PRESCOTT of Lancashire
David MacDougall
b. 1648, Lancaster, MA, d. 1672? I think this Jonas may be the Captain
Prescott found in Weis' "Magna Charta Sureties" but I am not sure.
Is this Jonas the son of John PRESCOTT & Mary PLATTS, and was his
[Jonas'] wife indeed Mary LOCKER (b. 1653)?
I have 2 daughters of this marriage, Sarah PRESCOTT wife of John LONGLEY
& Mary PRESCOTT wife of Benjamin FARNSWORTH.
Many thanks!
U...@aol.com
dmac...@bellatlantic.net writes:
Here's Jonas' ancestry:
Direct Descendants of James Prescott
1 James Prescott b: 1508 in of Shevington, LAN, ENG d: 1568
.. +Alice Standish d: 1564 in Standish, LAN, ENG
2 Roger Prescott b: in of Shevington, LAN, ENG d: September 1594
.. +Elizabeth .... m: Bef. 1568
3 Ralph Prescott b: Abt. 1571 d: Bet. 07 December 1608 - 24
January 1608/09
.. +Helen .... d: Aft. January 1608/09
4 John Prescott b: Abt. 1604 in ENG d: December 1681 in
Lancaster, MA
.. +Mary Platts b: Bef. 07 February 1612/13 in Sowerby Parish,
Halifax, YKS, ENG m: 11 April 1629 in Halifax, YKS, ENG d: Aft. 1678 in
Lancaster, MA
5 Jonas Prescott b: Abt. 1645 d: 31 December 1723 in Groton, MA
Here's Jonas' children & grandchildren
Descendants of Jonas Prescott
1 Jonas Prescott b: Abt. 1645 d: 31 December 1723 in Groton, MA
.. +Mary Loker b: 28 September 1653 in Sudbury, Middlesex, MA m: 14
November 1672 in Lancaster, MA d: 28 October 1735 in Groton, MA
2 Mary Prescott b: 03 February 1673/74
.. +Benjamin Farnsworth m: 1695
2 Elizabeth Prescott b: 23 January 1675/76 d: 10 March 1743/44
.. +Eleazer Green b: 20 May 1672 m: 1694 d: 10 September 1731 in
Groton, MA
3 Eleazer Green b: 26 January 1695/96
.. +Anna Tarbell b: 28 May 1702
3 Daughter Green b: 29 January 1697/98 d: 13 February 1697/98
3 William Green b: 1700
.. +Hannah Holden m: 09 March 1726/27
3 Jonathan Green b: 1702
.. +Mary Lakin b: 12 April 1703 m: 25 February 1724/25
3 Elizabeth Green b: 10 June 1704
3 James Green b: 20 January 1708/09
.. +Sarah Shattuck b: 11 December 1716 m: 26 April 1739
2 Jonas Prescott b: 1678 d: 12 September 1750 in Groton, MA
.. +Thankful Wheeler m: 1699
*2nd Wife of Jonas Prescott:
.. +Mary Page b: 1687 m: Aft. 1700 d: 1781
2 Nathaniel Prescott b: 1680 d: 1681
2 Dorothy Prescott b: 1682
.. +John Varnum m: 1700
3 John Varnum b: 1705
.. +Phebe Parker b: 1712 d: 1786
2 James Prescott b: 1684 d: 09 May 1704 in Groton, MA
2 Sarah Prescott b: 1686 d: 1716
.. +John Longley b: 1683
2 Abigail Prescott b: 1688
.. +James Parker
3 Sybil Parker b: 1712
3 Emma Parker b: 1713
.. +Benjamin Stone b: 1706
3 Submit Parker b: 1715
3 Abigail Parker b: 1717
.. +John Blood m: 1740
3 Peter Parker b: 1719
.. +Prudence Lawrence
3 Ann Parker b: 1720
3 James Parker b: 1723 d: 1748
3 Jonas Parker b: 1727 d: 1751
2 Martha Prescott b: 1690
.. +Shebuel Hobart m: 1714
3 Deborah Hobart b: 13 May 1727 in Groton, MA d: Aft. 07 March
1796
.. +Robert Parker b: 20 January 1719/20 in Groton, Middlesex, MA m: 13
August 1745 in Westford, MA d: 30 September 1775 in Cambridge, MA
*2nd Husband of Deborah Hobart:
