Family talk:William Orcutt and Mary Lane (2)

Mary vs Martha Lane [10 November 2016]

As with many sites, this listing shows William Orcutt/Awcotte with two wives - Mary and Martha Lane. The vast majority of Orcutt researchers have concluded that Mary and Martha are the same person (hence this should list as Mary/Martha Lane and not two entries for Mary Lane and Martha Lane). Most likely, the confusion can be attributed to the administration of William's estate, which was given to Martha Lane (suggesting a second wife). However, there is no source for a second marriage, no source for the death of a Mary Lane separate from a Martha Lane and no source for a different person named Martha Lane. Further, documentation from Martha Lane calls William Orcutt's children her children not her stepchildren, etc. Normally, had Martha been a step mother, she would have referred to the children as such (or in some fashion to indicate she was not their natural mother).

As such, the entry for Martha Lane should be deleted, the child attributed to her should be attributed to William and Mary Orcutt, and the Mary Orcutt entry should be adjusted to reflect the alternate name Martha Orcutt.

Thoughts?--SteveD 19:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence I know of that Martha is Martha Lane. That is a conclusion based on the assumption he had only one wife. His widow is named Martha in two documents but that is a long way from showing she was his only wife. The colonial use of mother and son and daughter is far too vague to be used as evidence. Although... there does not seem to be any evidence he ever had a wife Mary. No mother is named in the baptisms of the children found in Scituate, and there is no wife explicitly named in the marriage record. Apparently, William Orcutt did participate as a heir in the settlement of Andrew Lane's estate, and there was a son Andrew bp. 1667. Andrew Lane is not known to have had a daughter Martha but I believe the idea that William Orcutt married Mary is based on the weakest of genealogical arguments: the process of elimination. In fact, as far as I know, the only reason we know he had a daughter Mary is from the baptism record, and maybe that is the record in error, Martha being read as Mary?

Torrey accepts that there are two marriages, Mary Lane and Martha ---, estimating the second one to be 1668, but I personally discount his estimate because he cites a bunch of secondary sources that give no evidence, so he appears to have no actual evidence of who the mother of each child really was. He probably assumes Andrew Lane's daughter was the mother of Andrew b. 1667, and the next daughter after Andrew is named Martha, but there is a child in between, and no obvious gap where a mourning and remarriage might have occurred, so it seems like complete guesswork. --Jrich 20:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We can probably narrow this down to one of two daughters. Andrew Lane had four daughters - Mary, Abigail, Deborah and Hannah (New England Families Study Project, NEHGS). Discounting for a moment the Mary-William marriage citation ("Andrew Layne's daughter married" NEHGR, 121:115), we know this marriage took place 24-Jan-1663/64. Working backwards, Hannah was born 30-Sep-1658 and Deborah baptized 20-Jun-1652. Assuming Deborah was baptized near her birth, these two daughters would have been too young to marry in 1664. That leaves only Abigail as an alternate choice to have married William. Abigail was born 11-Aug-1642, making her about 21 - plenty old enough to fit the timeline. However, on 27-Dec-1665, Abigail married Daniel Stoddard/Stodder. We know William lived until 1693, so either William and Abigail got married and then quickly divorced (doubtful) or the reference "Andrew Layne's daughter married" refers to Mary. As pointed out, Torrey indicates that William did indeed marry Mary Lane on 24-Jan-1663/64, which brings us to Martha. There is no record of William marrying a Martha anything. Speculation says he married Martha @1668, but with no record, who knows if there was even a marriage. As for William showing up in the settlement of Andrew Lane's estate, it makes sense since he would have been there as Mary/Martha Lane's husband - the inventory reads "The sons & daughters and sons in law of Andrew Lane" and signers include the four sons-in-law - William Orcutt, Daniel Stodder, William Sprague and Jeremiah Beal (in order of daughters age). There would be no other legal reason (or any reason for that matter) for William to have signed a document granting rights in Andrew Lane's estate. Further had Mary Lane died by this time (and William remarried to a Martha) he would not have been included in the estate. By this time (1675), eight of the 12 Orcutt children would have been born. Assuming Mary died shortly thereafter and the next 4 children were borne by "Martha", in Martha's position of administrator of William's estate, she would not have referred to all 12 children as hers (she would have referred to the first 8 as her step children, her brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law (yep, step children were often referred to as in-laws) or some other common designation. Note also onomastically, if the first eight children were in fact Mary's and William called her Martha, then both names are covered as they had a Mary and a Martha prior to the earliest possible death date (1675) for Mary.

