Person talk:Catherine Butler (14)

Katherine Leete parentage: Following found on website... On 8 Oct 1673 Thomas third married Catherine Leete, daughter of Gov. William Leete (ca 1613-16 Apr 1683) & Anna Payne (-1 Sep 1668), in Middletown, CT. Catherine died on 13 Oct 1693 in Middletown, CT. Catherine first married Samuel Roberts, second Thomas Wetmore. [needs researching, citing]

Just checked book 'The Family of William Leete, one of the First Settlers of Guilford, Conn., and Governor of...' No Katherine is listed as William's daughter (all by Anna Payne, 1st wife). Also, none of William's 3 sons left a relict, Katherine.

Here's an interesting part of discussion on GenForum:

'There is a big question as to whether or not Katherine/Catherine was a Roberts, Butler, or a Leete. It was my belief, and now my knowledge, that she was Catherine Butler Roberts Leete Whitmore. I can now prove it.

Thomas Whitemore/Wetmore married Catherine Leete. At the time of the marriage, she had three sons by the name of Robards.

See (1) Barbour Collection (two entries in Middletown: (under Leete) "Catherine, m Thomas WETTMORE Sr., Oct 8, 1673" and (under Wetmore)" Thomas Sr, m Catherine LEETE, Oct 8, 1673") (2) Births, Marriages, etc. NEHGR 14:136 which states on page 136, "Thomas Wetmore, senr., m. Catharine Leete(?), Oct 8. 1673" and (3) Torrey's New England Marriages Prior to 1700.WETMORE, Thomas ( -1681) & 3rd wife Katherine LEETE/LEEKS/LOCKE/ROBERTS? (-1693); m. 8 Oct 1673;Middletown, CT (This looks like the source that confuses whether Catharine was a Leete or Roberts first). If you ask I can give you Torrey's sources.

The three Wetmore children of Catharine and Thomas Whitmore are named in Catharine/Catorne's will and the will of Thomas Wetmore proving the Catharine who married a Mr. Roberts was the same Catharine Leete who later married Thomas Wetmore.

If Catharine was widow Roberts when she married Thomas Wetmore, why was she going by the name Leete? See Barbour and "Births, Marriage, etc. of Middletown" published in NEHGR Vol14:68. Neither source has anything on Samuel Roberts, Sr., Catharine Roberts or the births of the three boys. I do not believe Samuel Roberts, Sr. was ever in Middletown and that his marriage and births of the boys took place somewhere else - possibly Guilford or New Haven, New Haven Co., or somewhere else in Connecticut.

The real proof that Katherine was a Butler is found in the Will of William Pennoyer, Esq. 25 May 1670, proved 13 Feb 1670. NEHGR Vol.45 pages 158-9. Page 159 states, in part:

"To Katherine Butler alias Roberts, sister to the aforesaid Evan Butler, five pounds to be paid to her own hands."

Neal, you really have gotten into this! Donald Lines Jacobus mentioned this will in an article and suggested the possibility that Katherine/Catherine was the same Katherine Butler and pointed this out as a good line of research. While I wouldn't consider it proven and wouldn't have changed Leete as her surname here, I'm glad to see that you made the jump. I will eventually add her Roberts sons and a bit about them as my third generation Wetmore, Joseph Jr., married Abigail Roberts, a granddaughter of Catherine. I've had some email correspondence with a Roberts descendant (I don't know which of the sons) and he says he has been to Cusop and can find nothing in the way of evidence, but he, too, wants to consider it. I had intended to set up a page for discussion, but see you have it well under way. Hal Whitmore

Hey Hal, Guess I did take a "leap of faith", but I was always leery of the Leete record I added some time ago (an "incomplete" feeling), with a note to pursue further. Without excuses, I have to rely on free sources for now; memberships are not currently in my budget. I'm a former genealogical librarian; my strength is "sorting out truth from fiction" (which seemed evident re:Leete/Roberts/Wetmore}. I have a decent genealogical department here in Trumbull Co., Ohio & a dozen "cousins" working on various lines. My Dad's side is heavily New England. When I first joined Werelate, many of the lines were sketchy and I took it upon myself to "fill in" individuals using mostly CT Vital Records when I could find them. This is true of the Wetmore lines. I'm getting off topic here, my apologies. You will probably find 80% of contributors here are reasonable and cooperative, with varying degrees of genealogical knowledge. I'd say that more than 50% are "absent landlords" of information they contributed. Another much smaller percentage are condescending and insulting, and view themselves as the "Genealogy Elite". They drive me a little crazy; my motto, "Each one, teach one", not "I'm just a little more superior than you". I'll be sure to follow and respond to your Wetmore "clean-up". My line ending in the Beardslee/Beardsley connection is mostly based on clues and indirect evidence. I'll be happy to help out whenever I can. Carry on, Hal ! --Neal Gardner 12:18, 24 May 2013 (EDT)