeed, opinions differ
on how much processing it takes to turn primary material into a
secondary source. Everyone agrees that a compiled genealogy is
secondary, but what about (for example) a published book of vital records
placed in alphabetical order? Gene has stated that he no longer uses the
VRs of Rehoboth published by James Arnold because he found too many
mistakes (but not because the book has been alphabetized, although there
are purists who would say exactly that). Modern efforts at publishing
such things tend to be literal transcriptions complete with index.
That's pretty close to the original, but there are some purists who
would say not even that is a primary source. I say there is room in
genealogy for more than one standard of purity, and the important thing
is simply keeping track of the sources, of whatever level.
> Everything after that is a recording or
> duplication of some kind. We may call those secondary sources, but we
> should never confuse them with the primary record recorded soon after
> the fact - ie the original or primary source.
It sounds like you have just agreed with me that the Carpenter Memorial
is a secondary source. If not, I am at a loss to understand what you
did say, but let's keep going...
> "Source book" (is defined as) 1. an original writing, as a document,
> record, or diary, that supplies an authoritative basis for future
> writing, study, evaluation, etc.
This is not the accepted meaning of the term. A "source book" is a
collection of (by implication the most important) source materials into
a book. The essential feature of a "source book" is that it brings a
wide variety of useful stuff into one place. Note that the word
"source" here is used as an adjective, so this definition contributes
nothing to the discussion of what A SOURCE is.
> "Source material (is defined as) 1. original, authoritative or basic
> materials used in research, as diaries, or manuscripts."
True, but "source" is being used again as an adjective.
> "Original Source" and "Primary Source" is NOT IN THIS DICTIONARY but
> would probably be defined as "the first or highest in rank source
> material." - Thus all the rest of the so called sources are echoes or
> a recording subject to transmission or copying errors.
Again, you are confusing the concept of "primary source" with "source".
By saying that secondary sources are only "so called sources", you
are trying to substitute your definition of "primary source" for
"source" overall. If you want to communicate with other people, you
have to call things by the same names. More than that, everybody
including you shares a concept of "something where information is found
and that should be cited when reporting the results", and everybody
ELSE uses the word "source" for that concept, but you don't seem to
have a word you are willing to use for it. At some point, you have to
decide whether your preferences are more important than getting your
message across.
> "Genealogical Record" is NOT IN THIS DICTIONARY but would probably be
> defined as "A record or account of setting down in writing for
> preserving evidence of the ancestry and (or) descent of a person,
> family,
> group, etc."
At last, it's time to define a "record" -- however, a Genealogical Record
(with capital letters) is the self-described name of numerous books
published in the 19th century, as in "Genealogical Record of the Smith
Family of Manitoba" (I made that up, but there probably is one). They
are all secondary sources, by the way. Such books can be thought of
as "records" only in the sense that they strive to set down in writing
that which was previously unwritten. I offer again my definition:
A record is something written or otherwise preserved as it happens.
There has to be some flexibility in the requirement that the record be
made at the same time as the occurrence -- in the old days, if a child
was born in the winter, it might be months before anybody went into
town to report that fact, but we still refer to the town clerk's
register as a book of records.
> "Secondary Source" is not in in the dictionary but would probably be
> defined as 1. "not using the first or highest in rank source material or
> using a second hand statement of facts in contrast to a first hand
> account."
Emphatically no. Rank has nothing to do with it, even if rank were
defined. A source is considered secondary if it IS a second-hand
statement of facts (and that includes third-hand and so on). This
is why we say that a death certificate is "primary" in regard to the
person's death, but "secondary" in regard to other stuff often found
on death certificates. This is also why we can get tangled up when
trying to decide whether a transcription or even a xerox of the original
is still "primary".
> http://www.2meta.com/april-fools/history/
...
All I can say is that you shouldn't believe most of what you read on
the web. The texts you quoted were so full of errors that I don't have
the heart to reply point by point.
John Chandler
Dear John,
April 1 was part of the Spring Solstice and was used as the first day of
the new year after a week of celebration starting March 25. Currently
we use January 1 after the celebrations starting with December 25.
