Person talk:Andrew Durkee (1)

Origins? [9 February 2010]

The original state of this page was Person:William Durkee (1) to Family:William Durkee and Unknown (1) to Person:John Durkee (2) to Family:John Durkee and Unknown (2) to Person:John Durkee (1) to Family:John Durkee and Unknown (1) to Person:Andrew Durkee (1) to Family:Andrew Durkee and Unknown (1) to Person:Bartholmew Durkee (1) to Family:Bartholmew Durkee and Unknown (1) to Person:Theodosia Durkee (1) before any dates or locations were found. Interest piqued, I followed this forward from the beginning, and backward from the end, and it is linking Andrew to his parents that seems to be the problem in completing the chain. In Source:Horr, Norton T. Record of Descendants of Hezekiah Hoar of Taunton, Massachusetts, p. 16, it says John Horr m. Theodosia Durkee (Bartholomew⁵, Andrew⁴, John³, John Durgee², William Dirkey¹). I believe this single line, or something similar, is the source for all those empty pages that were originally entered into WeRelate.

The problem showing Andrew as the son of John³ (i.e., John Jr. and Mary Lee) is that Andrew and his wife Mary had a son Bartholomew 14 Jan 1738/39. For Andrew to have been of legal age in 1738 to marry and have Bartholomew, he would have needed to be born probably before 1717. Now, his alleged parents married in late 1713 and had recorded daughters born in 1716, 1718, and 1721 before moving to Connecticut and having another daughter. There is no sign of a son, and while it is possible they had an unrecorded son born in late 1714 or early 1715, one wonders if this makes sense when all their daughters were recorded. No son is mentioned in the article Source:Connecticut Nutmegger (Connecticut Society of Genealogists), p. 19:425, "Which Mary Durkee Married Ebenezer Wallbridge", and basically, I have found nothing to indicate there was a son in this family?

John² and Elizabeth Parsons had a son Andrew³ and some sources identify the husband of Mary as this Andrew (e.g., Source:Harvey, Oscar Jewell. History of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, p. 481). However, according to the Nutmegger article, the "recapitulation" of the family John² in Windham County records, after he moved to Connecticut, indicates that his 2nd son, Andrew³, b. 1692, d. young. However again, it then adds, there is evidence this is not true and that he married Abigail Townsend in Boston. At least, Source:Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States. Boston Marriages, 1700-1751, p. 75, shows Andrew Durgee and Abigail Townsend married by Rev. Mr. John Webb on 30 Dec 1718. Then, Source:Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts, United States. Boston Births from A.D. 1700 to A.D. 1800 shows children Abigail b. 1720 d. 1720, Samuel b. 1721 d. 1721, Abigail (again) 1723, Mary 1726, and Andrew 1728. According to a follow-on article (Source:Connecticut Nutmegger (Connecticut Society of Genealogists), p. 21:401.), Abigail m. 1739 George Taylor, and as Abigail Taylor signed a receipt for her [daughters'] share in the estate of John², proving that Andrew³ did not die young, but also that he was not Bartholomew⁵'s father, having been married to Abigail, not Mary until his death. Obviously Andrew³'s son Andrew⁴ would be too young, being only 12 at the time of Bartholomew's birth.

Of John²'s son, only John³, Andrew³, and Jeremiah³ are old enough to have a son Andrew born bef. 1717. Jeremiah's will of 3 Jan 1724/5 mentions a wife Elizabeth, but no children, and if she remarried his estate was to go to his brothers and sisters, indicating he had no children (Source:Windham, Windham, Connecticut, United States. Probate Records, 1719-1918, p. 1:9).

So if Andrew was in the line of John², he must have been the son of John³. But without some evidence, it is not clear how it has been ruled out that he is not descended from one of the other sons of William¹, such as the Andrew listied in the Windham VR, p. 110: Durkee, Andrew, s. Thomas & Elizabeth, b. Feb. 2, 1715. --Jrich 00:32, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Additional information [9 February 2010]

JRich, this piqued my interest just a bit... I found a couple of pieces of information that may perhaps be of help. The Ancestry of the Harry Chandler. Quoting a small section, it says (of Eunice Durkee): "Her father, Andrew Durkee was born November 25, 1716 in East woodstock, the son of Thomas Durkee and Elizabeth Ford Durkee, and the grandson of the immigrant, William Durgy and his wife, Martha Cross Durgy.

Her mother, Mary Bartholomew was born February 10, 1719 in Branford, New Haven, Connecticut, the fourth child and only daughter of the six children born to Joseph and Elizabeth Sanger Bartholomew. The senior Bartholomews died on October 15, 1724, probably as the result of a fire sweeping through their house. They left six children under ten."

• The Hale Collection lists the Bartholomew's as buried in the Woodstock Hill Cemetery (the Chandler site above also includes tombstone photos of the Bartholomew's).
• The Pomfret Barbour Collection includes a listing of Durkee marriages.--Jennifer (JBS66) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (EST) --Jennifer (JBS66) 19:59, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Some good websites. I don't do much in Connecticut so was struggling to find sources. I have seen several sites that paired Mary Bartholomew with Andrew, the son of Thomas Durkee, but have yet to find a really good source like a will or vital record to show this. But it seems pretty clear that this is the Andrew who is the father of Bartholomew. --Jrich 00:52, 10 February 2010 (EST)

Thomas Durkee [1 October 2015]

birthdate of Andrew is 2 Feb 1715/16, So the secondary source that suggests the parents are Thomas gives an incorrect birthdate, at least compared to Barbour, which undercuts its credibility. It is hard to accept its conclusion about the parentage when it gets the birthdate incorrect, unless some explanation and reference to documentary evidence is provided. However, being simply an assertion without supporting evidence, that appears to be missing. Unless I missed something on a peripheral page, at this point, both the parents and birthdate (which is dependent on the parents being correctly identified) are speculative. --Jrich 19:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Still digging for other evidence. Without access to certain records, such as all the Durkee surname descendancies, the process is slow.--SkippyG 20:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note from Person page:

Thomas Durkee & His Family [1]*

• Includes his children

I believe Andrew is probably Thomas' son because the facts more or less fit the case. However, this source only shows Thomas had a son Andrew, named in his will in 1757. While this shows Andrew was alive in 1757, his existence is known from the birth record and the will in no way identifies him further, neither by residence, nor by naming grandchildren, etc. That the son of Thomas of Windham was the same person as Andrew of Pomfret who married Mary and thus was the father of their children is actually presented as unsupported assertion, an opinion basically. It would fall in the face of a single piece of good evidence to the contrary. There is none documented yet, of course, but that is true of all the proposed parentages for Andrew as far as I know. --Jrich 03:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

I know it's a bit of a reach, but the page creator seems to have sought out the original records, whether they add up to proof or not. So, I'm accessing the mentioned records I can to see if I can reach that point. If they don't, I can always disconnect the proposed individual children of William & Martha and treat them as separate family groups. I don't have Ancestry or NEHGS, etc., so I'm a bit handicapped without access to other research that might create a clearer picture of the early DURKEEs. I've cited what I can from Ipswich & Windham VR for tonight, and will find whatever else I can think of tomorrow. Any suggestions quite welcomed.--SkippyG 04:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)