Person talk:Thomas Foster (86)

The identity of Thomas Foster of Weymouth, Braintree and Billerica [28 July 2015]

I'm not going to make any changes quite yet, but it appears that the T. F. who was on a 1634 passenger list (Hercules) never came. Anderson, in The Great Migration Directory, p. 119 connects Thomas of Billerica with the Foster family of Wendover, Bucks, son of Thomas and Elizabeth (Seamer) Foster of that town. He was brother of Elizabeth Foster (wife of William Fry and Thomas Daggett) and Susanna Foster, wife of Nicholas White. It should be noted that the reputation of Frederick Clifton Pierce as a reliable genealogist is not good, probable comparable to Rev. Abner Morse. I'm inclined to make the changes to this Thomas Foster in accordance with Frederick Nicholson's treatment in TAG 68:14-22, but would appreciate independent comment.
Thanks, Bill Carr (--jaques1724 01:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)).

Ultimately, each case must be judged on the evidence. Reputation isn't an objective measure, doesn't travel well from person to person, and even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and them. I am not sure how Anderson "connects" Thomas of Billerica with the Wendover family, not having seen that source, but having read Nicholson's article as a result of your post, his connection is entirely supposition with no actual proof that Thomas left England or any reason to think he is the same man as the Thomas Foster of Weymouth, other than members of his family settled in nearby towns (i.e., no document showing those New Englanders were related). The only useful evidence I see about Thomas of Wendover from Nicholson is that he had no brother William. I think he provides enough evidence for Elizabeth, but his coverage of Thomas seems far from authoritative. --Jrich 15:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, is Pierce's construction any better? He cites no sources at all. Anderson, in his sketch of Thomas Foster (Great Migration 2:555:56), concludes that there is no evidence that the six men listed as "left behind the Mary & John as intended to pass in the Hercules" sailed on the Hercules in 1634 and further mentions that both Savage and Pope connected the supposed passenger of 1634 with a Thomas Foster, the gunner, who appeared in Boston in 1639, not the T. F. whose son was recorded at Weymouth in 1640.

The gunner, by the way, appears to be the Thomas Foster who was son of Rev. Thomas and Abigail (Wimes) Foster (see NEHGR 40:270).

There appears to be absolutely no evidence that Elizabeth, wife of T. F. of Billerica, was an Elizabeth Whitmore.

Basing any conclusions on the unsourced drive-by gedcom posted by McHunt seems not to be justified. Likely it's a combination of LDS Ancestral Files and family trees from Ancestry.com or similar sites.

My conclusion is that Nicholson's identification of T.F. as "probable" is more likely and better supported than Pierce's.

--jaques1724 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Pierce says T. F. was in Billerica in 1647. Not likely since the town was not settled by Europeans until 1652 before being incorporated in 1655.

--jaques1724 16:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I said should be interpreted as saying Pierce is correct. I am just saying the other is not authoritative either. It is a guess backed up with no hard evidence, only an unspoken assumption that if several of the siblings are in New England, they all must be (except then he must admit there is nobody identifiable as Christian so where does that leave his assumption). Unless I missed something there was zero evidence that the man in New England was related to Susanna or Elizabeth, or came from Wendover. The page doesn't need an answer when there isn't one, it needs a review of what is actually known. Pierce may be wrong, but he is readily available to people interested in one-stop shopping on Foster, and so should be refuted with evidence if he is wrong. But it sounds like it is mostly dueling speculations all around. Either the man on the Hercules came or didn't. If he didn't, then that implies Savage and Pope were clearly guessing, hence their disagreement with Pierce is meaningless, as they are all three wrong. If he came, then there are multiple suggestions about who he is but they are apparently all guesses, since then we would know he came, and we don't. Nicholson is also a guess, he just doesn't rely on the passenger list being the same man. In other words these are all possibilities for a page for which there appears to be no conclusive answer. --Jrich 18:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification - In The Great Migration Directory, Anderson has entries for three (apparently) different men named Thomas Foster:

Foster, Thomas: [origin] Unknown; [emigration] 1634 on Hercules (but probably did not sail); passenger list only [GM 2:2:555-56].

Foster, Thomas: Ipswich, Suffolk; 1639; Boston [Lechford 135, 377; BTR 1:42; BChR 35; MBCR 2:291; TAG 49:95-97 (use with caution)].

Foster, Thomas: Wendover, Buckinghamshire; 1640; Weymouth, Braintree, Billerica [TAG 68:14-22; Weymouth Hist 3:233; NEHGR 26:394-99].

A rereading of Pierce's sketch of Thomas Foster leads me to believe he combined elements from the lives of all three of these men.

--jaques1724 22:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly you are right about Pierce. But not a single item in Weymouth Hist 3:233 or NEHGR 26:394-99 connects the Thomas Foster of Wendover, so it all rests on the TAG article which presents no evidence, as has been discussed.