.. +John Dutton m: 22 October 1778 d: 03 September 1788 in
Alstead, Cheshire, NH
3 Rachel Hobart
2 Susanna Prescott b: 1691
.. +William Lawrence m: 1722
2 Benjamin Prescott b: 1696 d: 03 August 1738 in Groton, MA
.. +Abigail Oliver b: April 1697 m: 11 June 1718 d: 13 September 1765
3 William Prescott, Col.
3 Abigail Prescott b: 25 April 1719 d: 07 November 1739 in
Groton, MA
3 Mary Prescott b: Abt. 07 August 1735 d: 25 October 1751 in
Groton, MA
2 Deborah Prescott b: 05 March 1693/94 in Groton, Middlesex, MA
.. +Samuel Parker b: Abt. 1690 in Groton, Middlesex, MA m: Abt. 1714
3 Samuel Parker b: 28 September 1715 in Groton, Middlesex, MA
d: Bef. 1796
.. +Mary Lakin b: 26 February 1718/19 in Groton, Middlesex, MA m: 23
March 1738/39 in Groton, Middlesex, MA
3 Susanna Parker b: 01 April 1717 in Groton, Middlesex, MA
.. +Simon Pierce b: 15 October 1707 in Groton, Middlesex, MA m: 26 May
1737 in Groton, Middlesex, MA
3 Simon Parker b: Bef. 1725
3 Rebekah Parker b: Bef. 1725
3 Solomon Parker b: Bef. 1725
ROBERT E. BOWMAN
Weiss. This is another case of an ancestry which has been disproved but
nevertheless gets posted every few months.
The parentage of John Prescott, immigrant, to Lancaster Mass. is not known.
U...@aol.com
rsbo...@compuserve.com writes:
Thanks for the information, however it appears from my notes that the line is
challenged, not disproven. But, to be on the conservative side I shall
annotate the parentage of John so I do not accidently post it as fact in the
future. In addition, if it was not posted many would not know of the
challenge. I think this group acts as an excellent clearing house for
identifying the good, bad, and ugly. Thanks again. My notes on John
Prescott:
Founder of Lancaster, MA in 1645; blacksmith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The identification of John Prescott of Lancaster, Mass. with the son, John,
of Ralph of Shevington is still challenged. See TAG 34: 180 and elsewhere.
While evidence is not conclusive, the alternatives are not conclusive,
either. This line requires further work.
43. John Prescott, founder of Lancaster, Mass., 1645, b.ca.1604; made his own
will, 1673,pro.4 Apr 1682, d. Lancaster, Mass., Dec. 1681; perh. the one who
m. Halifax, co. York, 11 Apr 1629, Mary Platts, bapt. Sowerby Parish,
Halfiax, co York, 15 Mar. 1607; d. Lancaster, Mass., aft. 1678, dau of
Abraham and Martha (Riley) Gawkroger-Platts. The deposition of Mary Prescott
of Lancaster dated 1678, when she was 66 yrs or thereabaouts (NEHGR 95:8, in
Middlesex Co. files) identifies John Prescott of Lancaster, Mass., with
Halifax, Yorkshire, where his children were baptized., while the will of his
reputed father RALPH No. 42 does not identify him with the Prescott and
STandish families of Standish Parish in co. Lancaster, Egn. (Presctott
Memorial (1870), 32-40; Ancestry of John Barber White (1913), 107-28,
pedigrees of Fleming and Harington, 107-112, Standish and Prescott, 102-104,
122-128, are based upon the research of Mr. Holding, but the other pedigrees
in this section of Ancestry of John Barber White are dubious or defective.
For fullest details and authorities now available see: Weis, the Families of
Standish of Standish and Prescott of Prescott of Standish Parish, Lancashire,
England, ms., typed, 203 pp., 1948, cf. 43-49, 53054, 58-60, 67-68, 78-79,
84-88. This work uses the 400 deeds, charters, inquisitions, marriage
settlements, etc. of West, Earwaker, Mrs. Tempest, Porteus, the VCH Lanc. (8
vo9ls), Baines and the Rev. John Holding, and gives more than 500 of the
ancestors of Roger Standish in charts, pp. 151-203).
The way I understand this, the nature of the problem is that John Prescott,
proven to be from an area that contained a village named Prescott and hence
quite possibly more than one family of that name, has not been proven to have
been the John Prescott proven to have lived in the same area who was the son
of Ralph Prescott. A problem of this nature occurred to me concerning people
with the name Standish form a village named Standish. But surely it shouldn't
be too difficult to establish whether another John Prescott the right age
existed in that group of villages, particularly since this one was, I have
somewhere, a blacksmith, and was not a young man when he came to
Massachusetts, indeed this article says that his children were born in
Lancaster. I'm accepting the lineage until I see evidence to the contrary.
John Prescott of Massachusetts even seems to have been a somewhat quixotic
individual with some interest consistent with owning a suit of armor! A man
like that would seemingly have had a reputation where he previously lived. He
may even have previously belonged to one of those local militia units that
existed all over England in those times, or be recorded as having contributed
toward raising armies, etc. So it shouldn't be impossible to find him - if
he was really a separate individual.
Yours,
Dora Smith
cl...@freenet.buffalo.edu
dora...@usa.net
Always optimistic--Dave
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"I love the language, that soft bastard Latin, Which melts like kisses
from a female mouth." --- "Beppo [1818]" Stanza 44, George Noel Gordon,
Lord Byron [1788-1824]
<U...@aol.com> wrote in message news:0.2979379...@aol.com...
| In a message dated 12/12/99 6:30:48 AM Central Standard Time,
| rsbo...@compuserve.com writes:
|
| << U...@aol.com posted an ancestry of John Prescott of Lancashire
proposed by
| Weiss. This is another case of an ancestry which has been disproved
but
| nevertheless gets posted every few months.
|
| The parentage of John Prescott, immigrant, to Lancaster Mass. is not
known.
| >>
| Thanks for the information, however it appears from my notes that the
line is
| challenged, not disproven.