April Fools or All Fools day has its probable origins in celebration of
the Spring Solstice. See below for examples.
John Chandler wrote:
"By accepting the term "primary source", you implicitly accept the
existence of "secondary source". Everyone else in the world would
call ABC's book a secondary (or perhaps tertiary) source, so why
wouldn't you? I will admit that I have sometimes disparaged certain
works by saying that they are not really sources at all ..."
Exactly and you are right. There are many who call a genealogical
record a "Source" incorrectly and because they are not really sources at
all.
If we wish to be precise in what we call a genealogical "Source," we
need to define what type of source it is. A genealogical book (such as
the ABC 1898 book) without citing primary sources is a compilation of
various records. It should not be used as a proof or "primary source."
Where we got the information should be labeled properly. Primary or
Original sources and compilations from those should be labeled as an
Original or Primary sources. Everything after that is a recording or
duplication of some kind. We may call those secondary sources, but we
should never confuse them with the primary record recorded soon after
the fact - ie the original or primary source.
John Chandler wrote:
"It might help if, instead of quoting from the deeply flawed B&N
dictionary, you state your own definition of the words "record" and
"source" in a genealogical context."
John R. Carpenter wrote:
"Source book" (is defined as) 1. an original writing, as a document,
record, or diary, that supplies an authoritative basis for future
writing, study, evaluation, etc.
"Source material (is defined as) 1. original, authoritative or basic
materials used in research, as diaries, or manuscripts." - An
authoritive record made for reporting facts such as church marriage
records would be source material for a genealogical record.
"Original Source" and "Primary Source" is NOT IN THIS DICTIONARY but
would probably be defined as "the first or highest in rank source
material." - Thus all the rest of the so called sources are echoes or
a recording subject to transmission or copying errors.
"Genealogical Record" is NOT IN THIS DICTIONARY but would probably be
defined as "A record or account of setting down in writing for
preserving evidence of the ancestry and (or) descent of a person,
family,
group, etc." - The quality of such a record would depend on the
dependability of the source material. The better the primary sources,
the more reliable the data is.
Let me add ...
"Secondary Source" is not in in the dictionary but would probably be
defined as 1. "not using the first or highest in rank source material or
using a second hand statement of facts in contrast to a first hand
account."
I know I get a bit wordy, but I think the definitions listed above is
what I mean.
I have made corrections to the DEATH note. See below. Some suggestions
from others conflict with each other so, I try my best!
Thanks for your patience,
John R. Carpenter
La Mesa, CA
*******************************
http://www.2meta.com/april-fools/history/
Once upon a time, back in 16th-century France, before computers, people
celebrated New Year's Day on March 25, the advent of spring. It was a
festive time. They partied steadily until April 1.
and
Others argue that the modern April Fool's Day followed the adoption of a
reformed calendar in France circa 1564. In medieval times, the octave of
New Year's began on March 25 with the eight days of festivities ending
on
April 1.
and
In the early Roman calendar, April 1 was the first day of spring, the
spring equinox, and before 154 B.C.E it was New Years day. Many
celebrations of many cultures observed this day as the coming of the
renewal of the earth and life. There would be sacrifices and gifts given
to the gods.
http://www.usis.usemb.se/Holidays/celebrate/april.html
In sixteenth-century France, the start of the new year was observed on
April first. It was celebrated in much the same way as it is today with
parties and dancing into the late hours of the night. Then in 1562, Pope
Gregory introduced a new calendar for the Christian world, and the new
year fell on January first. There were some people, however, who hadn't
heard or didn't believe the change in the date, so they continued to
celebrate New Year's Day on April first. Others played tricks on them
and called them "April fools." They sent them on a "fool's
errand" or tried to make them believe that something false was true. In
France today, April first is called "Poisson d'Avril." French children
fool their friends by taping a paper fish to their friends' backs. When
the "young fool" discovers this trick, the prankster yells "Poisson
dAvril!" (April Fish!)
http://wilstar.com/holidays/aprilfool.htm
The closest point in time that can be identified as the beginning of
this tradition was in 1582, in France. Prior to that year, the new year
was celebrated for eight days, beginning on March 25. The celebration
culminated on April 1. With the reform of the calendar under Charles IX,
the Gregorian Calendar was introduced, and New Year's Day was moved to
January 1.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1465/april.html
The custom of playing practical jokes on friends was part of the
celebrations in ancient Rome on March 25 (Hilaria) and in India on March
31 (Huli). The timing seems related to the vernal equinox and the coming
of spring-a time when nature fools us with sudden changes between
showers and sunshine.
