Menu
- Home
- Search▼
- List▼
- Add▼
- My Relate▼
- Admin▼
ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] From Unknown Beach (2): Discussion of Richard, Thomas and John Beach [22 March 2012]Notes for Thomas Beach: BEACH OF NEW HAVEN A Critical Discussion of the English origins, parentage and relationships of RICHARD, JOHN and THOMAS BEACH, early settlers of New Haven, Connecticut. By Eugene H. Beach, Jr. Reprinted from the Beach Family Journal, Vol. I, Nos. 3 and 4 (Fall and Winter, 1993) INTRODUCTION Three men named Beach or Beech - Richard1, John1 and Thomas1 - settled in New Haven, Connecticut, within eight years after its founding in 1638. Their lives after that time are, for the most part, well documented. The nature of their relationship to each other, dates of birth, parentage and place of origin, however, are still debated questions. Beginning in the late 19th century a number of writers put forth a variety of claims or admitted speculations pertaining to these issues. All such authors were undoubtedly sincere and well-intentioned, but good intentions are no guarantor of accuracy. More unfortunately, such speculative claims have proved as fecund and prolific as the Beach ancestors themselves: one author puts his personal belief based on certain scanty evidence; a second notes and repeats it as a reasonable surmise; a third is now able to cite two authorities for the thing, and so on, until at last it is presented as a well-documented and long established fact. Thus do genealogical errors have genealogies of their own, which are often as difficult to unravel as those of the personages they concern. With this caution firmly in mind, it is proper that a discussion of the Beach family of New Haven begin with a brief review of the town's own history, in order that matters may be placed in their proper context. On April 25, 1637, some 500 Puritans, headed by John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, embarked on the ship "Hector" and one or more other vessels, sailing from England to arrive at Boston on June 26, 1637. Here they wintered until March 18, 1638, when the company sailed around to the south of Connecticut, to the old Indian grounds of Quinnipiac, which had been chosen as the site of the new settlement. Articles of government were drawn up, variously known as the "Fundamental Agreement," "Compact" or "Covenant," which made the Scriptures the supreme law of the colony. It was further provided that only full church members, i.e., "visible saints" allowed to receive communion, were to be admitted "freemen" and entitled to full civic privileges. As part of or else accompanying the Davenport and Eaton settlers were a number under the leadership of the Reverend Peter Prudden. These were known as the "Hertford" group, after the English county from which they had been recruited. While Prudden's followers likewise came to New Haven in early 1638, they removed some eight miles west in 1639 to establish their own settlement, in what would become the town of Milford, See generally: Atwater, History of the Colony of New Haven. The significance of such facts to the origins and history of the Beach family will become more clear in the discussion which follows. TWO, THREE OR FOUR BROTHERS? It is now generally accepted that Richard Beach, John Beach and Thomas Beach were all brothers. It is certain that Richard and Thomas were so related, for in proceedings before the New Haven court on November 2, 1652, "Thomas Beech declareth that he went to Richard Sperries farme vpon some occasion betwixt his brother Richard Beech and himselfe;..." New Haven Historical Society, New Haven Town Records, 1649-1662, p. 151. While no such direct evidence exists that John Beach was likewise the brother of the other two, a variety of facts clearly suggest the existence of some such relationship between them. Both John Beach1 and Thomas Beach1 named sons after the other, and each likewise had daughters named Sarah. John Beach1 and Richard Beach1 likewise had sons named Benjamin, and all three had daughters named Mary. When Richard Beach1 became administrator of the estate of his "Cozn.," William Iles, John Beach1 agreed to act as his surety on February 1, 1647. Finally, when John Beach2, the eldest son of Thomas1, was left an orphan after 1670, he either went or was sent to live at Wallingford, Connecticut, where his "uncle" John Beach1 and several of his sons owned property and resided at various times. It should be noted, however, that several early writers held somewhat different and conflicting views on this subject. R. R. Hinman, whose Catalogue of the Names of the First Settlers of the Colony of Connecticut was published in 1846, identified John Beach1 with John2, son of Thomas1. Given that John1 had two children of his own before John2, Thomas1 was born in 1655, however, Hinman's identification of the two men is clearly erroneous. Deacon Lewis M. Norton, whose manuscript notes on the history of Goshen, Connecticut, date circa 1859 and contain much Beach family genealogy, held the view that there were actually two sets of brothers - John1 and Benjamin2, son of Richard1, forming one pair; Richard1 and Thomas1 forming the other, unrelated pair. Norton further assigned Thomas1, son of John1, to Thomas1; an unfortunate error given credence in family histories as late as 1912, See: Helen Beach, The Descendants of Thomas Beach of Milford, Connecticut, p. 4. James Savage, author of the Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. 