Your notes are wrong.
The Burden of Proof lies on those who say the line is valid.
| But, to be on the conservative side I shall
| annotate the parentage of John so I do not accidently post it as fact
in the
| future.
Kind of you.
| In addition, if it was not posted many would not know of the
| challenge. I think this group acts as an excellent clearing house for
| identifying the good, bad, and ugly. Thanks again. My notes on John
| Prescott:
|
| Founder of Lancaster, MA in 1645; blacksmith.
|
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
|
| The identification of John Prescott of Lancaster, Mass. with the son,
John,
| of Ralph of Shevington is still challenged. See TAG 34: 180 and
elsewhere.
| While evidence is not conclusive, the alternatives are not conclusive,
| either. This line requires further work.
The line is not proven. So, at present it is not worth the powder to
blow it to Hell.
| with the name Standish form [sic] a village named Standish. But surely
it shouldn't
| be too difficult to establish
If it's "not too difficult" why hasn't it been done? Or, why don't you
do it, if it's "not too difficult?"
| whether another John Prescott the right age
| existed in that group of villages, particularly since this one was, I
have
| somewhere, a blacksmith, and was not a young man when he came to
| Massachusetts, indeed this article says that his children were born in
| Lancaster. I'm accepting the lineage until I see evidence to the
contrary.
Say, What? That is a decidedly wrong-headed way to proceed.
Again, we don't accept a line as good, until disproven.
| John Prescott of Massachusetts even seems to have been a somewhat
quixotic
| individual with some interest consistent with owning a suit of armor!
A man
| like that would seemingly have had a reputation where he previously
lived.
Yes, there are queer people all over, aren't there? If he had a suit of
armor he must have come from English nobility or at least gentry, hoping
to trace himself to nobility? That's how some of these foolish stories
gain traction in the minds of careless researchers.
Please tell us some of your other fantasies. These are good for a
laugh.
| He
| may even have previously belonged to one of those local militia units
that
| existed all over England in those times, or be recorded as having
contributed
| toward raising armies, etc. So it shouldn't be impossible to find
him - if
| he was really a separate individual.
Wacko. "Contributed toward raising armies?" So now you've given him an
honorary elevation to the nobility?
You just touched him with a magic wand and made him a potential "raiser
of armies" did you?
Line Unproven. Period.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Chris Dickinson
<snip>
<<U...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0.2979379...@aol.com...
<snip>
>| Thanks for the information, however it appears from my
notes that the
>line is
>| challenged, not disproven.
>Your notes are wrong.
>The Burden of Proof lies on those who say the line is
valid.
>|
>| The identification of John Prescott of Lancaster, Mass.
with the son,
>John,
>| of Ralph of Shevington is still challenged. See TAG 34:
180 and
>elsewhere.
>| While evidence is not conclusive, the alternatives are
not conclusive,
>| either. This line requires further work.
>The line is not proven. So, at present it is not worth the
powder to
>blow it to Hell.
<snip>
>Line Unproven. Period.
Thank you. D Spencer Hines is absolutely right.
That at some point in the past someone has surmised or
invented a pedigree is no reason for repeating it in the
future. If there is no proved link, then there is no link.
As D Spencer Hines puts it, period.
Dora Smith had previously written :
>The way I understand this, the nature of the problem is
that John Prescott
>[ ... <snip>] has not been proven to have been the John
Prescott proven to have >lived in the same area who was the
son of Ralph Prescott. [... <snip>] But >surely it
shouldn't be too difficult to establish whether another John
Prescott the >right age existed
I think that there may be a problem for people today,
especially for Americans with a very mixed genetic
background, really to appreciate how localised and
saturating names could be pre-1800.
A single surname like Prescott might well be held by three
or four separate families within a couple of miles of each
other (and no other Prescott within 20 miles). In such a
scenario, they might well have a common ancestor (but this
is unlikely to be provable) and use similar forenames.
As John is so common, it is not impossible that there could
be 8 John Prescotts in this 2 mile stretch, A John Prescott
Senior and a John Prescott Junior to each family, let alone
surviving John Prescott grandfathers and other scions living
on the same farm.
You might well have (in a nightmare scenario) 4 John
Prescotts all born within 5 years of each other, quite
possibly all marrying Marys, and all having children John,
Ralph and Mary and all dying within 5 years of each other.
The records simply are unlikely to distinguish clearly
between all of them.
So even if you know that a John Prescott existed of the
right age, you can't be certain that this is the John
Prescott you want. You must have more definite evidence than
the coincidence of names.
When the name isn't common to an area, then these problems
don't exist and the burden of proof can be much lighter.
Even so, no-one should really claim a line just because the
right name happens to be in the right area at the right
time.
Chris
U...@aol.com
rsbo...@compuserve.com writes:
<< Dave,
Gary Roberts told me about 2 years ago that the Prescott family association
had hired a genealogist to look into the John Prescott matter and they had
discovered definite proof that the alleged identification of Prescott was
wrong.
