John L. Carpenter, who posted the inquiry he had received from Ray Carpenter, wrote:
I explained to him regarding the controversy over William Sr. coming
on the Bevis and going back Vs dying enroute
As far as I'm concerned, there is no controversy. There's no evidence that
William1 (b. ca. 1575) returned to England or that he died en route to New England. Both
are speculations arising from the fact that there is no record of him in New England.
This, however, is no indication that he wasn't there. As below, "[a]bsence of
evidence is not evidence of absence."
From my online sketch of William1 of Shalbourne (my insertions for this posting are in
square brackets):
The latest known record of William1 is the aforementioned Bevis passenger-list entry of 2
May 1638. His namesake son, William2 Carpenter, settled at Weymouth probably in 1638 and
certainly before 13 May 1640, when he was admitted a freeman there. That William1 was not
made a freeman at the same time was perhaps because he had died. It might, on the other
hand, have been due to his modest station [an illiterate carpenter], when considered apart
from that of his [highly literate] son (see TAG 14:336, 70:193, 195n13; EDUCATION/OFFICES,
below). . . .
Apparently based solely on the absence of any record of William1 in Massachusetts, Amos
Carpenter claims that William1 returned to England on the ship that brought him (see
Carpenter [1898] 38). There is no evidence of this, however, and no reason to suppose it.
His having endured the rigors of the voyage to Massachusetts (assuming he completed it),
it is doubtful that William1, [at about 64] an old man by the conditions and standards of
the time, would have opted to face, unaccompanied, the physical demands of a return trip.
And to what would he have returned? William2 was his eldest (perhaps only) son and heir.
(This we infer from the inclusion of William Carpenter Jr. with his father in the
Westcourt Manor copy court roll beginning with the initial record of their tenancy.) Where
better for this father and grandfather to spend his last years than in the company of
those with whom he had come? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: considering
his age (advanced), marital status (single), and position in his family (almost certainly
subordinate to his son), it is not significant that William1 fails to appear in
Massachusetts records as a freeholder or town officer, for example. And with deaths at
this time being the vital event least-often recorded, it is unremarkable that no such
record is found for him. (Also unrecorded is the birth, probably in late 1638, of his
grandson Samuel3.)
Gene Z.