1, p. 144, published in 1860, does not mention the "fourth brother" theory, but does suggest that John Beach1 was the "s. of Richard, of New Haven, if he were not br. as seems prob." Finally, Charles H. S. Davis, in his 1870 History of Wallingford, Connecticut, p. 636, adopted a modified form of the earlier Norton view, stating that "The probabilities seem to indicate that John, Benjamin and Richard,... and Thomas of Milford, were brothers." As noted, however, Benjamin2 was actually the son of Richard1; not his brother. This is but one example of Davis' many errors; the most notorious of which is identifying John Beach1, son of Thomas1, with John1, son of John1, which has and continues to cause untold confusion to the unwary. DATES OF BIRTH AND BIRTH ORDER It is also universally believed that, of the three brothers, Richard Beach was the oldest, John Beach the next oldest, and Thomas Beach the youngest. The basis for this assumption seems to be that Richard Beach first appears in the New Haven town records in 1639 and was married by 1642; John Beach first appears in the records in 1643 and was married by 1652; and Thomas Beach first appears in the records in 1646 and was married in 1652. It may be argued, however, that the order and dates of their mention in the records need not depend on the brothers' relative ages, i.e., there in nothing to prevent a younger brother from having settled or come to public notice before an older brother. While the order and dates of their marriages are arguably more dependent on their relative ages, they do not seem more so than the order and dates of their deaths. Since there is no suggestion any of the three died of other than natural causes, i.e., age and/or disease, the death of Thomas Beach in 1662, John Beach in 1677 and Richard Beach in 1681 could be said to suggest a birth order exactly opposite that previously assumed. For such reasons, the relative ages of Richard, John and Thomas should, despite tradition, be considered an "open" question. Otherwise, the danger exists that new and valuable information on the question of their parentage may be rejected solely because it does not "square" with what is believed, but has yet to be proven as the proper order of their births. One source relates that "Those who claim descent from Benjamin(2), John(1) say that our John was born in 1623. Others claim that he was born in 1620, but as no record has been found in England it seems the date of birth is mere conjecture unless it can be based on evidence not yet discovered by the writer," Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 8. The 1623 date may well be based on the assumption that John Beach, who took the Oath of Fidelity in 1644, must have been at least 21 years old, i.e., the age of majority, at that time, so born not later than 1623. To this extent it is a reasonable approximation of the "latest possible" year of birth, but does not mean John Beach was not born earlier. Applying this same analysis to Richard Beach, who affirmed the Covenant in 1639, yields a latest possible year of birth of 1618. In the case of Thomas Beach, who took the Oath of Fidelity in 1647, the latest possible year of birth is 1626. There is an independent tradition, however, which claims "It appears Richard was born about 1611,..." James, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, p. 43. See also: Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7 ["In 1691 he (Richard) died in or near Morristown, N.J. age about 80 years," i.e. born in 1611]. The basis for this claim, like those which put John Beach's birth in 1620, is not known. Curiously, there appears to be no such tradition regarding the year of birth of Thomas Beach. RICHARD BEACH OF WATERTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS Four years prior to the appearance of the brother Richard Beach in New Haven, a Richard Beach settled in Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1635. There he had by his wife, Mary _____, a son John, born in 1636, but others say 1638. He soon removed to Watertown and had there a second child, Mary, born in 1641. His wife must have died soon afterward for he remarried Martha _____ and by her had Isaac, born in 1646; Martha, born in 1649/50; Abigail, born in 1653; Joseph, born in 1655; and Richard, born in 1657, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. According to one account this Richard Beach was so poor that the town granted him five pounds for a cow, Joseph P. Beach, A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family, p. 10. He reportedly died at Watertown on October 24, 