April Fool's Day is thought to have originated in France. Before the use
of the Gregorian calendar, New Year's celebrations ended on April 1st.
When New Year's Day was changed to January 1st, the people who still
celebrated it on April 1st were called April Fools.
AND I can not miss this one :)) ...
http://www.link2000.net/homes/users/preacher/apr1fool.htm
The Chronological Bible dates the day of man being created by Almighty
God as April 1, 3975 B.C.
*****************************
NOTE: Gregory didn't change the claendar until 1582, although the
Council of Trent authorized a calendar reform in 1545.
*****************************
!DEATH: 7 Feb 1658/59 in Rehoboth per some genealogical records. 7 Feb
1659 was the date that William's will was PROVEN per some other
records.
Part of the confusion is in the double-date notation now widely used for
pre-1752 dates from Jan 1 through March 24. Under the old calendar,
what we call March 25, (April 1 - the end of the Spring Solstice
celebrations in some places), was the start of the new year. It is
confusing to those who are unaware of the calendar changes England
officially adopted in 1752 and the adjustments used by today's scholars
to designate which year was which.
Please note: Different countries started using the Gregorian calendar in
different years.
Only the dates from January to the end of March should be double dated
as noted below by Gene.
Another part of the confusion is the misuse of dates attributing death
or burial based on incomplete data.
In some records there is a W.P. placed in the death or burial location.
In this case, this is wrong. Some claim W.P. in Savages dictionary of
RI stands for West Providence, RI, but this is not found and there was
no West Providence in that time period. In the death place it was for
Will Proven in some genealogical reports like the Ancestral File. (See
John Chandler's comment below Gene's.)
Gene Zubrinsky of Ojai, CA explains the death dates in this manner:
"Carpenter's will was written on 10 December (no year given, but almost
certainly 1658 [absolutely no later]); he died on 7 February 1658 (if
Old Style date, as is highly likely, this would properly be 1658/9; if
not, 1657/8); his estate inventory was taken on 21 February 1658 (if Old
Style, 1658/9; if not, 1657/8); and his will was proved on 21 April
1659. (As you know, I've cited primary sources for all these dates.
[Rehoboth VR, 1:50;
Plymouth Colony Wills, 2:1:80, 84 (transcr. in THE MAYFLOWER DESCENDANT
14[1912]:231-33)].)" )
This almost certainly occurred over the course of a
four-and-a-half-month period, in perfect chronological order, from 10
Dec. 1658 to 21 April 1659. It's quite straightforward. If the death
and inventory dates (giving the year as 1658) represent New Style
dating, it would put an improbable 14 months between those events, on
the one hand, and the will's probate, on the other. (Once the inventory
was taken, it would have been highly unusual for probate to be delayed
over a year.) That's the ONLY other possible alternative."
John Chandler explains the W.P. as "specifically that W.P. often stands
for "will proved" in the Ancestral File and in databases derived from
it. This is useful knowledge for anyone who browses genealogical data on
the Internet or on CD collections. By the way, the W.P. notation in the
AF usually does reflect the facts -- since the AF does not have a
PROBATE field or even NOTEs, the only way to enter the limited knowledge
of death based on probate is in the DEATH field with a notation of
exactly this sort."
*****************************
"John F. Chandler" wrote:
>
> John,
> We seem to be at an impasse. It might help if, instead of quoting
> from the deeply flawed B&N dictionary, you state your own definition of
> the words "record" and "source" in a genealogical context. (In case
> you hadn't noticed, your dictionary defines the verb "record" as ...
> 8. to record.)
