|
|
Torrey [14 July 2011]
Torrey is not my favorite source, often the sources he cites are poor. He shows Mary Partridge as Nathaniel's first wife, but gives the marriage to Nathaniel's second wife, Ruth West, as after 1683, and bef. 1699. Since the mother's will is dated in 1702, why he says bef. 1699 needs to be figured out and explained away, or it poses a problem. I haven't been able to find Family Genealogies (volume 3 of Bank's History of Martha's Vineyard) which might be the source of the problem or Mary Lovering Holman's Partridge manuscript (I don't even know what that is).--Jrich 15:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
- There is a copy of Banks online at Skiff. There is also a transcript of "Survey of the Descendants of Francis West of Duxbury" by Carlton PRince West (1987) at West family. Apparently, the bef. 1699 is based on the will of Thomas West, dated 5 Jan 1697/8, which mentions "my brother Nathaniel Skiffe". This is a bit of a problem.
- The West manuscript apparently questions a first wife Mary, since it speculates that Thomas came to Martha's Vineyard in 1673 because his sister had married Nathaniel Skiff and resided there. However, the West manuscript appears to be unaware of the birth of Hannah in Chilmark where the mother is named Mary, and it, itself, says that Ruth West was a membmer of the church in 1692, which appears to rule out marrying Nathaniel before that? --Jrich 16:46, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
- As it happens, I reviewed the Banks entry on Nathaniel Skiffe at the NY State Library this afternoon. The Skiff website does not quote verbatim. Banks says that Nathaniel married first one Mary (no surname) about whom nothing is known, then Ruth West. If we assume him to be correct, then Mary, if she were in fact daughter of George and Sarah Partridge, had to have been mother of all Nathaniel's children since the last was born circa 1699 and Mary Scif (sp. per TGM, V:377) was apparently (at least thought by her mother to be) alive on 28 November 1702. I'll be back at the NYSL for a NEHGS program the next three days and will try, time permitting, to provide verbatim transcripts from Banks, the West genealogy (I actually have that one, it's on Heritage Quest Online and is a reprint from vol. 60 of the Register, which is available on AmericanAncestors.org), and the Skiffe genealogy.--jaques1724 19:49, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
- I can't see any other Skiff that could account for her name in her mother's will. But I can't see any reason (other than religious brotherhood), why Thomas West would call Nathaniel brother. It sounded to me like the mother was splitting up her wearing apparel so I presumed she thought Mary was alive. But looking again, I now notice extra wording "three of my daughters before named being deceased my meaning is that their children should have their mothers' part". So I don't think there is necessarily a conflict between the wills, if Mary is one of the three that are deceased. Should have read it more carefully. However, if one now accepts Thomas's will as an indicator that they were married in early 1698, and possible before that, it means at least one child, maybe more, belonged to Ruth. --Jrich 21:24, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
- Oops! thought I remembered seeing a child b. 1699, but now I can't find them. Well, so maybe all children do belong to Mary. --Jrich 22:49, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
- Thanks for a little more food for thought. Guess I'll have to make an extra effort at NYSL. I also hadn't noticed the reference to three daughters being deceased. I'm beginning to think that this particular quandary is incapable of resolution and that I should move on. I guess I'll know more by Sunday.----jaques1724 23:08, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
As promised:
Banks, Martha’s Vineyard, III:434.
NATHANIEL(2) SKIFFE, (James(1) b. 20 March 1645; res. Sandwich, Mass.; removed to Falmouth (1677) later to T. and C. and finally to Windham, Conn. (1713), where he d. 24 Apr. 1723 of smallpox. He m. (1) Mary -----, of whom nothing is known; (2) RUTH WEST (6), who was b. 1651 and d. 31 Dec. 1741. In the absence of records the following named are believed to be his children as all others of the name at that period are otherwise placed.
30. Abigail(3), (1679).
31. (Son), b. and d. 1681.
32. SARAH, b. (1663).
33. JOHN, b. (1686); soldier in French War 1709, Capt. Matthew Austin’s company.
34. HANNAH, b. 6 June 1688; m. (1) BENJAMIN MAYHEW (63) 13 May 1704; (2) WILLIAM HUNT (30).
35. BEULAH, b. (1689).
36. NATHAN, b. 1691; soldier in French War 1711 and d. 17 Oct. 1711 of disease, contracted in service. (Mass. Arch. LXXI.856).
37. NATHANIEL, b. 1693; m. HANNAH CAREY; res. Windham, Conn.
38. STEPHEN, b. (1695); m. ELIZABETH HATCH.
Pierson, Skiff Genealogy, 3.
3. Nathaniel Skiff, b. Mar. 20, 1645; m. first Mary Chipman, Feb. 1668, dau. of John of Barnstable; she soon d. and he m. second Ruth -----.
Pierson, 5.
Children of 3 Nathaniel Skiff and Ruth -----:
21. – Nathaniel, junior, m. Hannah Carey april 24, 1716.
22. – Sarah, not traced.
23. – Abigail, not traced.
24. – Hannah, d. Aug 22, 1775, aged 83.
Nathaniel Skiff, senior, d. in Windham, Conn., April 24, 1723. Ruth -----, his wife, d. Dec. 31, 1741, aged 90 years.
My conclusion is that Mary, possibly/probably Partridge, was mother of at least the first five based on Hannah's mother being named as Mary in the Chilmark vital records (p. 28); consequently, Ruth West could have been mother of none to all of the last four. Of course, the cited sources may not be accurate although I would have a little more faith in Banks rather than Pierson. -- --jaques1724 22:37, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
- I am not aware of John Chipman having a daughter Mary. I suspect Pierson was confused/influenced by Nathan Skiff m. Mercy Chipman. But it only works there because it was Nathan's second marriage. I think the Partridge part is pretty probable now that I realize the wills don't conflict.--Jrich 01:08, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
|
|