1674, and his family is thought to have become extinct upon the death of his son, Isaac, in 1736, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. Despite several obvious discrepancies, some early authorities identified this Richard Beach of Watertown with Richard Beach of New Haven, e.g., Farmer, A Genealogical Register of the First Settlers of New England, p. 30 ["Beach, Richard, Cambridge 1635, Watertown 1639; may have removed to New-Haven where John, son of Richard Beach was b. 1639"]. Elmer T. Beach, author of Beach In America, says at pp. 134-135 that: "Through the courtesy of Mr. W. G. Black,... in whose possession the document now is, I had the pleasure of examining and reading an autographic letter addressed to one Stephen C. Read of Hartford, bearing date Aug. 12, year not given, but containing internal evidence which places the date of writing probably about the time of Samuel Norton, perhaps 1720 or 1730. This old genealogist says: "Richard Beach came from London in June, 1635. Captain Rogers in - name of vessel undecipherable but looks like AWK., moving to Cambridge the same year, then to Wyam, and in 1639 to New Haven,..." Bond, Genealogies of the Families and Descendants of Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, makes the same identification, as does so comparatively recent an authority as Virkus, Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, p. 732 ["BEACH, RICHARD (b. ca. 1620), from Eng. to Watertown, Mass., 1635, thence to New Haven Colony, and signer of the Compact of 1639;..."]. As Elmer T. Beach correctly noted, however, any such identification "... ignore[s] the four children of Richard Beach, born and of record in New Haven. One of them, Azariah, was born the same year as Isaac in Watertown, within a few weeks of each other," Beach In America, p. 135. Other obvious inconsistencies include the fact that Richard Beach of Watertown died there in 1674, while Richard Beach of New Haven would ultimately die in or near Morristown, New Jersey, in 1691. Thus, the majority of historians since Savage, in 1860, have correctly concluded the Richard Beach of Watertown to be an entirely different man than the Richard Beach of New Haven. This is not to say the two men might not be otherwise related. If so, however, it was certainly not as father and son since, as noted, Richard the son of Richard Beach of Watertown was born in 1657, well after Richard Beach of New Haven first appears in the records there. Elmer T. Beach suggested a relationship of uncle and nephew; a claim which will be discussed in more detail below. For the moment it should be noted that while Richard Beach of Watertown is no longer directly identified with Richard Beach of New Haven, such an identification does continue to be made, albeit indirectly and unknowingly. THE MYTH OF THE "ELIZABETH & ANN[E]" In its discussion of the Beach Family of New Haven, the first issue of the Beach Family Magazine, published in 1926, refers to: "... the statement recently received from Mary D. Beach of Binghampton, N.Y., that her uncle John of Lakewood, N.J., had made extensive research and had found in a book in the library of the First Congregational Church of Goshen, Conn. that the three Beach brothers came to New Haven in the same ship with the Rev. Peter Prudden in 1638... They came on the "Elizabeth and Anna" and arrived in New Haven about July, 1638." Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. As evidence of the facts asserted this is the rankest form of hearsay within hearsay, being dependent upon a chain of communication from the Beach Family Magazine to Mary D. Beach to "Uncle John" to a certain unnamed "book in the library of the First Congregational Church of Goshen" which, in turn, was itself most likely only a secondary source. Unfortunately, this has not discouraged subsequent writers of the family's history from accepting this account at face value, e.g., James, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, p. 43 ["They came to New Haven, Connecticut, with the Reverend Peter Prudden on the ship, Elizabeth and Anna, arriving in New Haven about July, 1638"]. See also: the entry for William Augustus Beach in Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. I, p. 84, published in 1957 ["... a descendant of Thomas Beach, the youngest of three brothers who came to New Haven from England in the ship Elizabeth and Anna in June, 1638..."]