I believe this was published in the Prescott newsletter about 1992, but I
have not seen that nor do I know its address
Robert Bowman
>>
Thanks--I'll try and find it at the Newberry tomorrow, then post what it says.
Always optimistic--Dave
D. Spencer Hines
Chris Dickinson makes some quite excellent points. Bravo.
This:
"I'm going to treat this line as valid until someone shows me _exactly_
where it is wrong. So, you experts better get busy..."
Attitude
Is
Asinine.
Yet, it proliferates and continues to pollute the Genealogical and
Historical Water Table -- Big Time.
Another conceptual problem is that people mindlessly project modern,
bureaucratic record-keeping techniques back for centuries, with no good
cause.
No, they don't _quite_ think that there was an Office of the Crown
keeping birth certificates on the entire populace, including all the
peasants and yeomen farmers, 400 years ago. But they think that there
are "some records" "you know at the churches or wherever" "if you just
knew where to look" that "will prove that this John Prescott was the son
of Ralph" and "since you people are the experts, I'm sure that you can
eventually find those records, if I just keep reminding you about them
and goading you along a bit."
These people, having never done any actual research in the primary
sources themselves, have utterly no idea of what they are talking about
and they often cling to arrant fantasies.
Then they pass on those arrant fantasies to others and that's the way
[one way] the bad dope is propagated and pollutes the Genealogical and
Historical Water Table.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"I love the language, that soft bastard Latin, Which melts like kisses
from a female mouth." --- "Beppo [1818]" Stanza 44, George Noel Gordon,
Lord Byron [1788-1824]
"Chris Dickinson" <sej...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:833dum$69i$1...@gxsn.com...
| D. Spencer Hines writes:
|
| <snip>
| <<U...@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:0.2979379...@aol.com...
| <snip>
| >| Thanks for the information, however it appears from my
| notes that the
| >line is
| >| challenged, not disproven.
|
| >Your notes are wrong.
| >The Burden of Proof lies on those who say the line is
| valid.
|
| >|
| >| The identification of John Prescott of Lancaster, Mass.
| with the son,
| >John,
| >| of Ralph of Shevington is still challenged. See TAG 34:
| 180 and
| >elsewhere.
| >| While evidence is not conclusive, the alternatives are
| not conclusive,
| >| either. This line requires further work.
|
| >The line is not proven. So, at present it is not worth the
| powder to
| >blow it to Hell.
|
| <snip>
|
| >Line Unproven. Period.
|
|
| Thank you. D Spencer Hines is absolutely right.
|
| That at some point in the past someone has surmised or
| invented a pedigree is no reason for repeating it in the
| future. If there is no proved link, then there is no link.
| As D Spencer Hines puts it, period.
|
| Dora Smith had previously written :
|
| >The way I understand this, the nature of the problem is
| that John Prescott
| >[ ... <snip>] has not been proven to have been the John
| Prescott proven to have >lived in the same area who was the
| son of Ralph Prescott. [... <snip>] But >surely it
| shouldn't be too difficult to establish whether another John
| Prescott the >right age existed
|
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
Northern and Southern Lines including descendants
of immigrants John Prescott of Lancaster MA (c1640);
John Prescott of VA (c1653);
James Prescott of New Hampton (c1665),
and others.
Funds raised go to research in England seeking
more information about origins.
Contact: Doris Ward,
42 Larchmont Road,
Asheville NC
28804-2446.
E-mail: Prescotts Limited
Dori...@aol.com"
FROM:
Family Associations & Newsletters
http://familyhistory.flash.net/newsletters.html
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/homepage.htm#Here
Listed in: Who's Who In The West, 1998/1999
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
------------------------------------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, John Prescott descendants desperately searching, digging and hoping
for a Royal Ascent.
Certainly not unprecedented.
We see this sort of thing all the time.
So what?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"I love the language, that soft bastard Latin, Which melts like kisses
from a female mouth." --- "Beppo [1818]" Stanza 44, George Noel Gordon,
Lord Byron [1788-1824]
"Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <vcti...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3855D284...@dcn.davis.ca.us...
U...@aol.com
Parentage of John Prescott, who settled in 1645 at Lancaster, Mass.--At p.
238 of the July 1958 REGISTER, the Society records receipt of a Prescott
genealogy dated 1957, wherein Frederick Lewis Weis presents "eight lines of
descent of John Prescott, founder of Lancaster, Mass., 1645, from Alfred the
Great, King of England, 871-901."
The aforesaid eight lines record some of the ancestors of Ralph Prescott of
Shevington, parish of Standish, Lancashire, who died testate in 1608/9; in
his will he named his wife Elene, daughters Elene, Alice, and Cecille, and
son John.
Dr. Weis has identified the aforesaid legatee, John, with John Prescott,
settler in 1645 of Lancaster, Mass., for the following reasons:
i. Prescott is claimed to have founded Lancaster [in which case, he or
his father probably came from Lancashire].
ii. His wife in 1678 identified him with Halifax, Yorkshire, where their
children were baptized.
iii. His father's will is claimed to identify him with the Prescott
family of Standish Parish, Lancashire.
