Family talk:Samuel Packard and Elizabeth Unknown (1)

Comments on this family [1 February 2010]

The Genealogy of Samuel Packard by Theophilus Packard, presumably an authority on this family, seems ignorant of even some readily available facts, so not sure how reliable it is, and hence I felt it necessary to re-evalute the whole family from scratch. Unfortunately, Hingham appears to have no substantial number of vital records recorded before about 1660, Bridgewater was a new town in 1656 and didn't have a minister until 1664. So there seem to be very few actual records on this family and everything must be done by deduction and assumption.

Evidence

Most the facts here seem pretty reliable.

Based on the will of Samuel Packard assumed to be in order of birth

• Sons: Samuel [eldest] - Zaccheus - John - Nathaniel
• Daughters: Mary - Hannah - Jael - Deborah - Deliverance

Based on Source:Pope, Charles Henry. Pioneers of Massachusetts, p. 338, assumed to be taken from Hingham Church records and also in birth order

• Baptized 19 Jul 1646: Elizabeth, Samuel, Hannah and Israel.
• Baptized 20 Apr 1651: Zaccheus, Jane and Abigail
• Baptized 11 Jul 1652: Deliverance

Other Constraints:

• Mary: child b. 1657 so b. about 1637 (VR Weymouth)
• All children appear to be of age at time of will in 1684, so all born before 1666 (MD 15:254)
• John b. 20 Jul 1655 (VR Weymouth)
• The father Samuel came to New England with wife and one child on Diligent, settled in Hingham (granted land in 1638), in Weymouth 1655 (birth of John), then to Bridgewater (Constable 1664).

Conclusions

Many people suspect Elizabeth is the child who came from England, but it must have been Mary to allow her to have married and had a child by 1657. Presumably she was baptized in England and that is why there is no baptism record for her. This suggests Elizabeth was the first child born in New England, so probably about 1639 or 1640.

There is no baptism record of Thomas. He is said (by the Packard Genealogy) to have been living in 1673 and had a son Joseph. Neither Thomas nor Joseph are mentioned in Samuel's will. The evidence is not detailed, so to make any progress, I must guess at its nature. I assume that it is all of one record, i.e., the 1673 mention of Thomas is in connection with the birth or baptism of son Joseph in Bridgewater. This leads me to assume that this Thomas should be born by 1652 to be of legal age to marry and have a child by 1673. If this was the case, his baptism should have been recorded by Pope, but since it wasn't, I assume he is unrelated person. I believe it was likely that he has been placed in this family based on the popular, but dangerous assumption, that he belongs simply because he is a Packard in Bridgewater at the same time as Samuel's family. Obviously, this assessment could change if the evidence of the Packard Genealogy was presented in detail, and found to differ from my assumption.

Jael is clearly Samuel's daughter, but she was the second wife of an apparently older man, John Smith (John's first wife was born in 1631). Further her husband's will mentions his wife's son Nicholas Jones (NEHGR 59:108), but she is named "Jaell Packer" when she married him. So Nicholas Jones may well have been an illegitimate child. She m. 1672, suggesting a birth by 1654, but allowing time for the birth of Nicholas, probably earlier. At first blush, one might suspect Jael is a form of the Abigail (i.e., Abi - jael) record in the baptism record, but see below, also.

Jane's WeRelate page shows a marriage with a Cecil Young, but with no sources cited, and given that Jane is not mentioned in the will of 1684, if such a marriage happened, it must have been short with no children. There is not a single Cecil Young mentioned in any of NEHGS's collections or anywhere in Mayflower Descendant. I pretty much discounted this purported marriage.

The number of baptisms recorded by Pope is a reasonable number of child to fill the years 1638 to 1652: 7 in 14 years. It is hard to think of squeezing in too many additional children. The will mentions the daughters Elizabeth - Hannah - Jael - Deborah - Deliverance. This is either out of order, or else Jael is Jane and Deborah is Abigail, in which case the order of the will matches that of the baptisms. I am not aware of any evidence that lets us estimate Deborah's birth with enough precision to decide if she was born before or after Deliverance. The list of daughters in Samuel's will is a single list whose purpose is to name all his daughters, and I personally tend to think that listing children in birth order in a will is a strong and natural inclination for a loving parent, so I slightly favor the Jane=Jael and Abigail=Deborah theory over arrangements adding more children to this family.

John is clearly born after Deliverance (recorded in 1655 versus her baptism in 1652), and there is no reason not to believe that Nathaniel is younger than John as the will ordering suggests, so their absence from the baptism recorded in Hingham is not a problem.

My final ordering then becomes Mary abt. 1637, Elizabeth abt. 1640, Samuel abt. 1642, Hannah abt. 1644, Israel abt. 1646, Zaccheus abt. 1647, Jane/Jael abt. 1649, Abigail/Deborah abt. 1651, Deliverance abt. 1652, John 1655, Nathaniel say 1657. (For comparison, the Packard Genealogy list is Elizabeth, Samuel, Zaccheus, Thomas, John Nathaniel, Mary, Hannah, Israel, Jael, Deborah, Deliverance, which if it is intended to represent birth order, is clearly wrong in several aspects.)

Clearly, though, it must be recognized that any one of the contributing assumptions for this ordering could be wrong. The opinions are opinions, yours may vary, but I hope readers may contribute contemporary evidence that I may have overlooked. --Jrich 13:19, 1 February 2010 (EST)