. The identity of the mysterious "book" in the Goshen Church library has yet to be established. This author's own efforts to locate it in the early 1970's were futile. Seven years before publication of the Beach Family Magazine, however, there appeared in 1919 the American Historical Society's Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut, Vol. III, p. 91, wherein it is stated: "There are three immigrants named Beach found in the records of the New Haven colony for 1639, Richard, John and Thomas, and the evidence that they were brothers appears conclusive. Richard Beach came from London in 1635 in the ship "Elizabeth and Ann" and settled in New Haven as early as 1639..." Whether or not this is the "book" from which "Uncle John" obtained his information is not known, although it is certainly possible. There are, however, several interesting differences between the two accounts. In the version reported by "Uncle John" the ship is named "Elizabeth and Anna"; it arrived in New Haven in July, 1638; and transported all three Beach brothers together with the Reverend Peter Prudden. In the 1919 account the ship is named "Elizabeth and Ann"; arrived in the New World in 1635 [exact destination unstated]; and presumably transported only Richard Beach, no mention being made of John, Thomas nor the Reverend Prudden. The significance of these differences will become apparent when, with the addition of other facts, each version of this otherwise charming account is subjected to more critical analysis. The identification of the early colonists with the vessels on which they arrived is notoriously difficult. Perhaps the leading authorities on this subject are Hotten, The Original Lists of Persons of Quality... who went from Great Britain to the American Plantations, 1600-1700 ["Hotten's List"] and Banks, Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650. These establish that there was indeed a ship named the "Elizabeth & Ann" or "Elizabeth and Anne," under the command of Master Roger Cooper or Cowper. It further appears this vessel embarked passengers in April and May, 1635, for transport to New England. This is consistent with the July, 1635, arrival date given by the Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut noted above. Such being the case, however, it is clear that the voyage did not terminate in New Haven, as stated in the version of the story reported by "Uncle John" since that settlement would not exist for another three years. Rather, the "Elizabeth and Ann" undoubtedly docked and discharged her passengers at Boston. This is supported by the fact that, of a list of passengers given by one source, all arrived in 1635 and most settled in various Massachusetts communities, e.g., Alexander Baker, of Gloucester; John Eaton, of Watertown; Thomas Emerson, of Ipswich; Thomas Lord, of Cambridge, and John Whitney of Watertown, Virkus, Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, pp. 730, 744, 756, 775. It will now be recalled that Richard Beach of Watertown, Massachusetts, likewise first appeared in Boston and Cambridge in 1635. This immediately suggests that it was he, rather than Richard Beach(1) of New Haven, who in fact "... came from London in 1635 in the ship 'Elizabeth and Ann'..." It will also be recalled that the undated but apparently old letter quoted from by Elmer T. Beach claimed that Richard Beach of Watertown "... came from London in June, 1635. Captain Rogers in - name of vessel undecipherable but looks like AWK." Little imagination is required to conclude that "Captain Rogers" is actually Roger Cooper or Cowper, and that "AWK" may be a misreading of "Ann". The final piece of the puzzle is, however, unwittingly supplied by the Beach Family Magazine itself which, in its discussion of Richard Beach of Watertown, states that he "... came to Massachusetts on a vessel commanded by Captain Roger Cooper in 1635...," Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5. As is now clear, however, that vessel was none other than the "Elizabeth and Ann," which is elsewhere mentioned on the same page of the same source in connection with the New Haven Beach family as related by "Uncle John". It thus appears that the story of the "Elizabeth and Ann" is a relic of the otherwise now-discredited identification of Richard Beach of Watertown with Richard Beach(1) of New Haven. This suggests that the version given by the Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut is closest to the original; applying solely to Richard Beach with no mention of John or Thomas and preserving the 1635 date. Once the distinction between the two Richard Beaches became clear, however, the story required revision since, assuming it to refer to Richard Beach(1) of New Haven, the 1635 date would now be too early. The process of evolution was undoubtedly aided by the likely confusion of John Eaton, an "Elizabeth and Ann" passenger, with Theophilus Eaton, one of the leaders of the New Haven colony, who in turn may have evolved into the figure of the Reverend Peter Prudden, leader of the "Hertford" group and founder of Milford. Finally, at some point along the way, the brothers John(1) and Thomas(1) were added until the story, in the version as told by "Uncle John," was complete. Unfortunately, the truth is that the vessel on which the three Beach brothers were transported to New England has not and may never be identified with certainty. Indeed, it is not all that clear that all three came together or were in New Haven by 1639. On the contrary, the fact that John Beach(1) and Thomas Beach(1) do not appear in the town records until 1643 and 1646, respectively, suggests they did not arrive until later. Recognizing