While Prescott was a founder, he should not be called "the founder" of
Lancaster, for others were associated with him in the purchase and settlement
of the town.
An identification by his wife, showing that Prescott had lived in Halifax,
cannot be held to prove association with Standish Parish, some 40 miles away
from Halifax.
A will of a testator who died in 1608/9 can hardly be held to prove any
connection with the emigrant who left England several decades afterwards, in
the absence of other factors.
The published Parish Register of Standish Parish, in Lancaster, fails to
record the baptism of a John Prescott of Shevington. However, that register
includes the following entry"
"Buried, 28 Oct. 1616, John Prescott of Shevington". In the absence of
contrary proof the preceding entry must be held to record the interment of
the legatee, John Prescott, son of Ralph Prescott, of Shevington, the above
testator. In the light of this evidence, it would seem that we who descend
from Prescott of Lancaster, Mass., must reject the parentage of Prescott,
advanced by Dr. Weis.
It is significant, that there were several persons named John Prescott in
Standish parish, as indicated by the following entries from the printed
registers:
John Prescott of Shevington, buried 20 July 1579
John Prescott buried 1563/4; John Prescott buried 1570
John Prescott buried 1585; John Prescott buried 1611
John Prescott buried 1614; John Prescott buried 1615.
John Prescott baptized in 1612, son of John.
John Prescott baptized in 1613, son of Thomas.
John Prescott had wife Margaret in July, 1628.
John Prescott had wife Grace, 26 Nov. 1637.
Cecilie, bap. 1602, and Ellen, bapt. 1607, daughters of John Prescott.
Cecilie Prescott was buried in 1628.
Further, it would seem to be highly significant that John Prescott of
Lancaster had no known issue named Ralph, Roger, Alexander, Ellen, Helen,
Cecile or Alice, which are the names one would expect to be commemorated in
the family of a descendant of the armigerous Prescotts of Shevington.
Moreover, the only son of that gentile English family would probably not have
been a blacksmith, as was our John Prescott of Lancaster.
Since the foregoing was prepared, the following records have come to my
attention: In Errington [adjoining Sowerby, Halifax Parish] one Bridget
Prescot was buried 12 July 1624 ["Heptonstall Parish registers", printed].
Chances are that she was sister or mother of John Prescott who settled in
Lancaster in 1645.
The following records are from printed Lancashire Parish registers:
Christened 27 Nov. 1606, John, son of Henry Prescot [at Prescot].
Christened 20 Apr. 1606, John Preskot, son of James [at Ornskirk].
Further wills at Chester indicate that the Prescotts were living in the early
seventeenth century in Halsall, Heskin, Ince in Makerfield, Standish, Newlon,
Upholland, Wigan, Gorton, Coppul and Sefton. The will of Robert Orrell the
elder of Wigan, dated 1623, names his cousin William Molyneux, gent, and
leaves legacies to Cicely, Jane, Agnes, and Elizabeth, daughters of John
Prescott [Chetham Soc., vol. 37 [1897], pp. 22 through 25].
In my opinion, one would have to search the registers of all the parishes
named above as well as the parishes of Lancs. that adjoin Yorkshire, before
he could venture an opinion as to who was the father of John Prescott, in
1645 of Lancaster. My own thought is that the latter John, a blacksmith, may
have been the son or nephew of Richard Prescott of Ince, Lancs., blacksmith,
whose will dated 1633, is at Chester.
There is reason to suppose that this blacksmith, Richard, lived at Ince in
Makerfield, not Ince-Blundell. Ince in Makerfield is [or was] a hamlet
adjoining Wigan lying toward Halifax from Wigan, according to an old map of
Lancashire [in the front part of Gregson's "Portfolio of Fragments"
concerning Lancashire.
Always optimistic--Dave
Chris Dickinson
<snip>
>The aforesaid eight lines record some of the ancestors of
Ralph Prescott of
>Shevington, parish of Standish, Lancashire, who died
testate in 1608/9; in
>his will he named his wife Elene, daughters Elene, Alice,
and Cecille, and
>son John.
<snip>
Hmm, yes, not quite the nightmare scenario ,,, but getting
there :-)
I don't know anything about the Prescotts or Shevington, but
can comment on one common convention in well-ordered parish
registers.
The senior member of a property-owning household is often
indicated by the formula < forename surname "of" place>, and
anyone else just by <forename surname>. When the father dies
the registers then refer to his son and heir as <forename
surname "of" place>
There can be more complex conventions (using terms like
'thelder' and 'junior') but the situation at Shevington
looks straightforward.
Ralph of Shevington dies 1608/9. His named son John becomes
'of Shevington' and dies 1616. End of story.
Chris
Paul C. Reed
Heptonstall covered the largest geographical area in England, as far as I
remember (either that or the manor covered a larger area than any other). It
included numerous chapelries, so people, even children, were identified by
their place of residence as there were frequently many others of the same name
in the parish. [At least there is a printed version of the PR.] But if you
try to reconstruct families, baptisms and burials of large families, you
quickly discover that not all events could have possibly made it into the
surviving register.