in essence, there is no evidence of a second wife and the given assumption of Mary also being called Martha is the most logical.--SteveD 23:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't know Andrew Lane had only 4 daughters, in particular because you don't know when he married, besides the obvious possibility that one might not have been recorded.

You have diary entry of a marriage of a daughter of Andrew Lane, name unknown, and perhaps this is not even William Orcutt's marriage, since he is not explicitly mentioned.

The lack of a record of a 2nd marriage proves absolutely nothing especially since we are talking about a span of 25 or so years within which the 2nd marriage could have possibly occurred. Any random survey of pages will show that many well-accepted marriages of this time period have no record.

If any of the children belonged to a daughter of Andrew Lane, then William could well have had a role as guardian, even if that daughter had died. Somebody would have needed to sign away the right of the minor child. And people are often called sons-in-law long after their spouse died, as they are often called sons when they are sons-in-law, or honored parents when they are step parents, etc. So none of those argument represent strong or convincing evidence.

Bottom line, we know he had a wife named Martha when he died. Andrew Lane had no daughter Martha. The simplest possibility is that there were two wives. To say otherwise would require showing a contemporary record is wrong: either the baptism erred in naming Andrew's daughter Mary, or the two probate documents erred in calling his widow Martha. I would welcome the evidence that one of these is wrong. --Jrich 00:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

while some of your arguments have merit, using your own argument that we can only go by evidence we have in hand, we have to reject the hypothesis that Andrew Lane had additional children (surely they would have shown up somewhere). And the evidence in the estate agreement pretty clearly shows the names of seven of his children or husbands of daughters and pretty clearly lays out the relationship, to wit -

"The sones and daughters and sons in law of Andrew doe agree and fully consent that their mother Triphenie Lane shall have all the estate left by their abouesaid father to improve for her sufficient maintenance as long as she the abouesaid mother lives a widow, as witness our hands unto." Signed by Andrew Lane; the Mark of Ephraim Lane, the mark of X Willliam Orcutt, Daniel Stodder, William Sprague, John Lane, Jeremish Beal."

Not only do they refer to themselves as the sons and daughters and sons in law, but also directly refer to Tripheny as their mother and refer to Andrew Lane as their father. Very little ambiguity here. If William was acting as anything but a son in law, it would certainly be noted in court papers or somewhere else (even in the estate agreement). Also, had he been acting as a guardian, there would have been a probate record from the deceased's estate so naming him - again, pure speculation with no documentary evidence.

There seems little issue with calling Mary Lane William Orcutt's wife. The real question is whether Mary is Martha or not. Since there is no evidence that: 1) Mary died before the birth of all the children, and 2) no evidence that William married a Martha after the undocumented death of Mary, it seems most likely (which is why the vast majority of Orcutt researchers and genealogists concur) that Mary and Martha are one and the same person (and again, Martha calls all of William Orcutt's children her children - not a custom at that time. Custom would have been to differentiate the children, i.e., my husband's children from his first marriage).