this, some argue that while also present in 1639, both John and Thomas were too young to warrant notice in the public records for several years. It will be recalled, however, that the presumed relative ages of the three brothers is itself based, in part, upon these same dates of first mention in the town records. To this extent the argument that John and Thomas were "too young" to deserve mention between 1639 and 1646 is somewhat circular. Moreover, the April, 1641 New Haven tax roll shows Richard Beach(1) to be the sole member of his household; whereas it would be natural to expect John and/or Thomas, if present by that time, to be living with him. Finally, none of the older authorities claim or even imply that all three brothers arrived as early as 1639, suggesting that such a view is more the product of romantic imagination than hard fact. CLAIMS AS TO "ENGLISH ORIGINS" So far the discussion has focused upon issues relating to the three Beach brothers on this side of the Atlantic - their relation to each other, relative ages, and date and means of arrival in the New World. While many of these issues are still unresolved, there is at least some measure of facts and evidence with which to work. With respect to efforts to establish the so-called "English Origins" of the New Haven Beach family, however, facts and evidence give way to fantasy and self-delusion, as claim after claim has been advanced and, worse yet, uncritically accepted and repeated that Richard, John and Thomas Beach hailed from such and such a place in England or that so and so was their progenitor. Nothing more tantalizes and simultaneously frustrates the genealogist than an ancestor whose own ancestry is unknown. This seems especially true where, as here, the connection sought to be made is between families of the Old and New Worlds. Having come so far it seems unimaginable further progress cannot be made. That the Beaches of New Haven came from England seems clear. That there were ancient Beach, Beech or Beche families in England from which Richard, John and Thomas might have descended is also clear. Under such circumstances, the desire to establish the "missing link" becomes so strong as to be self-fulfilling, such that the most speculative theories are taken as established truth solely because of an unquestioning need to believe them so. In sum, it may be fairly said that, in the search for the Beach family's English origins, common sense and critical analysis all-too-often have been left at the water's edge. The simple but disappointing truth is that neither the parentage nor place of origin of Richard, John or Thomas Beach has yet been satisfactorily proven. With but two exceptions - discussed below - the presently known and available records in America are devoid of reliable clues. The early genealogists - Farmer, Hinman, Norton, Savage, etc. - ignore the issue completely; a silence which suggests the absence of any early tradition which might contain a germ of fact. Various claims nonetheless have been and continue to be made. Kingston-upon-Hull Yorkshire In the January, 1875 issue of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Vol. VI, No. 1, p. 55, there appeared the following query: "BEACH - Whom did Rev. Abraham Beach, D.D. marry? What were the names of his parents? He was a minister of Trinity church from 1784 to 1813. He was an Englishman and a slight sketch of his life is given in Berrian's History of Trinity Church. S.W.P." In the July, 1875 issue, Vol. VI, No. 3, p. 157, a subsequent note was published: "BEACH - I am indebted to the Rev. Abraham Beach Carter, D.D., of New York, for the following particulars respecting his grandfather, the Rev. Abraham Beach, D.D., ... Dr. Beach was born in Cheshire, Conn., 9 Sept., 1740:... He was a son of Capt. Elnathan Beach, descended from the family who came from Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire, England, and settled in New Haven, Conn., in 1637... Can any of your readers help me to the parentage of Capt. Elnathan Beach and of his wife? What was the latter's Christian name? S.W.P. This is an interesting and somewhat curious account. Captain Elnathan Beach(3) was the son of Isaac Beach2 and grandson of the immigrant brother John Beach(1), Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 2, p. 39. Elnathan Beach, in turn, had eleven children; the last of whom was the Reverend Abraham Beach(4), the subject of S.W.P.'s initial query. Note, however, that S.W.P. originally believed Reverend Abraham Beach to be "an Englishman". Consequently, the claim that the Beach family came from Kingston-upon-Hull must have been a tradition in the Reverend Beach's family which was passed down to Reverend Carter, who in turn related it to S.W.P. At the same time, however, it will be observed that S.W.P. ends his account with the query "Can any of your readers help me to the parentage of Capt. Elnathan Beach...?" From this it must be assumed that Reverend Carter did not know Elnathan Beach to be the son of Isaac(2), John(1), since otherwise he would have