There were quite a few emigrants who came from Halifax and Heptonstall to New
England. So I don't have much difficulty with the acceptance of the Halifax
origin.
Where it becomes sticky, and where wishful thinking becomes a great danger, is
in trying to determine where he was from before Halifax. For instance, the
Heptonstall registers do not survive before 1594/1600, and probate records have
been thoroughly exhausted. So how do you say someone of the same name came
from Lancashire, with so many other candidates around?
In such a case, one must have extremely compelling evidence, if not a direct
statement, to accept the earlier connections. (IMHO)
Paul
ROBERT E. BOWMAN
the will of Ralph Prescott mentions his oldest son, Roger, first, and it is
he who inherited whatever land there was. I presume that it would be this
Roger who would became" Roger of Shevington" after his father died
John , second son of Ralph, is mentioned in a pious wish that the widow
would leave something to him when she died. She didnt have much to live on
the rest of her life, so it couldnt have been very much at all--only a few
pounds at best.
This is in no way to be construed as endorsing the wishful thinking of
Weiss that Ralph's son John was the "famous" immigrant.
I do not know whether the younger son John , dying, would have been
described as "of Shevington" as indicated in a recent message, apparently
written under the assumption that he were the only, or elder, son.
Robert Bowman
Chris Dickinson
>I do not know whether the younger son John , dying, would
have been
>described as "of Shevington" as indicated in a recent
message, apparently
>written under the assumption that he were the only, or
elder, son.
Indeed it was written under that assumption :-)
Which raises the question ... did Roger survive? Of course,
one needs to know the idiosyncrasies in any parish register,
and sometimes younger sons do get the "of" treatment, but an
interpretation of the facts as they have been presented so
far suggests that he died between 1608/9 and 1616.
Mind you, as I have no idea of what Shevington is I could be
way off-course ... I've been assuming that it is a single
farm or a two/three household settlement. If it is larger
than that then the "of Shevington" may indicate very little.
:-)
Chris
ROBERT E. BOWMAN
Weiss says that Roger Prescott, son and heir of Ralph was baptized in 1594
and that --no date mentioned-- he sold the lands he inherited to Richard
Prescott, a blacksmith in Wigan, whom Weiss describes as a"kinsman"---but
then Weiss describes all Prescotts and Standishes as "kinsmen"
He says of "most of the Prescott families...[were] by blood and breeding
...generally the cousins of the Standishes and naturally were treated
affably by them; but socially they were far apart..." Wishful thinking
never ends with Weiss.
Incidentally on one of the New England fora, it was said that it was Paul
Reed who administered the coup de grace to Weis's theory. If so, Paul, like
Scherezade at dawn, has kept discreetly silent on the subject, perhaps on
the terms of his engagement..
Robert Bowman
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
This township or civil parish was in Lancashire. It was
in Standish ecclesiastical parish and in Wigan
poor law Union. In 1974 it became part of Wigan
Metropolitan Borough."
http://www.gmcro.u-net.com/gazzs.htm
"SHEVINGTON
The name means 'the settlement below the ridge . . ."
http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/council/wmbguide/bg6.htm
"Dean Wood, straddling the boundary between Wigan
and West Lancashire near Shevington, is an ancient stretch
of woodland in the Douglas Valley. It is of first grade wildlife
importance. Further south are the Billinge Plantations,
another stretch of delightful mature woodland."
http://www.wiganmbc.gov.uk/pub/council/wmbguide/bg16.htm
PICTURES from Shevington High School "Geography on-line":
http://www.shevington.org.uk/geograph.htm
"WIGAN RURAL DISTRICT
This Rural District was in Lancashire.
In 1894 it comprised the following townships or civil parishes:
Dalton, Haigh, Parbold, Shevington, Worthington,
Wrightington. For these areas see DALTON, HAIGH, etc.
In 1974 the Rural District was dissolved; Haigh, Shevington
and Worthington civil parishes became part of Wigan
Metropolitan Borough, Greater Manchester County,
the others part of West Lancashire District, Lancashire."
http://www.gmcro.u-net.com/gazzt2w.htm
"Tyldesley:
Wigan: Of Celtic and Roman origin, Wigan stands on high
ground above e the River Douglas. Subsequent Norse
invaders are recalled by street names ending in gate -
Wallgate and Millgate - from gata ‘or ‘road’. One of
the oldest Boroughs in Lancashire, the town’s charter
dates back to 1246. and, throughout the Middle Ages
Wigan acted as market place for the surrounding area.
["Sir Adam BANASTRE held various lands in the Parish
of Standish*{see note below}, including Shevington,
and in 1315 he led a group of insurgents against Thomas,
Earl of Lancaster, and his favourite Sir Robert HOLLAND,
who was regarded as an upstart. Generally speaking
the cause of the friction lay between the Earl and King
Edward II (1307-1327). The Banastre Rebellion was
fought by many close neighbours of Sir Adam BANASTRE
including Sir Henry de LEA of Park Hall in Charnock Richard,
Sir William BRADSHAW of Haigh and Henry de DUXBURY."
