MySource:Samples 59/Thomas Davenport and Mary Newman (Discrepancy)

Who was Mary ?, wife of Thomas Davenport of Dorchester

• Samples 59, 20 August 2015 reply

Plus or Minus Age Discrepency

A 2 year plus or minus age discrepency, does not refute, or make insufficient for a genealogical probability that DAVENPORT, Thomas, gent. of Little Ilford, Essex, bachelor, 22, and Mary Newman, of same, spinster, 24, - at St. Faith, London. 22 July, 1639. AND, the Thomas Davenport and Mary Newman cited by Torrey, ARE THE SAME . I believe that Torrey was working off of genealogical notes by B. F. Davenport, M.D. in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register vol. 33, p. 106. It was B. F. Davenport's notes stating

A Thomas Davenport is mentioned in the Inqusition post Mortem taken at Croydon Surrey, 8th March, 1595-6, on the estate of Michael’s brother, Robert Forth, D.C.L., as being then of Ivy Lane, parish of St. Faith, London . . . all of whom, either themselves of their sons, came to Massachusetts - married cousins of Mary Forth, it is suspected that Thomas Davenport, of Dorchester (ante, 26), may have been a near relative, and thus been led to come to America.

From this, one could logically surmise that Torrey assumed that Thomas Davenport, Jr. & Sr. were both from the parish of St. Faith at one time. And the only marriage record for a Thomas Davenport to a Mary (Newman) in the parish of St. Faith is this Thomas Davenport, gentleman of Little Ilford, Essex in the London marriage licences, 1521-1869, and both Murrey and B. F. Davenport M.D. believed that this was the same Thomas Davenport in Dorchester.

Are you saying that this Thomas Davenport of Dorchester, is not the son of Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth?

• Jrich, 20 August 2015 wrote

Agreed about the 2 year discrepancy, by itself it would mean little, but it isn't by itself. The mismatch between evidence in New England and evidence in England about martial status at the time that he immigrated is the biggest thing.

The only source cited by Torrey p. 205 [1] that gives the name Mary Newman was the one by Edith Sumner p. 59 [2], that indicated she was said to be Mary Newman. He did not cite the marriage record and does not appear to be aware of it as he did not specify the date given there, rather using "by 1643" which is clearly based on the baptism of Sarah. So I don't think you are right in your supposition about what Torrey was thinking. I don't see that Torrey cited the 33:106 note by Dr. Davenport, and in any event, it doesn't mention anything about who Thomas married. (The cited sources: McCormick-Hamilton 747; TAG 22:206; Blake-Glidden 84; Coltman Anc. 59; Blakeney-Sabin 77; Woodstock 4:449; Reg. 5:398, 33:26, 87:67; Dawes-Gates 1:271, have I think, all been abstracted on the Family page.)

The only thing I see is that one Thomas Davenport, too old to be the immigrant, m. Mary Forth. Another Thomas Davenport in 1663 had an uncle John Evington who is presumably the husband of Mary Forth's sister Dorothy, so this Thomas is presumably Mary's son. Without that reference to his uncle, there would be no evidence Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth even had a son Thomas, but it appears to be a double-edged sword. If Mary Forth had a son Thomas who was in England in 1663 to sign on behalf of his uncle, then correct, Thomas Davenport of Dorchester is not the son of Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth. I wasn't saying it, just reacting to the lack of solid evidence, but yes, I think it actually suggests that conclusion.

The man mentioned in the Croyden Surrey inquisition of 1596 is presumably Mary Forth's husband, because he is ?working on? ?staying at? the estate of Mary's uncle Robert Forth. He is said to live in the parish of St. Faith. If it is his son that married in St. Faith parish Mary Newman in 1639 (although he is said to be of Little Ilford, Essex, and one would assume it is Mary that lives in the parish of St. Faith), well, that works. After all he was in England in 1663 with his wife Mary Newman. Leaving Thomas Davenport of Dorchester properly paired with an unknown Mary.

Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth

• Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica (153597). Vol. 5, Page 220.

Michael Forth was a son of Robert Forth, esq. Clerk of the Privy Seal to Henry VIII. And younger brother to Robert Forth, D.C.L. whose funeral certificate is printed in vol. III. of this work, p. 310. Michael is styled “of Enfield,” in the Visitation of Middlesex, 1663 ; he married Margaret Sawyer ; and had issue besides the above Martha bap. Dec. 2, 1585, who must have died young, a son John, baptized here Dec. 22, 1586, who also died young, as the only son named in the Visitation is Gregory, ob. s. p. ‘ Elizabeth, bap. Aug. 15, 1588, married Ralph Moore of London ; Mary, bap. Feb. 2, 1589-90 ; married to Thomas Davenport ; Dorothy, bap. Feb. 21, 1590-1, married here Apr. 20, 1614 to John Evington of Enfield (see Robinson’s History of Enfield, vol. II. p. 42) ; another Martha, bap. Nov. 3, 1592, and still unmarried 1638 ; and Bridget, bap. May 5, 1594. Besides these, the first daughter mentioned in the Visitation, is Anne, wife of ____Oxton, of Aldenham, Herts.

• Genealogist. Vol. 2, Page 264.

John Evington of Enfield, and of King’s Walden and Sutton, county Bed. S & h 26 June, 1614. Executor to his mother’s will 24 Sept. 1617. Entered his pedigree in the Visitation of Middlesex of 1663, which “THOMAS DAVENPORT signed for his uncle Mr. John Evington.”

• Ryley, William. Visitation of Middlesex Began in the Year 1663.

“THOMAS DAVENPORT signed for his uncle Mr. John Evington.”

Heraldic visitations were tours of inspection undertaken by Kings of Arms (and more often by junior officers of arms (or Heralds) as deputies) throughout England, Wales and Ireland. Their purpose was to regulate and register the coats of arms of nobility and gentry and boroughs, and to record pedigrees. They took place from 1530 to 1688, and their records (akin to an upper class census) provide important source material for historians and genealogists.(Wikipedia).

Thomas Davenport Jr. was a nephew of John Evington through his mother's side of family. Thomas Davenport's mother Mary Forth, was sister to Dorothy Forth. Dorthy Forth was the wife of the above mentioned John Evington in the "Visitation of Middlesex of 1663."