| Notes |
- RESEARCH_NOTES:
1. The periodical "The American Genealogist," 37(1961): 154-60, "Bancrofts in the Connecticut Valley," by George E. McCracken, F.A.S.G.:
"In the middle of the seventeenth century we find living in the towns in the valley of the Connecticut River the following three persons named Bancroft:
1. Anna or Hannah, d. Windsor between 17 Dec. 1684 and 4 Apr. 1694; m. there, 13 May 1647, Sergeant John Griffin, to whom she bore Hannah, Mary, Sarah, John, Thomas, Abigail, Mindwell, Ruth, Ephraim and Nathaniel.
2. John, ferryman, d. Windsor b Aug. 1662; m. there 3 Dec. 1647, Hannah Dupper, who bore to him John, Nathaniel, Ephraim, Hannah and Sarah.
3. Thomas, d. Enfield 14 Dec. 1684; m. (1) 8 Dec. 1653, probably in Springfield, Margaret Wright, mother of Lydia, Margaret, Anna, Thomas, Anna and Samuel; (2) ca. 1668 Hannah, said to have been a Gardner, mother of Samuel, Ruth, Rebecca and Nathaniel.
While we lack positive evidence to prove relationship between the three, striking repetitions of the same names among the children of all three, and proximity of time and place, make it seem probable that we have here to deal with a sister and two brothers.
A woman named Jane married Thomas Barber at Windsor on 7 Oct. 1640, her surname not being stated in the marriage record set down by no less a person than Matthew Grant. (Here it may be stated parenthetically that in Grant's record there are several instances in which the marriage date for a couple is given but not the bride's surname. I am inclined to believe that the explanation may be that the marriage took place elsewhere, and that Grant's primary concern in learning the date was to show that enough time elapsed before the birth of the first child, a point on which the Puritans were even more sensitive than are we.) The claim was made by Charles Edwin Booth, "One Branch of the Booth Family" (New York 1910), p. 44, that the said Jane had been Jane Bancroft and the widowed mother of the three Bancrofts mentioned above, but no proof is adduced and we have found none.
That their mother was, indeed, named Jane had been claimed a little earlier by J. Henry Lea [New England Hist. and Gen. Register, 56:84-87, 196 f.), but he knew nothing of any marriage of Jane to Barber. Now between 1642 and 1654 Thomas and Jane (___) Barber became the parents of John, Thomas, Sarah, Samuel, Mary and Josiah, and it would have been physically possible for a woman who had previously given birth to Anna about 1629 and to John and Thomas within the next ten years, to have become the mother of the six Barber children after that. It involves, however, the conclusion that she had two sons named John and two sons named Thomas living at the same time, which although possible would have been unusual, and until actual evidence is produced that Jane Barber had been previously a Bancroft, we feel unable to accept the claim set forth in the Booth book. If some proof were now found that Jane had been a Bancroft at her marriage to Thomas Barber, it would be more probable that she was a sister to Anna, John and Thomas, than that she was their mother.
The article by Mr. Lea, cited above, also assigns, on the authority of Hinman, two other brothers to Anna, namely Samuel and William, but Royal R. Hinman, "A catalogue of the names of the early Puritan settlers of the Colony of Connecticut" (Hartford, 2nd ed., 1852), p. 123, actually fails to assign either Samuel or William as stated, but includes an Ebenezer whom Lea overlooks. On the next page, however, Hinman does mention Samuel and William Bancroft as early at Windsor, but he says nothing more of them and suggests no relationship to anyone. Suffice it to say that neither the present writer nor Mr. Donald L. Jacobus has found evidence for Samuel, William, or Ebenezer, and unless contemporary evidence can be submitted for their existence, we are inclined to dismiss them as fictitious.
According to Mr. Lea, all of these children, with the exception, of course, of Ebenezer whom he omits, were those of a John Bancroft with wife Jane, the father a native of Derbyshire. He claims that this couple came early to Boston and removed thence to Lynn where John died, and that Jane, and presumably her children, then migrated to Southampton, Long Island, whence the family once more removed to the valley of the Connecticut where we have found three of them.