*{NOTE E-MAIL REFERENCE, Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999
13:39:15 -0500; "ROBERT E. BOWMAN"
<rsbo...@compuserve.com>
"(He says of "most of the Prescott families...
[were] by blood and breeding...generally the cousins
of the Standishes and naturally were treated
affably by them; but socially they were far apart...") "}]"
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~duxbury/Banastr.html
Industry began about 1450 with the town's first coalpit.
Over the centuries mining activity steadily increased and,
by the late 1800's there were over 1,000 pit shafts
within 5 miles of the towns centre."
http://www.hotpots.ndirect.co.uk/wigantowns.htm#Shevingto
Incorrect geographic designation in web Prescott connection:
"28832. James PRESCOTT was born in 1508 in Shevington,
Yorkshire, England. He died in 1568."
http://www.co.catawba.nc.us/otheragency/ccgs/dhart/d1088.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/homepage.htm#Here
Listed in: Who's Who In The West, 1998/1999
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry,
[both editions]
----------------------------------
Chris Dickinson
>For whatever its worth,
>
>Weiss says that Roger Prescott, son and heir of Ralph was
baptized in 1594
>and that --no date mentioned-- he sold the lands he
inherited to Richard
>Prescott, a blacksmith in Wigan, whom Weiss describes as
a"kinsman"---but
>then Weiss describes all Prescotts and Standishes as
"kinsmen"
>
>He says of "most of the Prescott families...[were] by blood
and breeding
>...generally the cousins of the Standishes and naturally
were treated
>affably by them; but socially they were far apart..."
Wishful thinking
>never ends with Weiss.
Not worth very much! :-)
The selling of the lands sounds like pure invention to
justify the thesis.
Ah, the 'blood and breeding' phraseology! There's a
wonderful example of that in an article by Elias Jones about
the origins of the Richardsons, early settlers of Maryland :
"In England the Richardsons are one of the oldest and most
distinguished families in the realm"!
I'm beginning to realise that bogus pedigrees are formulaic
... drop in half a dozen standard ideas (removing from one
place to another, blood and breeding, armorial similarity,
name coincidence ....) and they sell, sell, sell.
Chris
Nathan Murphy
> record the baptism of a John Prescott of Shevington. However, that register
> includes the following entry"
>
> "Buried, 28 Oct. 1616, John Prescott of Shevington". In the absence of
> contrary proof the preceding entry must be held to record the interment of
> the legatee, John Prescott, son of Ralph Prescott, of Shevington, the above
> testator. In the light of this evidence, it would seem that we who descend
> from Prescott of Lancaster, Mass., must reject the parentage of Prescott,
> advanced by Dr. Weis.
I haven't seen this pointed out, but the Shevington Prescotts were Catholic in 1628:
Shevington & Walchwhittle recusants 1628: Robt Prescott, Ellen Prescott vid[ua], Alice Prescott spinster
Source: 'Three Lancashire Subsidy Rolls, 1541, 1622, and 1628; and a Recusant Roll, 1628,' Miscellanies Relating to Lancashire and Cheshire, Lancashire and Cheshire Rec. Soc. Pubs. 12 (1885), 178, https://books.google.com/books?id=g9ZAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq="Ellen+Prescott+vid"
Ellen could be the widow of Ralph Prescott of Shevington (wp 1608/9). They had a daughter Alice, who might be the spinster. Robert's identity is unknown.
There might be additional Catholic sources in the Catholic Record Society series.
Note: John Prescott is absent from the recusant list. Neither is he on the 1628 lay subsidy at Shevington (brief list, 3 names, p. 168). This is supportive of the idea that he was dead.
Did many children of Catholics emigrate to New England?
PROBATE RECORDS
Will of Roger Prescott of Shavington, parish of Standish
Will dated: 26 Sep 1594
Will proved: Oct 1594
Requests burial within parish church of Standish
Wife: Elene
Son: Rauffe the Chimley in my howse w[i]th all thinges appe[r]teyninge
Books lether
Nephew: Alexander Wynnarde
Daughter: Izabell
Three daughters: Elene, Anne, and Issabell
Executors: Rauffe my sonne and the said Allexand[e]r Wynnarde
Very good maisters: Edward Standishe esqr and Allexand[e]r Standishe his sonne and heire apparent
Witnesses: Allexand[e]r Standishe, Geffray Prescott, Thomas Rigbie, Rob[er]te Amonde, Richarde Rigbie, Edwarde Rigbie, Allexand[e]r Seriante w[i]th others
Debts: Allexand[e]r Winnarde and Elizabeth his wyffe
Source: FHL Film 89448, LDS access image, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DRTT-6?i=276&cat=126866
Will of Ralph Prescott of Shevington, parish of Standish
Will dated: 7 Sep 1608
Will proved: 23 Jan 1608[/9]
Wife: Elene
Three daughters: Elene, Alice, and Cicelie
Son: John; gave him the Iron Chymelie
Executors: wife, Geffraie Prescotte, Alexander Wynnerde
Overseers, my good maisters: Alexander Standyshe of Woollston esquiere and Raffe Standyshe of Standyshe esquiere and heire appar[a]nnte of the saide Alexander
Witnesses: Edward Rigbye of the gatehurste and Edward Rigbye son of Edwarde Thomas Rigbye
Owes debt to Peter Fyssher of Upphollande
Source: FHL Film 89464, LDS access image, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-XCC9-1NQ?i=157&cat=126866
Note: No mention of a son Roger. dvp?
