Person:John Clough (5)

Watchers
Browse
  1. John Clough1669 - Bef 1670
  2. Deacon John Clough1670 - 1744
  3. Ebenezer Clough1671 -
  4. Mary Clough1673 -
  5. Susanna Clough1674/75 -
  6. Samuel Clough1677 -
  7. Mercy Clough1683 -
  8. Abigail Clough1687 -
  • HDeacon John Clough1670 - 1744
  • WMary Beard - 1736
m. 12 Apr 1693
  1. Elizabeth Clough1706 - 1798
m. 14 Oct 1737
Facts and Events
Name[1][4] Deacon John Clough
Gender Male
Christening[2] 24 Apr 1670 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Marriage 12 Apr 1693 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United Statesto Mary Beard
Marriage 14 Oct 1737 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United Statesto Abigail Stacy
Death[3] 24 Sep 1744 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States

Said to have been a descendant of Richard Clough of Denbigh, Flintshire County, Wales. (An Account of John Glover). John was admitted to the Old South Church 31 Jan 1696. Founding member of New South Church in 1715.

References
  1. Glover, Anna. Glover Memorials and Genealogies: An Account of John Glover of Dorchester, Massachusetts and His Descendants, with a Brief Sketch of Some of the Glovers who First Settled in New Jersey, Virginia and Other Places. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States: David Clapp & Sons, Printers , 1867)
    p. 245-47.

    John Clough, b. 1669, bp. First Church Boston 6 Jun 1669-70 [sic, no double dating for June], d. Boston 17 [sic, records say 24] Sep 1744, m. 12 Apr 1693 Mary Beard. Deacon of the Third Church.
    [Note: see note below.]

  2. "First Church", in Dunkle, Robert J., and Ann S. Lainhart. Records of the Churches of Boston and the First Church, Second Parish, and Third Parish of Roxbury: including baptisms, marriages, deaths, admissions, and dismissals: (1600s-1800s). (Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001)
    p. 225.

    John the son of our brother John Clough was bapt. the 24th day of the 2d moneth 1670
    [Note: In old-styles dates, the second month is April. More info may be found here.]

  3. Dunkle, Robert J., and Ann S. (Ann Smith) Lainhart. Deaths in Boston 1700 to 1799. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, c1999).

    John Clough age 75 y [died] 24 Sep 1744
    [citing a small volume of Deaths in Boston, author known, also citing index of deaths in Boston City Hall Arcives]

  4. The record of births in Boston include the birth of John Clough 11 Apr 1669 to John and Mary Clough.

    The records of the First Church of Boston include two baptisms:
    "John Clough the sone of our brother John Clough bapt. June 6, 1669"
    "John the son of our brother John Clough was bapt. the 24th day of the 2d moneth 1670" [24 Apr 1670]

    As these dates bear no resemblance to each other (not a simple typo), it would appear to be two distinct baptisms. Given the first birth in April, if an infant chanced to die very soon after the 1669 baptism, it would be possible to have another child in time to account for the second baptism. One would expect, in normal practice, that the 6 Jun 1669 baptism would go with the 11 Apr 1669.

    Another possibility is that these are children of two couples, John and Elizabeth of Boston, and John and Mary of Boston. Beyond "died in 1668" little seems to be said of the death of John, husband of Elizabeth. A death in 1668 would mean that he could only be the parent of the first baptism, and then only if his death was late in the second half of the year, something we don't have enough information to confirm or refute. Neither baptism, however, shows signs of being for a deceased father.

    The son John's death in 1744 shows an age of 75y. This is a birth in 1669, but age at death is not precise enough to distinguish between a birth in 1669 and 1670. If this record (actually an index entry of a record) was actually "in the 75th year", then it would 1670. Besides all the other math and memory errors commonly seen with age at death.

    This family has limited coverage. Most prominent seems to be the Glover book cited. This source implies by positioning and the use of "Jr." but without explicitly stating or giving evidence, that John is the son of John and Elizabeth Clough It does not discuss that there were a John and Mary in Boston. It gives no details about the father' death beyond "1668", nor any basis for its assertion of this parentage. Further, its coverage of the ancestry of John and Elizabeth seems wrong, showing him to be the son of John Clough of Salisbury. However, Source:Speare, Eva Clough. Genealogy of the Descendants of John Clough of Salisbury, Massachusetts, published by the John Clough Genealogical Society, says that John, the son of John Clough of Salisbury, wasn't born until 1649 and married 1674 Mercy Page, both events found in the Salisbury records. All in all, the Glover book presents no hard evidence of who John's parents were, and shows no signs of having done any real research on the issue.

    Because of the tight window surrounding the 1668 death of the husband of Elizabeth, making him an unlikely father, and the lack of precise information which raises doubts, it is assumed that the 1669 baptism goes with the 1669 birth, as would be normal practice. This suggests that both those events belong to John and Mary. It follows, then, that the 1670 baptism is probably a second infant of the same couple.

    Just to confuse things, there is a birth record for "John of John Clough" in Boston 2 May 1676. Clearly this is not the deacon's birth, nor a child of his, both conclusions based on the age at death setting his birth around 1669, so it probably belongs to a different John Clough. One would assume this might be a son John of John and Elizabeth. He would have to be born bef 1655 to be the father of a child b. 1676, and John and Elizabeth have in Boston a daughter Priscilla in 1654 and a daughter Elizabeth in 1658, before the father dies in 1668, so having a son before 1655 seems plausible. Priscilla's birth, however, is the earliest record of a Clough birth found so this is speculative, except for being able to rule out any connection to Deacon John Clough.