Family talk:Thomas Davenport and Mary Pitman (2)

three? [20 August 2015]

So by all appearances now, there appears to be information for three different couples on this single page.

There is apparently a Thomas and Mary Davenport of Essex county who were married by, and had a child in, 1638, apparently not the people in New England as there is no sign of a daughter Elizabeth coming from England. One would guess, of course, this is Thomas Davenport and Mary Forth, and it is not clear why it was posted on this page.

There is a Thomas and Mary (Newman) Davenport who got married in Middlesex county about 1639.

There is a Thomas and Mary (---) Davenport in New England who don't appear to have married until 1643. --Jrich 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil Reason to re-marry? [20 August 2015]

While we think of the early New England settlers as very religious, they actually viewed marriage as a civil contract, not a religious contract.

It was ordered, that the new married man shall stand likewise bound to bring in a certificate of his marriage, under the hand of a magistrate, which married him, to the clerk of the writs.

As early as 1639, ten years only after the founding of that colony, the general court, convened at Boston the 4th of September, ordered and decreed, five days later, that "there be records kept of ... the days of "every marriage, birth, and death of every person within this jurisdiction."

I believe it could have been possible, for these already married couples to appear and re-marry before a magistrate to obtain the legal certificate for civil reason...?--Samples 59 18:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Registration Laws in the Colonies of Massachusetts Bay and New Plymouth

Robert René Kuczynski

Publications of the American Statistical Association

Vol. 7, No. 51 (Sep., 1900), pp. 1-9

Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the American Statistical Association

DOI: 10.2307/2276444

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2276444

I can't think of one other case of that (people remarrying). Not one. And there must have been thousands of couples who married in England. In any event they wouldn't get remarried, they would get an acquaintance to testify that they knew them to married so they wouldn't be punished for illegal congress, etc. Further if they thought they were married in 1639, they still should have started having children. The vast majority of couples had children about a year after marriage and every two years after that.

And that doesn't answer why a birth one year before the marriage was posted.

There is absolutely nothing to connect the New England man to the 1639 marriage except the commonality of the names Thomas, Mary and Davenport, all common names (incidentally, corresponding exactly to the names of his parents, so didn't have to look far for an example).

There is much to refute it: his origins are in a different place than the marriage, his age at marriage is off by 2 years from his age at death, he appears unmarried after this date, a there is a very untypical 4 year gap until the first known child. There is a reason why 9 of Torrey's sources gave no surname for his wife, and the tenth only noted "said to be": because there is no evidence that is genealogically solid. --Jrich 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. not even sure why this is a relevant topic as there is no marriage record for Thomas Davenport found in New England. If there was, the answer would be much clearer. --Jrich 21:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Plus or Minus Age Discrepency [20 August 2015]

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.

Also, Your right about this Elizabeth Davenport, probably a daughter of Thomas Davenport Sr. and Mary Forth. "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N5M3-9BN : accessed 20 August 2015), Elizabeth Davenport, 26 Sep 1638; citing LITTLE ILFORD,ESSEX,ENGLAND, reference ; FHL microfilm 857,062.

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

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 that gives the name Mary Newman was the one by Edith Sumner, 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. --Jrich 23:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)