This could be Roger's burial:
1601[/2] Jan 11, Rogerus f[ilius] Rad[ulph]i Prescotte - this could be Ralph’s eldest son
Source: Standish, Lancashire, parish registers, p. 164, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924006644730;view=1up;seq=178
'Chimley' is a dialect term for 'chimney.' It's curious that Roger gave his chimley to his son Ralph and Ralph gave his chimley to his son John.
Who did Roger's daughters marry? Did Roger's sons-in-law leave wills that might disclose information about John Prescott?
PRESCOTT OF SHEVINGTON BURIALS AT STANDISH 1558-1653
(p. 139) 1565[/6] Feb 23, intra Helena Prescotte Shevington
(p. 140) 1567 Nov 11, intr. Elizabeth Prescotte Shevington
(p. 141) 1569 Jul 14, Jacobus Prescotte Shevington
(p. 142) 1571 May 03, intr: Rad[ulph]us Prescotte Shevingto[n]
(p. 147) 1577 Apr 03, intra Johanna Prescotte Shevington
(p. 147) 1577 Dec 05, intra Johanna Prescotte Shevington
(p. 149) 1579 Jul 20, Joh[ann]es Prescotte Shevingto[n]
(p. 152) 1581[/2] Feb 17, Johanna Prescotte Shevingto[n]
(p. 154) 1585 May 23, Thomas Prescotte Shevingto[n]
(p. 154) 1585 Sep 12, Margerie Prescotte Shevington
(p. 155) 1586 Sep 12, intra A child of Robert Prescotte Shevington
(p. 165) 1602 Nov 26, Margerie Prescotte Shevington
(p. 168) 1605 Oct 01, Agnes Prescotte Shevington
(p. 171) 1608[/9] Jan 03, M: Radulphus Prescot de Shevington
(p. 174) 1611 Jun 27, Elizabetha Prescot vxor Roberti de Shevington
(p. 178) 1616 Oct 28, Johannes Prescot de Shevington - could this be Ralph’s son?
(p. 184) 1623 Sep 01, Jacobus Prescod de Sheavington Yeoma[n]
(p. 188) 1627 Dec 08, Joh[ann]es Prescott de Sheuington - could this be Ralph’s son?
(p. 191) 1631[/2] Mar 20, Henricus f[ilius] Rob[er]ti Prescott de Shevingto[n] et vx[o]r eius
(p. 199) 1643 Nov 18, Elline Presscot de Shevington - could this be Ralph’s widow?
Note: There are two possible burials for John Prescott of Shevington (1616 and 1627).
There’s no evidence that the clerks at Standish only identified places of residence for the eldest sons in families.
DNA NEGATIVE SEARCH
DNA hasn't helped sort out the immigrant's origin. Only one person claiming descent from John Prescott has publicized y-DNA results (Kit 182591; Haplogroup R-M269). He is not grouped with any matches: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Prescott?iframe=ycolorized
Nathan
Nathan Murphy
>
> I haven't seen this pointed out, but the Shevington Prescotts were Catholic in 1628:
>
> Shevington & Walchwhittle recusants 1628: Robt Prescott, Ellen Prescott vid[ua], Alice Prescott spinster
Between 1558 and 1628, the Standish parish register includes entries for three other Prescotts who had wives Ellen:
1561, Robert Prescotte and Helen [of?] Wigann bp. son John (p. 2)
The wife of Roger Prescott (d. 1594) was named Ellen (grandparents of John, subject of these posts). It’s unclear when Roger’s widow died. Possible burials in 1593 and 1601/2.
1626/7, Edward Prescot and Ellen. Township not specified. No evidence he died before 1628.
Based on this analysis, the 1628 recusant was most likely the widow of Ralph of Shevington (d. 1608/9). There is a potential burial for her in 1643:
(p. 199) 1643 Nov 18, Elline Presscot de Shevington bur.
She is not on probate testator indexes. Is there an admon? (tbd)
John Prescott’s absence on the 1628 recusant and lay subsidy lists could also be interpreted to signify he moved, didn’t meet the threshold to pay the tax, was underage, or was not Catholic.
Lay subsidies for Shevington Township are available at The National Archives for the following pertinent years: 1600, 1611, 1612, 1622, 1626 (2), 1628 (2), 1641, 1642, should anyone wish to search them.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e179/searchresults.asp?confirmedplace=Shevington&slctdoctypeid=&txtplace=Shevington&formid=22268&chkplace=&chkdocumentselection=2&txtdocumentfromyear=year+%28YYYY%29&txtdocumenttoyear=year+%28YYYY%29&linkback=%2Fe179%2Fsearch%2Easp&targetpage=searchresults%2Easp
Nathan