<< The repeated assertion that the two Williams were not related can become
as
tiresome as the assertion that they are. . . . >>
If there has been even a single assertion that the two Williams are not
related, I have neither seen it nor expressed it. In keeping with the
position I have always taken--that the precise nature of their relationship
has not been ascertained--the upcoming (perhaps Jan. 2004) REGISTER article
mentioned in my previous posting presents both sides of the issue. In the
meantime, anyone wanting to explore the possibility that the two Williams
were simply related by marriage may consult the following: L. Effingham
deForest and Anne Lawrence deForest, JAMES COX BRADY AND HIS ANCESTRY (New
York, 1933), 124; Mary Lovering Holman, ANCESTRY OF COLONEL JOHN HARRINGTON
STEVENS AND HIS WIFE FRANCES HELEN MILLER (Concord, N.H., 1948), 264. While
all three authors are highly regarded, Holman is considered one of the finest
genealogists of the first half of the twentieth century.
<< the two farmed together >>
This is misleading. In 1652 William of Rehoboth twice bought land at
Pawtuxet (Warwick), R.I., from Benedict Arnold, brother-in-law of William of
Providence (Warwick Land Evidences, 1:103, 104-5). The only record found in
which the both Williams explicitly appear is dated in 1653: they, with two
others, agree to pay Pawtuxet Indians to build a fence keeping their animals
out of the planters' [respective] cornfields (ibid., 64-65). Each William's
owning land near that of the other is not the same as farming together. It
nevertheless does demonstrate that they had at least become acquainted
several years prior to the marriage of their respective children to each
other. This point is made in the aforementioned article.
<< one referred to the other as 'cousin' in a will >>
Rehoboth William's will refers to "Cozen Carpenter" (presumably Joseph2 of
Warwick) and "my brother Carpenter" (presumably William1 of Providence). The
term "cousin," was used during this period to denote anyone from first cousin
to nephew/niece to a relative by marriage. Both terms may thus have been
used in this case as a reflection of the marriage of their respective
children, Joseph of Warwick and Hannah of Rehoboth, which probably occurred
BEFORE Rehoboth William wrote his will. (The date usually given for the
marriage, 21 April 1659, is not supported by a marriage record and is
identical with the date Rehoboth William's will was proved. For these
reasons it is highly suspect.)
<< Mr. Zubrinsky's own Shalbourne data does not 'prove' the William of
Shalbourne was the William of Rehoboth. It does establish a very high
probability the Williams were the same. The only basis for this is name
similarity. There is nothing in those transcripts that 'proves' anything.
However most people would believe Shalbourne William was Rehoboth William on
the basis of probability alone. I do. >>
The name congruity extends beyond William (was there a more common name in
England in the early 1600s?) to his wife Abigail and five of their surviving
children; that is, the names of *seven* Carpenters who married and/or were
baptized at Shalbourne match those of Rehoboth William and his family as they
are found in New England records. The children's baptismal dates, moreover,
are consistent with other facts (some of which were introduced in 1995)
pertaining to their approximate and relative ages. There is also the matter
of geographical proximity: Wherwell (their home, briefly, prior to
emigration) is about 15 air miles south-southeast of Shalbourne, on a
straight line between the latter place and Southampton, their point of
embarkation.
Taken together, these facts--along with the process by which they were
obtained, analyzed and interpreted, and in the absence of conflicting
evidence--satisfy the "Genealogical Proof Standard," the name given in 1997
by the Board for Certification of Genealogists to the five-step process long
accepted by serious genealogists for "building a solid case" (see THE BCG
GENEALOGICAL STANDARDS MANUAL [Washington, D.C., 2000]; Christine Rose, CG,
CGI, FASG, GENEALOGICAL PROOF STANDARD: BUILDING A SOLID CASE [San Jose,
Calif., 2001]). In using the word "proof," genealogists understand that it
does not denote absolute, inherently final truth. To distinguish between
"proof" and "high probability" therefore creates a false dichotomy; in
genealogy, they are one and the same.
<< Data concerning the father of William Carpenter has been presented for his
residence in Wroxton, Oxfordshire. The names and dates of this data establish
an extremely high probability that William of Rehoboth was born in Wroxton. >>
This latest assertion concerning Rehoboth William's birthplace constitutes,
as I recall, BC's third or fourth different claim as to William's origin.
Each was announced with the same level of confidence in its accuracy as this
one, yet each fell short of the hyperbole and was eventually abandoned. If
BC is certain he has it right this time, I encourage him to write it up in a
form acceptable to any of the leading journals and submit it to one of them.
<< There is no evidence at all concerning a parentage of an Amesbury Richard
Carpenter. None. >>
It's nice to find a point of agreement. But while evidence of Richard's
*parentage* has heretofore not been found, there is evidence of his
connection to the Carpenters of Newton Toney, on Amesbury's eastern border.
Thanks to John R. Carpenter's 1997 correspondence with the Bourne Valley
Historical Record and Conservation Society (Salisbury, Wiltshire), we know
that the will of Robert Carpenter of Newton Toney, dated in 1599, names
"Richard Carpenter of Amesbury" (relationship not stated) among his legatees
(Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 93 Kidd, folio 47). Although it awaits
"proof," the Richard Carpenter who married Alice Knight at Newton Toney on 7
August 1603 may have been the Amesbury man. (The Richard Carpenter who
married Ann Kent at Newton Toney on 31 October 1603 died there in 1614
[Archdeaconry Court of Sarum, Register 8, folio 226]. The only record
certainly of the former Richard at Newton Toney is that of his marriage.)
<< If Mr. Zubrinsky deals in probabilities, then he should buy probabilities.
He doesn't deal in proof and yet he will only buy proof from others. >>
Again, this is a false dichotomy--and a red herring.
Gene Z.