The evidence from Derbyshire wills is extensively and impressively presented by Mr. Lea. It goes back three generations behind a Thomas Bancroft, yeoman of Swarkston, Derbyshire, who died at Chellaston in the same county, testate, leaving a will dated 13 Dec.1626 and probated 11 Oct. 1627, in which he names Rebecca, eldest son John, second son Ralph, third son Thomas, and daughters Dorothy and Elizabeth, both of them married. The third son Thomas is described as a resident of Bradley, then married and with issue, and his death is dated by Lea in 1658. How much of this comes from the will and how much is deduced from other sources is not quite clear, but the said Thomas the younger is identified as a poet who in 1639 published at London a quarto volume of 86 pages bearing the title of "Two Bookes of Epigrammes and Epitaphs," containing among other verses the following dedicated to the poet's brother John:
"You sold your land the lighter hence to go
To foreign coasts, yet (Fate would have it so)
Did ne'er New England reach, but went with them
That journey toward the New Jerusalem."
Passing over the implication that John, had he been willing to go to New England with more encumbrances, might have taken along his land, we must conclude that though he started on the journey, he did not complete it, dying enroute. Mr. Lea, however, is unwilling to accept this plain conclusion and resorts to the use of "poetic license." In his view, John did reach New England but died soon afterwards, hence might be said, in poetry though not in history, never to have arrived. This view is rejected by Meredith B. Colket, Jr. [supra, 17:20-22], and I must confess that I think he is right.
Those who maintain that John, brother of the poet Thomas Bancroft, actually arrived in America, would point to evidence printed by John Camden Hotten, "Original Lists," p. 150, and by Charles E. Banks, "Planters of the Commonwealth," p. 98. A John Barcroft [sic] and wife Jane took the oath on 13 April 1632 and came on the Ship "James," Capt. Grant, 5 June 1632, no children being named in the passenger list for them, though some are noted for other families who also crossed in the same boat. In the next year Jane got into serious trouble at Boston. Winthrop notes in his famous Journal on 12 Sept. 1633 that Captain Stone had been found "with Barcrofte's wife ... lying in a bed one night." In Massachusetts Colonial Records 1:108 [Shurtleff] we read under date of 3 Sept. 1633:
"Mr Barcrofte (sic) doeth acknowledge to owe vnto or Sovraigne the King the some of xlli & Mr Samil Mauacke (Maveracke) the some of xxl &c. The condicion of this recognizance is that Jane Barcrofte (sic) wife of the said John shall be of good behavr towards all psons.
Whether these Barcrofts were also called Bancroft is, of course, problematical, but it should be noted that the three records, the ship list, Winthrop's "Journal," and the court record, are all in harmony in calling them Barcroft, not Bancroft. In any case, no certain trace of the Barcrofts, if such they really were, has been found elsewhere. On the other hand, a man whose brother was capable of publishing a volume of verse some years later may have been of sufficient prestige to be entitled to be called "Mr." even in so unsavory a connection as this. Mr. Lea does identify John Barcroft with the poet's brother and says the couple removed to Lynn in 1632, though they were surely, as we have seen, still in Boston in the fall of 1633.
Mr. Lea is forced to conclude that John soon died in Lynn, as he asserts that his widow was given land at Lynn in 1637. The town votes of Lynn are now in the process of publication, but apparently there are none so early as 1637. There is, however, in "Essex County Court Records and Files," 2:270, a distribution of land at Lynn in 1638, and the seventh item among a large number is "widdow Bancraft, 100 acres." This is probably what Lea had to go on. Had this record called her Jane, We should have less hesitation in identifying her with the Jane Barcrofte of the Boston records, but since it did not, it would be well to be cautious.
It seems true, however, that a scion of the Derbyshire Bancrofts did come to America, a Lieutenant Thomas Bancroft, born ca. 1625, died at Lynn 19 Aug. 1691, having previously been resident in Dedham and Reading. A lengthy and unsatisfactory account of this man and his descendants was published by John Kermott Allen in the "New England Hist. and Gen. Register" (94:215-224, 311-321; 95:56-69, 109-117, 276-285, 363-383; 96:49-57, 126-137, 284-291, 327-336; 97:65-77, 124-134, 214-220). His eighth child, born at Reading 20 Aug. 1660, died 13 July 1661, was named Ralph, a name which appears several times in the Derbyshire family. The reappearance of the name Ralph suggests that the lieutenant was a member of the Derbyshire family. Mr. Allen promised at the outset to return to the subject of Lieut. Thomas Bancroft's forebears in England but he never did so, perhaps because he never reached any satisfactory conclusion. Another descendant of the lieutenant, G. Andrews Moriarty, Esq., has informed me that he is inclined to believe that the lieutenant was a son of the poet, but that he has never been able to find the proof in English records.