shared such information with S.W.P. It is equally obvious S.W.P. did not know such facts, since he asks for help in discovering them, even though Davis' History of Wallingford, Connecticut, had given an accurate genealogy of Elnathan Beach five years earlier, in 1870. Given such apparent ignorance on the part of both Reverend Carter and S.W.P., the basis on which either could claim or believe the Beach family came from Yorkshire seems questionable. It is somehow odd to assert one knows the county and borough from which one's ancestor came, even though ignorant of such ancestor's identity and thus how and if one is related to him. Equally odd is the fact that no other authority, before or since, has ever offered the same claim or any variant of it. Were this an established tradition of this branch of the family, one would expect it to have been repeated, expanded upon or otherwise the subject of comment. Except for passing citation in the Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 5, however, no other family historian appears to have known of, much less vouched for the Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire claim. In fairness it must be acknowledged that there were a number of early New Haven settlers from or with ties to Yorkshire. According to one account: "In October [1638] the planters of Quinnipiac welcomed an accession to their number. Ezekiel Rogers, a much respected nonconforming minister in Yorkshire, having embarked at Hull, on the Humber, with a company who personally knew him and desired to enjoy his ministry, arrived in Boston late in the summer. Such representations were made to him by Davenport and Eaton, or their agents, that he engaged to come with his followers to Quinnipiac, and within eight weeks after his arrival in Massachusetts, a portion of his people came by water to the new settlement. The remainder of the company were expected to follow; but Rogers changed his mind and commenced a new settlement at Rowley, in Massachusetts. He sent a pinnace to bring back those of his people who had preceded him in his intended voyage, but some of them, refusing to return, became permanent residents at Quinnipiac." Atwater, History of the Colony of New Haven, pp. 1-2. This is supported by Banks, Topographical Dictionary of 2885 English Emigrants to New England, 1620-1650, pp. 185-188, which identifies at least nine early New Haven settlers with connections to Yorkshire, including the Reverend Peter Prudden, of whom more later. Also from Yorkshire were John Johnson, one of seven others named with Richard Beach(1) as being admitted "planters" on June 4, 1639, Hoadly, Records of the Colony of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 12-13, and Francis Brown, who with Thomas Beach(1) was fined for a defective gun in 1646 and, in 1654, moved Thomas and his family to Milford, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 12 Unfortunately, such facts are alone insufficient to prove that the three Beach brothers themselves came from Yorkshire. On the contrary, it may be the case that these very same facts suggested the Kingston-upon-Hull claim in the first place, in which event their citation as "evidence" would be a classic example of circular reasoning. There are, moreover, other facts to be discussed in more detail below which suggest it unlikely the three Beach brothers hailed from so northern an English county as Yorkshire. Thus, while perhaps deserving of note, the Kingston-upon-Hull claim must be regarded as questionable until further evidence is forthcoming. Reverend John Beach of Derbyshire/Devonshire Toward the latter part of the 19th century a second and utterly different claim began to be advanced, in various forms, that the three Beach brothers were the sons of a clergyman from Derbyshire or, in one version of the story, from Devonshire, England. The first proponent of this notion is uncertain. The Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 4-5, states that: "In a manuscript furnished by F. H. Beach of New Jersey in 1890 it is said that John, one of the brothers, was born in Derbyshire, England;..." Unfortunately, both the identity of this F. H. Beach and the source of his information is not given. At or about the same time, however, family historian Joseph P. Beach, himself a descendant of John Beach(1) and son of the famous Moses Yale Beach, suggested something similar in an unpublished typescript entitled A Brief of the Early Pilgrims of the Beach Family; now part of the Beach family papers of the Connecticut State Library. Under the heading "English Origin of Ye Beach's," he candidly admits that "I have not been able to trace the vessels in which Richard, John & Thomas came to this country." In the next three paragraphs, however, he cites a single marriage record fro Children of Thomas Beach and Joan Hill are: i. Richard Beach ii. Thomas Beach 2832 iii. John Beach, born Abt. 1623 in Derbyshire, Eng (abt 1613/1619); died Jun 16, 1677 in Stratford, CT; married Mary Staples.--Neal Gardner 15:41, 22 March 2012 (EDT)
|
