Family:James Minot and Rebecca Jones (1)

Samuel Minot versus James Minot

The marriage record obviously shows Rebecca marrying James, and this is used by Savage and several others to name him as her first husband. There is a long footnote in the article "Was Nathaniel Jones, Who Married Mary Rediat in 1696, a Son or Grandson of John and Dorcas (---) Jones of Concord, Massachusetts?" by Ann L. Dzindolet, NEHGR, p. 163:109 (hereafter called Dzindolet), discussing why she believes Rebecca married Samuel Minot of Dorchester instead of his cousin James Minot of Dorchester. The basic argument, which makes a lot of sense, though it is not entirely convincing, is summarized and discussed below.

Traditionally, as taken from Source:NEHGR, p. 1:174-5, "The Minot Family" by Lemuel Shattuck (hereafter called Shattuck), John Minot and Lydia Butler of Dorchester had a son Samuel who m. Hannah Jones of Concord. He was a brother to James Minot who married Rebecca Wheeler, and also had a brother John who d. 1690. His cousin, James Minot, son of James Minot and Hannah Stoughton, m. Rebecca Jones.

Not really involved, but providing confusion, Samuel also had an uncle Samuel Minot, much older, who m. Hannah Howard. A death record in Dorchester says one of the Samuels d. 1690, and Shattuck says it is this uncle, though Dzindolet chooses to apply this date to the nephew. An index of Suffolk County Probate in TAG, p 14:35 and 14:37, lists two probate files for Samuel Minott in 1691, the content of one listed as the appointing of an administrator, their bond, and an inventory; the contents of the other being guardianship of a son Samuel. NEHGR, p. 29:41, abstracts from Suffolk Co. Probate Files from 1691 pertaining to the Howard family, include one indicates that "Samuel Minnott, son of Sam'l Minott, late of R. I., dec'd, & wife Hannah, one of the daughter of said Robt. [Howard]" chose guardian Edward Creeke of Boston. This strongly suggests that the death date on 18 Dec 1690 is the uncle (contrary to Dzindolet), and since his son was over 14 in 1691, the Samuel b. 1688, who will be discussed below, does not belong to that uncle (contrary to Shattuck).

Dzindolet's objection starts with the record on 1 Apr 1701, where Joseph Bulkeley, having married Rebecca Minot, posts bond as guardian of "Jonathan Minot, son of Samuel Minot of Dorchester, a minor of about twelves years of age." The assumption is that Jonathan would be a son of Rebecca by a previous marriage, and if this record is correct, it implies that Rebecca's husband was Samuel Minot, not James. The presence of the name James in the marriage record is explained as confusion with the James Minot who m. Rebecca Wheeler, who, living in Concord would be familiar to the Concord town clerk recording the marriage.

According to Dzindolet, once he turned 14, Jonathan Minot chose his uncle John Minot as guardian. The significance of this is not explained thoroughly by Dzindolet, but presumably this is meant to imply that Samuel is his father, as James is not known to have a brother John. However, Dorchester records have a death record for John Minot in 1690, which must be Samuel's brother, John³. The father of John and Samuel (John ²) d. 1669, and the only other John born before 1690 is John's son, John⁴, who married in 1696 and so did not die in 1690. According to church records, on 19 Apr 1691 "John & Israell Minot ... ye children of John Minot deceased" owned the convenant (p. 15), and the same day "John Israell Josiah Georg Jerusha The sons & dafters of John Minot who dyed he & his wife in ye Smal pox lately" were baptized (p. 202). Thus the presumed uncle John, Samuel's brother, died in 1690. The only other John Minot who was old enough to be a guardian in 1707 appears to be the son John⁴, b. 1672, who owned the covenant in 1691. The problem is that he would be a cousin, not an uncle, if terms are used appropriately. Since he is a first cousin to one, and second cousin to the other, a loose interpretation of uncle meaning "older cousin" seems like it might apply to either case.

Shattuck cites a deed in 1725 (though Dzindolet appears to rely on this deed as well, she points out that it cannot be found) wherein Jonathan Minot and his brother in law Joseph Hubbard (who married Rebecca's daughter by Joseph Bulkeley, Rebecca Bulkeley) sell to Thomas Jones of Concord "the whole right of their mother, Rebecca Bulkeley, deceased[,] in Acton[,] allowed to the heirs of her father John Jones and to Dorothy Hunt, deceased, the former wife of Samuel Hunt, one of the heirs of Rebecca Bulkeley". This seems to prove that Rebecca had a son Jonathan by her husband Mr. Minot, but the deed has no information that helps identify the husband. If you believe the marriage record, his father was James, but if you believe the guardian record, his father was Samuel.

Since Dzindolet is challenging the traditional view, she is championing Samuel as father. Since Jonathan's age of 12 on 1 Apr 1701 implies a birth in 1689 or even 1688, Dzindolet suggests that the birth found in Dorchester records for Samuel, s/o Samuel, on 23 Nov 1688 (p. 34), should have said Jonathan, being the right age and also 9 months after the marriage date of Rebecca, as recorded in Concord. However, she ignores that Dorchester records also have a death record of Samuel, s/o Samuel, 1 Jun 1689 (p. 121). Not only does this death record suggest that the birth of Samuel in 1688 was actually for Samuel, and not Jonathan, it also makes it difficult for Samuel to have a son Jonathan that was 12 by 1 Apr 1701.

Shattuck, in contrast, gives the Samuel, b. 1688 and d. 1689, to the 53 year old uncle Samuel (refuted above); gives the younger Samuel and wife Hannah Jones one son Jonathan to account for the person who in 1707 chose as guardian his apparently dead uncle John; and gives a different son Jonathan to James, to account for the person who sold the land inherited from John Jones by Rebecca (Jones) (Minot) Bulkeley.

Clearly the records do not paint a coherent picture and there is either an error in the records, or missing information or missing people that are needed to make sense of this. Some of the logic is resting on strict readings of records that may not be so precise (the term "uncle", age "about" 12). There are many assumptions throughout (that there was one or two Jonathans, which Samuel died in 1690, etc.) In the end, it does not appear that either Shattuck or Dzindolet has it figured out, entirely. Since the marriage record says James, and since Dorchester records appear to have Samuel ruled out by having a son Samuel about the same time Rebecca's apparent son Jonathan was born, it seems that James is the more likely, though certainly not a confident, answer.

1. ↑ Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States. Births, Marriages, and Deaths, 1635-1850. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1891)
   27.

   James Minot & Rebekah Jones both of Concord were joyned in marriage by the same Minister February 9th. 1687-8.