Though Mr. Allen says nothing of the poem, he would appear to have identified Lieut. Thomas Bancroft of Lynn as the poet, since he says he may have come with his brother John in 1632; and that Thomas's father died in 1627 and his stepmother in 1639. As to the last date he is following Lea, but Lea calls her his mother, not stepmother. He also quotes a history of Lynn to the effect that Thomas arrived there in 1640. The earliest record found of Thomas at Lynn is dated 1661, though he himself, in a deposition of 1681, says he hired a farm there in 1655. The history of Thomas is at least strange. He married at Dedham in 1647 and again in 1648 and had children recorded at Dedham in 1648-1650 and at Reading in 1653-1670, the twelfth and youngest child being Mary, born 16 May 1670, who is, incidentally, omitted by Mr. Allen though he notes her as unmarried and living in 1691 in connection with the probate of her father. While living at Lynn in Essex county, he served for many years as ensign for Reading which is in Middlesex County, though on modern maps the two places are but nine miles apart. He resigned this post in 1679 as he lived "remote from the said towns." Other errors of Mr. Allen do not affect our argument. To sum up what is certain about Lieut. Thomas Bancroft: he was almost certainly a member of the Derbyshire family described by Lea; he is first recorded at Dedham and Reading before he is recorded at Lynn; and there is a lacuna of seventeen years between the one appearance of the Widow Bancroft at Lynn and the first appearance of Thomas there as a tenant, not land owner. During this period Thomas Bancroft was for the last eight years recorded at Dedham and Reading. It is entirely possible that he was not connected either with the Barcrofts of Boston or the Widow Bancroft of Lynn.
As for Mr. Lea's further statement that the Widow Bancroft, and presumably her children, moved to Southampton, Long Island, we are able to say that a Widow Bancroft, this one or another, undeniably owned land at Southampton in or before 1644. George Rogers Howell, "Early History of Southampton, Long Island, New York, with Genealogies" (Albany, 2nd ed., 1887), p. 421, cautiously admits that a Widow Bancroft had a land grant at Southampton in 1644, but thinks she probably never came there at all. In that case, how she came to have the grant is not clear. Mr. Colket, however, subceeded [supra, 17:20-22] in finding a petition of Iohn Stratton and Thomas Talmage Junr "for the quiet and peaceable Inioyment of the lott betwixt them which was formerly graunted Vnto Widow Bancroft," which was there-upon "graunted and consented Vnto by the Generall Court provided that they shall keep, Improve, and possesse the sayd lott in their handes three years after the tyme yt was by the said widdow Bancroft given vnto them" ["Records of the Town of Southampton," 1:34]. The Records of East Hampton [1:24] show that they still possessed the lot on 10 June 1652, and John Stratton's will of 30 Aug. 1684 mentions a parcel of meadow lying with Capt. Talmage undivided. Mr. Colket concludes that this appears to indicate that Stratton and Talmage had obtained the grant upon their marriages to daughters of the Widow Bancroft, but Mr. Jacobus informs me that he has seen examples of the use of the verb "give" in references to conveyances which were clearly land sales and not deeds of gift. I do not think it proved that Stratton and Talmage were sons-in-law of the Widow Bancroft, but in view of the fact that there were migrations from Lynn to Southampton, I tentatively accept the identification of the Widow Bancroft of Lynn with the Widow Bancroft of Southampton.
To return to the Boston Barcrofts, stress should be laid on the absence of any child in the ship list. If these Boston Barcrofts were the parents of the three Connecticut Bancrofts, then we should expect at least that the daughter Anna would be with them, for her marriage in 1647 strongly implies that she was in existence when the Barcrofts sailed in 1632. Furthermore, Mr. Lea did not find in Derbyshire records any evidence as to the name of the wife of the poet's brother John. He assigns the name Jane to her solely on the basis of equating John Barcroft of Boston with John Bancroft of Derbyshire. There is thus no positive proof that the three Connecticut Bancrofts were children of a Jane, and not one of them named a known child Jane. Mr. Jacobus, to whom this study owes much, would interpret the absence of any record of John Barcroft of Boston after the year 1633 as evidence of a negative sort that he may have returned to England out of chagrin.