And again, your argument that a lack of evidence argues against Martha being Mary also argues against Martha not being Mary. The actual simple explanation given what little evidence we have is that Martha and Mary are, in fact, the same person.--SteveD 04:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no "in fact" about it. You argue lack of evidence, yet you have provided none except hand waving. You want to argue they are the same but you provide no evidence to refute the obvious case that they aren't. Find an image of the handwritten Hobart diary and show the name of Andrew's daughter was misread. Find a deed where William's wife is named Martha before son Andrew was born. Find a church record where William's wife Martha was admitted or dismissed from church. Your case has a serious obstacle to overcome and it is that his widow is proven to be Martha and Andrew Lane is not known to have had a daughter Martha. You and I arguing about this 350 years later mean nothing, it is positive evidence that matters. --Jrich 05:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is time to end the circular argument. You have yet to provide anything that convinces me that Mary Orcutt and Martha Orcutt are two different people and you are obviously not convinced by the court documents calling William Orcutt Andrew and Tripheny Lane's son-in-law. I will come down on teh side of a few generations of genealogists who are convinced that the two Mary/Martha Orcutts are one and the same and you will, I am sure, continue to believe otherwise. Obviously, I cannot prove a negative (did William Orcutt marry a second time - there is no evidence that he did any more than there is evidence he did not call Mary Martha for some reason) and speculation that there is a fifth Lane daughter is also unprovable.--SteveD 19:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Convincing you is not the goal, basing genealogy on evidence is the goal. I am not going to give into impatience for a simple unambiguous answer. Contrary to your statement, I have no problem saying that William Orcutt is probably the son-in-law, in fact, it is exactly that belief that most demands the acceptance of two wives theory, because Andrew Lane had no known daughter named Martha. It is true that I don't view his status as son-in-law as proven because the relationship is not explicitly stated, and other answers are possible, but it seems like the most probably answer. I don't think Andrew Lane had 5 daughters, as there is no evidence, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. I only suggest that because it is the type of anomaly that is needed to make your theory of one wife make sense. The one proven fact is that William's widow was named Martha, not because she was called Martha by William, but because that is what she was called in at least two legal documents written after he died. You want to stick to the traditional view of Andrew Lane's family but you want to ignore the hard facts that contradict that. You either have to change your view of Andrew Lane's family or you have to accept two wives. --Jrich 21:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So, to summarize, you seem to admit William Orcutt probably married Mary Lane and is, as of 1675, the son-in-law of Andrew Lane which pretty much requires us to assign his first 7 children (through Hannah, born @1674) to William and Mary (Lane) Orcutt. Thomas born in 1675 could go either way, and the last 4 would be to either a Mary/Martha Lane or to a Martha Unknown. On a personal note, for me, this is irrelevant since I descend from William. Jr. who would be a son of Mary Lane.

The problem I have here is as I have stated before, the court documents referring to Martha Orcutt also refer to all living children as her children (the assumption being that Deborah and Suzanne had died young since they were not mentioned in any documents). The practice would have been to refer to the first 7 children (and maybe 8) as children of her husband and the remaining children as their (William and Martha's - not Mary) children. However, she does not do this, she calls all the living children her children.

I do fail to see how being called a son in law fails to prove the relationship given that William Orcutt is lumped in with the other known sons in law (sorry, but not being given contradictory evidence sure seems to be to me at least a sure sign of the relationship).

None of what has been presented requires me to either reject the Lane family genealogy or accept the two wives theory. There are multiple instances of people (especially in this time frame) using multiple names (i.e., Nabby for Abigail, etc.). I do accept that Martha would be a unique substitute for Mary but absent a death record for Mary and/or a marriage record for William/Martha, one cannot discount the possibility that Mary and Martha are the same person. And if not, Martha would be the mother of children 9 through 12 (assuming a change in marital status - my records show about a 4 year gap in birth between Thomas and Benjamin - certainly enough to have a death and remarriage). With Thomas being born about 1675, I would be inclined (again absent a marriage date for William and Martha) to assign him to Mary.