The NEHGR article by Paige says of Thomas Foster, "it is not unlikely that he was brother to Hopestill Foster", which would rule out Thomas of Wendover. Further he says" There seems to be good reason to suppose, with Farmer and Savage, that he subsequently resided in Braintree and in Billerica; and in what followe I assume that this supposition is true," meaning he wasn't even sure they were all the same man. The History of Weymouth has a fairly brief entry that says nothing about his origins, and says "For further details consult the Thomas Foster Record" which I can't find on line. --Jrich 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Foster Record--jaques1724 00:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Apparently they are putting more and more stuff online there and I will have to remember to look there more often. Hmmm, explains some of the confusion. So p. 10, "granted to Thos. Foster, the gunner at the Castle, a great lot at the Mount", meaning Mount Woollystone, i.e., Braintree. Now add in Thomas Foster of Billerica called Sergeant in deeds and at his death. And after 1647, "we find no other mention of him [Tommy the gunner] in this country", but there is soon after a Thomas Foster in Billerica, this would not be an unreasonable connection to make if you weren't aware of the deed selling the Braintree grant and maybe even if you were. And Thomas Foster of Billerica only names son Joseph and son-in-law James Frost and unnamed wife. Where is the mention of his other children and their heirs, including the ones born in Weymouth? And Chamberlain referring to this author, who self-admittedly is drawing from Paige, who is deferring to Savage and Pope, and we have a classic it-is-true-because-nobody-knows-better-but-has-to-say-something and since Savage said it first, even though he routinely published assumptions as fact, everybody believes it. Which is not to endorse any particular answer because my head hurts. --Jrich 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have spent significant time reviewing sources and records for Thomas Foster. Surprisingly, given that so many have written about him, I think I can contribute useful information. But a complete solution is still wanting.

Clearly Thomas Foster was not a subject of exhaustive study by Anderson, not coming to New England soon enough. So we cannot expect him to provide a conclusive answer on Thomas Foster. But to cite the TAG article by Nicholson as, even, evidence of his origins is pretty weak stuff, there being no evidence presented there that the Thomas Foster of Wendover left England, that the Thomas Foster of Weymouth (or Billerica) was related to the Susanna and Elizabeth that the article covered, or even provide an estimate of the age of Thomas of Wendover. All it does is suggest something that might be worth investigating.

I also find Anderson's near conclusion that none of the 6 men in the Hercules came to New England pretty weak. This is based on finding nothing in New England for 3, and deciding the other 3, which are found, could each be a different man, i.e., not one proved not to come. Be this as it may, this is a red herring in trying to straighten out the mess about Thomas Foster in New England, which in my mind is a prerequisite to figuring out his origins.

The assertion that one Thomas Foster lived in Weymouth, Braintree and Billerica has been repeated all the way back to Farmer without any justification. It appears it may be true.

The man in Billerica is definitely the man in Braintree. The town records of Billerica (a copy) are online and 23 Apr 1666 Joseph and Hopstill Foster took the oath of fidelity. 13 Jun 1670 a payment is made by the town to Tho. ffoster "for his son hopstill for his service to the company in drumming". Being an "uncommon name" this is undoubtedly the Hopestill born to Thomas and Elizabeth in Braintree in 1648, as is Joseph. There are no further signs of Hopestill in Billerica records (at least through 1683 where I stopped looking) suggesting he may have died soon after 1670?

Elizabeth is named as the mother of Joseph and Hopestill in the Braintree birth records, and Elizabeth is identified as Thomas's wife in Middlesex deed Vol. 7, p. 354 dated Nov 1679, further suggesting the Braintree and Billerica man are the same.

The connection to Weymouth is more tentative. americanancestor.org's abstracts of Middlesex Court Records show that on 6 Jun 1664, a Thomas Foster, age 23, testified as to the age of a horse. This matches very well with the birth record in Weymouth. Whether this is Thomas's son, or was even from Billerica is unclear, but the alignment of ages at least suggests they might be the same.

21 Jul 1675 Thomas Foster of Billerica testifies, aged about 60 years, so born about 1613. This is not inconsistent with the range of 1606-1618 that the Nicholson article would suggest based on parents' marriage and father's death.

Hazen's History of Billerica suggests more children for Thomas Foster than some of the other sources, based on Billerica marriage records at the time, and one in particular has proof. Experience Foster m. Joseph French in 1663. On 2 Dec 1670, a item in the town record mentioning a payment "by him & his son french for Benj: Parkers fine", the him being Thomas Foster. The marriage in 1663 suggests a birth about 1645? --Jrich 00:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the above, which was posted in a slight hurry, payments to a "Dr. Foster" is mentioned in Billerica town records a couple of times, for taking care of an indigent person "old Steven" [Stephen Fisher]. Various sources speculate that Dr. Thomas Foster of Roxbury is the son of this Thomas Foster and while he is not identified such in the town records, or at all, beyond "Dr. Foster", it at least suggests why some of this suppositions might have been made. Also, several secondary sources note that Thomas Foster was "elder corporal" in 1660, but a court record in 1667 says Thomas Foster was "junior Sargt." As far as I noticed, all references to him as Sgt. Thomas Foster are after 1667, so the title is not some carryover from the gunner at the Castle. Full notes here --Jrich 03:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)