The Widow Bancroft of Lynn, quite probably identical with the Widow Bancroft of Southampton, may well have been the wife and widow of the John who died on the crossing. But we are not inclined to believe that she was the mother of Lieut. Thomas Bancroft, since no record has been found to show that he inherited the 100 acres she was granted in 1638. As the lieutenant continued to be recorded in Essex County until his death in 1691, he must be carefully distinguished from the Thomas Bancroft who died at Enfield in 1684. If the lieutenant was not son of the widow, then she is left as a possible mother of the three Connecticut Bancrofts, but there is really not the slightest bit of evidence to show that she was, nor that her name was Jane.
Editor's Note. Dr. McCracken has keenly analyzed the Bancroft problems. There are several interrelated problems, some of great complexity, and it may be helpful to the reader to summarize the conclusions reached, negative though many of the conclusions are.
1. John Bancroft of Derbyshire, brother of Thomas the poet, was lost on the passage to New England. The name of his wife is unknown, but he may have been accompanied by a wife and children.
2. John Barcroft of Boston with wife Jane was not a Bancroft so far as has been proved, and this couple has no known history in New England after 1633.
3. The Widow Bancroft of Lynn 1638, quite likely identical with the Widow Bancroft of Southampton 1644, was not named Jane so far as actual records prove; she may have had daughters who married Stratton and Talmage but that is not positively proved.
4. The said Widow Bancroft may have been mother of the three Bancrofts of the Connecticut River Valley, but there is no proof that she was. She may have married one of the Connecticut settlers, thus bringing her putative children into this area, but the claim that she was the Jane who married Thomas Barber of Windsor is extremely unlikely.
5. Lieut. Thomas Bancroft first appears at Dedham in 1647 when aged about 22, removed to Reading, and did not settle in Lynn until many years after the Widow Bancroft's brief appearance there. There is no strong reason to assume that he was her son, but his own name and that of his son Ralph strongly suggest that he belonged to the Derbyshire family and his age conforms with the theory that he might be a son of Thomas the poet or of Ralph, who were brothers of the John who died on his passage to New England.
So many false and improbable statements have appeared in print concerning the early Bancrofts that a careful appraisal of these claims in the light of what the records actually prove (and they fail to prove very much) was long overdue, and Dr. McCracken deserves our gratitude for undertaking the task."
2. Henry R. Stiles, "The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut," 1892, v. 2, p. 41:
"John Bancroft came in the 'James' from London, Eng., Apr. 1632; arrived 12 Jun (8 weeks passage); res. Lynn Mass.; d. 1637; 'Col. Rec. Mass.,' 3 Sep 1633; 'Winthrop's Journal,' 12 Sep 1663; 'Hubbard's Hist. New Engl.,' p. 156. His wid. Jane received 100 acres of land at Lynn, 1638. Nov. 19, 1644, Jona. Strattan and Thos. Talmadge, Jr., of Southampton, Long Island (a settlement emanating from Lynn), petitioned for the peaceable settlement of the lot betwixt them, 'which formerly was gr. unto Widd. Bancroft,' which was consented to. Tradition in the Bancroft family says she m. (2) a man who removed with her and her children to Connecticut. "Savage' mentions ch. John and Thomas.
Children (born England):
A. Anna, m. 13 May 1647, John Griffin; sett. Simsbury; 10 children.
B. John.
C. Thomas.
D. Samuel.
E. William (acc. to 'Hinman,' for which we find no authority.)
Thomas Bancroft, poet (a native of Swarkstone, on the Trent, Derbyshire, where his parents were buried and who produced a vol. of epigrams and epitaphs, 1639, London, Eng.) says of his brother John Bancroft:
'You sold your land the lighter hence to go
To foreign coasts, yet (Fate would have it so)
Did ne'er New England reach, but went with them
That journery toward New Jerusalem.'
Tradition speaks of a sojourn on Long Island and the death there of one of the three brothers; that one then went to Mass. and one to Connecticut."