Absent such a death and/or marriage record, the weight of the evidence still suggests that William had one wife who, for some reason unknown to us, went by Martha later in life (or even earlier since there is no record known to me calling her Mary except for the Hobart Journal). Who knows, maybe Hobart got it wrong :)

And of course, none of this solves the immediate problem of multiple/duplicative William Orcutts in the werelate database. The best of all possible worlds would be to consolidate the multiple yet duplicate William Orcutts into one with two wives Mary Lane and Martha ? placing the first 7 children as children of Mary Lane (based on the Andrew Lane document), the last 4 as children of Martha ? and Thomas wherever (I would lobby for a child of Mary given the dates and the gap). If the goal of werelate is to provide a concise and accurate collection of data, having more than one William Orcutt (as well as other people) defeats that purpose. Possibly a well-written note attached to William laying out known factoids (the probate record, etc.) along with summarized discussions on differences of opinions would spur further research (if possible) or alternative hypotheses. Imagine the discussion over whether William(1) is a descendant of the Awcotte/Aucotte family or the Urquhart family.--SteveD 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You are cherry picking your facts, choosing to place what I believe is unjustified precision in the usage of the various relationship terms, a precision that can be shown to be violated in many other cases. Meanwhile, you are suggesting that Mary and Martha might be variations of the same name - as far as I know, an equivalence unknown in any other cases. Likewise, the probative value of no record of Mary's death or Martha's is shown by other cases to be of no significance - many cases have been accepted incorrectly because there are no records known of, accepted for hundreds of years, and later evidence is found. Personally, I think the theory that there is one wife is the least likely of the possible answers.

Your basic approach of creating both marriages, and adding notes everywhere to explain the answer is unknown at this time, seems like the only way to go, but since there is absolutely no evidence about when the 2nd marriage occurred, choosing 1675 is pretty arbitrary. I think the best thing to do is use the Torrey estimate since that is what people are most likely to be searching for (1668, with suitable disclaimer that the marriage may not have occurred or occurred at any time from 1668 to 1693). The only other arrangement that I think makes sense would be to give Mary Lane all the children so that their relative birth/baptism spacing can be seen on a single page, but I am worried that this directly contradicts what many sources say and is likely to cause others to undo part of the posting. This being a collaborative website, it should represent a community consensus, not any single person's working hypothesis.

Noticing that I seem to be the one actually naming sources, I think you need to specifically identify what you mean by "a few generations of genealogists", because the sources I find, like Torrey, and all the sources he lists, in general, don't agree. That said, most of them focus on only part of his life, like his connection to the Lanes, or his time in Bridgewater, and I have yet to find a source that does any indepth investigation specifically of William Orcutt. Torrey's sources are exploded in detail below (subject to all the usual complaints about Torrey's lack of discrimination between useful and useless sources, but that is not the point here).

1. Source:Goodenough, Caroline Louisa Leonard. Memoirs of the Leonard, Thompson, and Haskell Families, viewable at familysearch here, p. 7 (image 17): Joseph Leonard m. 1695 Martha Orcutt a daughter of William Orcutt; p. 10 (image 20): William Orcutt's wife was Mary Lane. Statements without explanation or evidence, so no probative value.

2. Source:Fitts, James Hill. Lane Genealogies, Vol. 2, p. 9 has transcript of agreement of heirs of Andrew Lane that William Orcutt signed. Page 10 shows Mary Lane marrying William Orcutt and gives all children to her but no additional evidence beyond the agreement of heirs.

3. Source:Preston, Mary Isabella. Bassett-Preston Ancestors, viewable at familysearch here, p. 170 (image 179) merely lists Andrew Lane's daughter: "Mary, b 1640, m. 1664, William Orcutt." No probative value.

4. Source:NEHGR, Vol. 46, p. 187, "Savage's Genealogical Dictionary Corrections and Additions", contributed by Joseph W. Porter, referring to Volume 3, p. 314: "William¹ Orcutt had two wives & 12 children or more. He d. Bridgwater 1694." No probative value.