>
> > Yes. I see a big difference in what I call primary or original sources
> > and genealogical records. For example the ABC 1898 book is a
> > genealogical record but not a source.
>
> By accepting the term "primary source", you implicitly accept the
> existence of "secondary source". Everyone else in the world would
> call ABC's book a secondary (or perhaps tertiary) source, so why
> wouldn't you? I will admit that I have sometimes disparaged certain
> works by saying that they are not really sources at all, but simply
> messes. I even have a working definition for that category of
> "sources": a "mess" is a source that may contain some accurate material,
> but also contains so much nonsense that I would feel embarassed to cite
> such a work for anything that matters. I haven't actually used ABC's
> book myself, so I don't know whether it meets that definition, but I
> gather it doesn't.
>
> Regarding the death notes:
> > !DEATH: 7 Feb 1658/59 in Rehoboth per some genealogical archives. 7 Feb
> > 1659 was the date that William's will was PROVEN per some records.
> > Part of the confusion is the old calendar used and adjusted to the
> > modern calendar. The time period between Jan 1 and Apr 1 is the
> > confusion. Under the old calendar, what we call March 25, April 1 in
> > in some places, was the start of the new year. It is confusing to those
>
> You still haven't addressed the April 1 issue. It is simply wrong to
> say that some places started the year then. What's more, now that I
> look at it again, this passage seems to be saying that "what we call
> March 25" is or was called "April 1" in some places. Also, the
> statement about the "old calendar used and adjusted to the modern"
> implies a whole bunch of things that are either false or irrelevant.
> This is what I would say (starting with "Part of the..."):
>
> Part of the confusion is in the double-date notation now widely used
> for pre-1752 dates from Jan 1 through March 24. Under the old
> calendar, March 25 was the start of the new year. It is confusing
> ...
>
> I was about to insert the following sentence as well, since it helps to
> explain the confusion, but I'm not sure you would be comfortable saying
> it on your own authority, so I present it separately:
>
> This notation was almost never used in England at that time, and only
> sometimes in the American colonies.
>
> John
Below are a few basics in English will reading. Allow me to quote from Hey's
fine Oxford Companion to Local and Family History, Oxford,1996.
"Executors were appointed and friends called in to sign as witnesses. "
"Family historians will find many wills invaluable in detailing
relationships. However,
wills were not the only method of transmitting property, and not all
descendants
are necessarily named. For instance, adult children may already have been
provided
for at marriage." (p. 496)
"It has become clear that studies of inhertitance should not be concerned
with bequests in wills,
but with transmission of property at various stages in the life cycle,
particularly when children
married and set up home and upon retirement." (p. 235)
"In practice, in many areas were partible inheritance was not formally
recognized, all children nevertheless received part of the estate or (in the
case of girls) a bequest of money." (p. 344)
Even within the 'partible inheritance' system it was generally the sons that
received the
main family assets, which was land. These matters were delt with outside of
the
last will. Marden Robert was dealing with cash assets mainly. There are
other matters in the will
which indicate wealth, and certainly more wealth than Marden William
possessed. The
training of sons in apprentiships was a sign of English yeoman wealth at the
time (see Cambell's
Thge English Yeoman). The overall impression of greater wealth for Robert is
unmistakable, given
he lived in the midst of a economic recession and was the eldest son. The
individuals who oversee
his will were also important Berkshire people. More on that later.
BC
BC
Researching the Joshua (William, John, Samuel, Samuel, JOSHUA, Richard,
David) Carpenter line.
Does anyone know which Richard Carpenter this information refers to?
"Served his first communion, Oct. 1782. Richard Carpenter. Moved away
December 9, 1798"
>From " Early Church Records of the Presbyterian church, Goshen, NY 1762-1885
Does anyone have information on Increase Carpenter's daughter, Sarah
"Carpenter" Pettit's son: Joshua Pettit Jr.
Dawn Carpenter
http://homestead.com/ourfamilyjournal
Carpenter/Davies and Related Families
Information
This is the Carpenter Cousins Rootsweb. Since many Zimmermans became Carpenters, Both are discussed here along with related DNA information.