3. The following is from Norb Bankert's web site; his e-mail is norb@dreamscape.com: "Sergt. John Griffin, born Abt. 1609 in Wales; died Aug 1681 in Simsbury, CT. He married Anna Bancroft 13 May 1647. Anna Bancroft, died Aft. 1680. She was the daughter of John Bancroft and Jane."
4. Pedigree formulated from the research work of J. Henry Lea, Esq., in the English probate records (note he indicates additional work should be done to look at the parish records - something he had not done - to confirm this proposed pedigree). See notes with direct line Bancroft English-born males for full quote of Mr. Lea's research on which he based this pedigree:
1. ___ Bancroft, of Chellaston, Barrow, or Swarkeston, Co. Derby? Md. ___ ___, relict, living in 1557 and legatee of lands in Barrow by will of her son Ralph, of Chellaston, Derby, dated 21 Apr 1557.
2. Ralph Bancroft of Chellaston, co. Derby; will dated 21 Apr, probated 13 Sep 1557; bur. at Chellaston: md. (2) Alice (dau. of Christopher Wright; liv. and ex., 1557). First wife, dec'd before 1557 and bur. at Chellaston.
2. Jane and other daus. (2 or 3), who married Thos. Ryvett, Wm. Wandyll, and ___ Alderman.
2. John Bancroft, of Chellaston; son of above, married Margaret Hollingsworth (or Haryngworth); will dated May 11, 1556; proved at Lichfield, 24 Jan 1557, and inventoried 18 Sep 1557. Will refers to "my boys under 21. To my oldest son (Ralph) the Hall I now dwell in; to my second son the over house; to my third son part of the land in Swarston (Swarkeston), he paying his fourth brother xv li."
3. Ralph Bancroft, liv. 1611, and admr. of his bro. William (Qu. - if of So. Cave, Yorks., and adm. 12 Feb 1616, to relict Alice.); md. Alice ___. By process of elimination, most likely candidate for father of Thomas Bancroft (see Henry Lea's rationale for this).
4. Thomas Bancroft of Swarkeston, yeoman; will dated 13 Oct 1626; probated at Lichfield 11 Oct 1627; bur. at Swarkeston; md. Rebecca ___, liv. 1627, but bur. at Swarkeston before 1639.
5. John Bancroft, eldest son, was of Swarkeston 1627; come to NE. in the "James," 12 Apr 1632; d. 1637; md. Jane ___, widow and had grant of 100 ac. of land in 1638, removed to Southhampton, L.I., and after to Windsor, Ct., was dec'd in 1644 when her land was divided between Jona. Stratton and Thos. Talmadge, Jr.; she had prob. mar. a second time.
6. Anne Bancroft, m. 13 May 1647 to John Griffin of Windsor, CT.
6. John Bancroft of Windsor, CT; md. 3 Dec 1650 Hannah Dupper; she md. 2d to John Ludlam.
6. Thomas Bancroft of Enfield, CT.
6. Samuel Bancroft. (According to Hinman.)
6. William Bancroft. (According to Hinman.)
5. Ralph Bancroft, second son; legatee of lands in Swarkeston, in 1627. The other Thomas who was born 1621 and died 1691 in Lynn, Mass., may have been the son of this Ralph.
5. Thomas Bancroft, 3rd son; poet, author in 1639; of Bradley, near Ashbourne, Derby, 1649-1658; had issue.
5. Dorothy. (Two daughters who married to John Errignton and Thomas Senior, but unsure as which daughter married which of the two men.)
5. Elizabeth. (Two daughters who married to John Errignton and Thomas Senior, but unsure as which daughter married which of the two men.)
3. William Bancroft of Chellaston, d. 1611; adm. 12 Apr to bro. Ralph; bur. 20 May 1611; wife's name unknown but dec'd before 1611.
4. Thomas Bancroft, a minor in 1611.
4. Catherine.
4. Margaret.
4. Mary.
3. Thomas Bancroft of Chellaston, yeoman; will dated 16 mar 1628; probated 24 Jul 1629; wife is Dorothy, dau. of James Forman.
4. William Bancroft, of Chellaston, yeoman; will dated 21 Jun 1649, probated 8 Jun 1650; no issue (Pembroke, 89.); md. dau. of Gilbert Newton.
4. Elizabeth.
4. Margaret.
4. Catherine, md. ___ Newton.
3. ___ Bancroft, a son; name unknown; liv. 1557.