4a. For reference Source:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, 3:314: ORCUTT, WILLIAM, Scituate, had, perhaps, b. at Weymouth, William, in 1664, and Andrew; but at S. had John, b. 1669; Martha, 1671; Joseph, 1672; Mary and Hannah, tw. 1674; Thomas, 1675; Benjamin, 1679; Elizabeth 1682; and Deborah, 1683. However, Mitchell adds Susanna, b. prob. aft. his rem. to Bridgewater, and says that all the ch. exc. Elizabeth and Deborah, perhaps then not liv. were nam. in his will of 1694. Mary m. 1697, Daniel Hudson. [Savage appears to have mostly copied from Mitchell.]

4b. For reference Source:Mitchell, Nahum. History of the Early Settlement of Bridgewater, in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, Including an Extensive Family Register, p. 260: "Wm. Orcutt (from Scituate) and his wife Martha, settled in S. B., and had John 1669, Martha 1671, Joseph 1672, Mary and Hannah 1674, Thomas 1675, Benjamin 1679, Elizabeth 1682, Deborah 1683, all b. at Sciutate; in his will 1694, his children mentioned are William 1664, Andrew, John, Joseph, Thomas, Benjamin, Martha, Mary, Hannah, and Susanna. - Wm. and Andrew were probably born at Weymouth or elsewere before he went to Scituate, and susanna perhaps in B. - Thomas, Benjamin and Susanna were minors. - Elizabeth and Deborah, not mentioned, probably not living. - Mary m. Daniel Hudson 1697. - Andrew and Benjamin we have no account of. - Joseph sold land here 1697, and speaks of himself as formerly of B. - Thomas sold land and a small house near Joseph Alden's 1700." [Mitchell has been seriously downgraded as a reliable source. Note that William had no will, see the probate abstract on Family:William Orcutt and Martha Unknown (1). It appears Mitchell rather imprecisely referred to the agreement of heirs as a will. Mitchell's attributing the son John to Martha in 1669 may be why Torrey placed the marriage in 1668.]

5. Source:Chamberlain, George Walter. History of Weymouth, Massachusetts, Vol. 4 viewable at [1], p. 447 is image 29: "Andrew² Orcut, son of William¹ Orcutt of Marshfield, Scitate and Bridgewater, was baptized at Scituate (now Norwell) 24 Mar. 1667; mentioned in his father's will in 1694. ..." No mention of mother's name or any further coverage of William. Useless.

6. Torrey lists Bridgewater 249. Bridgewater is the handle for Mitchell's History of Bridgewater mentioned above. Nothing on p. 249 (covering LITTLEFIELD to LOVELL) refers to William or his wives, so presumably this meant to refer to Bridgewater p. 260. Torrey citations frequently give an incorrect page number. The contents of p. 260 were already mentioned above (#4b) because Savage cited Mitchell as source of some of his information.

7. Source:Genealogical Advertiser : A Quarterly Magazine of Family History (Lucy Hall Greenlaw), vol. 3, p. 100 gives an abstract of the probate file of William Orcutt naming wife Martha. A direct abstract is already posted on Family:William Orcutt and Martha Unknown (1). The reference to Vol. 4, p. 89, abstracting the agreement of heirs of William and naming widow Martha is also already cited on the same page.

8. Source:Tingley, Raymon Meyers. Some Ancestral Lines, p. 11 [On familysearch.org, p. 11 is image 11]: "Elizabeth Randall ... Married --, Benjamin Orcutt, of Sicutate, Mass., son of William and Martha, b. ---, 1679..." No probative value.

9. Source:Snow, Nora Emma. Snow-Estes Ancestry, p. 2:141 [I accessed this on heritagequest.com where the cited page was image 840, familysearch.org catalog says it may be accessed (for free) by using a computer in any Family History Center]: Edmund Tilson m. "(2) Plymouth, Mass., Dec. 25, 1706, Hannah, per. dau. William and Martha Orcutt, b. Scituate, Mass., 1674". No probate value. --Jrich 05:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)