Person:John Mirick (4)

John Mirick
b.Abt 1614
  1. Lt. William MyrickAbt 1602 - Bef 1688/89
  2. James MirickAbt 1612 - Bet 1678/79 & 1708
  3. John MirickAbt 1614 - 1678/79
  4. Thomas MerrickAbt 1620 - 1704
m. 1641
  1. Hopestill Mirick1642/43 - 1712
  2. Benjamin Mirick1644 - Bef 1726
  3. Amathia MirickEst 1646 - 1713
  4. John Mirick1655 - 1706
  5. Sarah Mirick1657 -
  6. Mercy Mirick1658 -
  7. Abigail Mirick1660/61 -
  8. Hannah Mirick - 1714
  9. Joseph MirickAbt 1662 -
  10. James Mirick
  11. Mary Mirick
Facts and Events
Name[1] John Mirick
Gender Male
Birth[1] Abt 1614
Marriage 1641 Charlestown, Suffolk, Massachusettsto Hopestill _____
Death[1] 15 Feb 1678/79 Charlestown, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States
Reference Number G53F-6X (Ancestral File)
Reference Number MJP3-FK (Ancestral File)

In Genealogy of the Merrick--Mirick--Myrick Family of Massachusetts [1902], pp. 94-95, George B. Merrick presents the deductions of Rev. Edward A. Mirick of Dryden, NY regarding the parentage of John Mirick of Charlestown, based on 'family tradition' and 'historical gleanings'. He concludes that is it reasonable to suppose that the father of William, James, John and Thomas Merrick of New England was Sion (John) Meyrick of St. Davids, Pembrokeshire, Wales.

The argument used to support what Rev. Mirick admits is 'pure assumption', is not a strong one, invoking the 'similarity of the family (given) names'; the fact that the brothers sailed from Bristol, 'the nearest prominent sea-port to St. Davids'; and the fact that James and John held occupations 'common among the sea-faring population of St. Davids'. Yet the only male names in common between the family of Sion of St. Davids and the New England families are John, William, Thomas and James (the last if you count Sion's great-grandfather), the first 3 of which were the most common male names of the time. The New England families do not include Owen, Roland or Robert, names appearing in the family of Sion of St. Davids.

Furthermore, Rev. Mirick calculates Sion's birth year as approx. 1579 (based on a standard 33-year gap between generations), while on page 7, Merrick presents information from the Visitation of Pembrokeshire of 1591, which shows that Sion of St. Davids had 2 children by 1591. Thus, Sion was born at least a decade before 1579, making it less likely that he would have had a son born as late as 1620 (the immigrant Thomas' approximate birth year).

On the whole, it appears that it would be best to say that the ancestry of the Miricks who arrived in New England in 1636 is unknown. Dawes-Gates (1931) does not give much credence to the ancestry presented by Merrick. Other than that, I am not aware of anything published on the matter since 1902.

--DataAnalyst 22:39, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

References
  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Merrick, George Byron. Genealogy of the Merrick-Mirick-Myrick Family of Massachusetts, 1636-1902. (Madison, Wis.: Tracy, Gibbs, & Co., 1902)
    pages 94-100.

    p. 100: 'The John Mirick whom we assume to have been the brother of James, was born in Wales in 1614.'
    'He died Feb. 15, 1678-9. His will was proved 1678-9, and his estate was administered by his brother James, of Newbury, who appears to have also retained a dwelling in Charlestown. The will cannot be found, ...'

    This source speculates that the brothers came from Wales, but the argument has been discounted. The estimate of the birth year, however, might be based on other information, and thus might be reasonably accurate.

  2.   Ferris, Mary Walton. Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines: A Memorial Volume Containing the American Ancestry of Rufus R. Dawes; and A Memorial Volume Containing the American Ancestry of Mary Beman (Gates) Dawes. (Milwaukee, WI: Cuneo Press, 1931-1943)
    2:581.

    'William Merrick, born [citing Mayflower Descendant, X, 7-8] about 1600-3, perhaps in Wales, is said to have come to New England [citing Merrick Genealogy, G.B. Merrick, 1902, pp. 13-8] with the usual "three brothers" in the "James" in the spring of 1636. While proof of this statement has not been found, he was certainly here before October of that year, at which time he received a grant of land in Plymouth and answered an action in Court there [citing Plymouh Colony Records, I, pp. 44-5].'