3. Margrett Bancroft, only daughter, liv. 1557.
5. "New England History and Genealogy Register," v. 101, p. 285, Article: "Jonathan and Nathan Gillett Descendants":
"Samuel Gillett (son of John, grandson of Jonathan), of Suffield, Conn., and Granville, Mass., born in Windsor, Conn., 16 Feb 1677/8. He was five years old when his mother married secondly, Captain George Norton of Suffield, the town that became the boy's home for most of his life. In the later years of his life he lived in Granville, across the line in southwest Mass., and died there 'in 1739, aged 60', but was buried in Suffield. (Northampton Probate Records give administration of estate 1934[typo?]) He married in Suffield, 22 Jan 1701/2 (int. 20 Dec 1701), Rebecca Bancroft (dau. of Thomas, g.dau. of John), born in Springfield, Mass. (part later Enfield, Conn.), 23 Feb 1680...
[Her mother] Widow Jane Bancroft received 100 acres in Lynn in 1638. Her daughter Anna married 13 May 1647 Sergt. John Griffin, settled in Simsbury, Conn., had ten children and one of them, Sarah Griffin, married Elias Gillett (son of Nathan). Son Thomas Bancroft of Springfield, Mass. region, residence at the 'lower wharf,' now Enfield, Conn., was a selectman of Westfield; 8 Dec 1653 married Margaret Wright (dau. of Samuel) and their daughter Ruth Bancroft married John Stiles and had many Children; and daughter Rebecca married Samuel Gillett; and son Nathaniel had descendants in Granville, Mass. (and Ohio) and it was probably this connection that took Samuel Gillett from Suffield to Granville."
6. Henry R. Stiles, "The History and Genealogies of Ancient Windsor, Connecticut," 1892, v. 2, p. 346: "John Griffin had no lands recorded at Windsor and could hardly have owned a house there; in 1648 was engaged in manufacturing tar, and his candlewood, etc., being burned by an Indian who was unable to pay the dmage, his friends transferred to Griffin the land at Massaco (Simsbury), which he transferred to the town, and afterwards became a settler there (freeman there in 1669). He first appears iat Windsor 13 May 1647 when he m. Anna (prob. sister of and resided near John) Bancroft. At the time of John Drake, Sen'r's death, 1659, Griffin either resided in the Henry Stiles house, north of that of Wm. Gaylord, Jr., dec'd, or that of Francis Stiles, south of Gaylord's. 6 Sep 1655, Wm. Hayden makes complaint of the riotus conduct of John Griffin, John Bancroft, and Jacob Drake in his family, thereby frightening his wife - Griffin seming to have been the chief offender, as he only was fined ₤20, the others as well as he bound over in ₤20 each for good behaviour until the next Court ('Rec. Part. Ct., Sec. state's Ofice'). (Wm. Hayden's wife d. 17 Jul 1655; it may be in consequence of this fright.) In 1663 he was granted by the General Court 200 acres of land at Massacoe, in consideration 'that he was the first that perfected the art of making pitch and tar in these parts.' In 1673, with Simon Wolcott, was ordered to command the trainband. Children (Old Church Records):
A. Hannah, b. 4 Jul 1649.
B. Mary, b. 1 Mar 1651.
C. Sarah, b. 25 Dec 1654.
D. John b. 20 Oct 1656.
E. Thomas, b. 3 Oct 1658.
F. Abigail, b. 12 Nov 1660.
G. Mindwell, b. 11 Feb 1662.
H. Ruth, b. 21 Jan 1665.
I. Ephraim, b. 1 Mar 1668/9.
J. Nathaniel, b. 31 May 1673."
7. "New England Historical and Genealogical Register," v. 5, p. 227, article "Records of Windsor":
"John Griffin, (Simsbury) m. Anna Bancroft, 13 May 1647; chil. Hanna, b. 4 Jul 1649; Mary, b. 1 Mar 1651; Sarah, b. 25 Dec 1654; John, b. 20 Oct 1656; Thomas, b. 3 Oct 1658; Abigaill, b. 12 Nov 1660; Mindwel, b. 11 Feb 1662; Ruth, b. 21 Jan 1665; Ephraim, b. 1 Mar 1668; Nathaniel, b. 31 May 1673."
|
Chris & Julie Petersen's Genealogy
- 1694