Richard "Mayflower Compact" Warren

[d_se...@verizon.net]

Would someone please comment on whether or not Richard Warren is
connected with the aristocratic English family Warren/de Warenne?

David Sewall
Orono, Maine USA

[al...@mindspring.com]

On Jun 26, 3:22 pm, "d_sew...@verizon.net" <d_sew...@verizon.net>
wrote:

No one has proven that he is a member of that family. His parentage
is not proven.

Doug Smith

[AdrianBnjmBurke]

On Jun 26, 3:22 pm, "d_sew...@verizon.net" <d_sew...@verizon.net>
wrote:

caleb johnson's mayflower website is pretty up to date on current
genealogy of the pilgrims. if i recall, the main reason people have
thought in the past that richard warren was of gentry origin was his
name - other than that i don't remember any particular fact that
implied a better than average social standing...but as i am not a
warren i havent looked into it with great detail

adrian

[ps bumppo]

Mayflower historian, Louise Walsh Throop - compiler of the Descendants of George Soule "pink Books" - has now identified the father of Richard Warren of The Mayflower as John Warren - armorer. Birth records for children of John Warren, including Richard b. 15 Jan 1579/80, bap. 24 Jan 1579/80 are cited as from:
A Register of all the Christenings, Burials and Weddings, Parish of Saint Peter’s upon
Cornhill” (London, 1877) Vol. 1 p. 21 [abbreviated: St. Peter’s]; see FHL Film #845228:26

The wife of this John Warren is cited as Lettice/Lettes (MNU) Warren

[taf]

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 12:42:07 PM UTC-7, psbu...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Mayflower historian, Louise Walsh Throop - compiler of the Descendants of George Soule "pink Books" - has now identified the father of Richard Warren of The Mayflower as John Warren - armorer. Birth records for children of John Warren, including Richard b. 15 Jan 1579/80, bap. 24 Jan 1579/80 are cited as from:
> A Register of all the Christenings, Burials and Weddings, Parish of Saint Peter’s upon
> Cornhill” (London, 1877) Vol. 1 p. 21 [abbreviated: St. Peter’s]; see FHL Film #845228:26
>
> The wife of this John Warren is cited as Lettice/Lettes (MNU) Warren

Is there any actual evidence that the Mayflower passenger was the person in this baptism, or is this just a case of finding a baptism for someone of the right name and general chronology?

[ps bumppo]

Some not horrible Circumstantial thinking.

www.camayflower.org
See p.18 in Fall 2022 CA Mayflower Quarterly

[ps bumppo]

I apologize for not understanding the workings of this board. Seems rather antiquated, as am I. https://www.camayflower.org/uploads/1/2/5/1/125178701/mayflower_quarterly-fall_2022.pdf

[Will Johnson]

"Onomastic clues !indicate!...." uh, no there are no onomastic clues in the third son being named John
This is nineteenth century reasoning.

[Will Johnson]

I read the entire article, and find it quite wanting.

[joseph cook]

> > > > The wife of this John Warren is cited as Lettice/Lettes (MNU) Warren
> > > Is there any actual evidence that the Mayflower passenger was the person in this baptism, or is this just a case of finding a baptism for someone of the right name and general chronology?
> > Some not horrible Circumstantial thinking.
> >
> > www.camayflower.org
> > See p.18 in Fall 2022 CA Mayflower Quarterly
> I apologize for not understanding the workings of this board. Seems rather antiquated, as am I. https://www.camayflower.org/uploads/1/2/5/1/125178701/mayflower_quarterly-fall_2022.pdf

Thank you for this link. As a Richard Warren descendant my thoughts are:
If Richard Warren is the Richard Warren of the 15 Jan 1579/80 baptism, then he was born in London, but married age 30 in Hertford. The article says he married older because his father died when he was young. But this is entirely circular reasoning entirely. Almost the very next sentence is "Thus there is no doubt that the parents of Richard Warren, passenger in 1620 on the Mayflower, were John and [Lettes] Warren.". No doubt?! Strong words, indeed! The only evidence given to this point is that the 3rd son of Richard's son Nathaniel was named John, so Richard's father would have to be named John; and THIS John has to be the one because he is in London. Any one of those assumptions quite tenuous, and do not strengthen with aggregation.

There were probably 10 Richard Warrens baptized to John Warrens in London alone between 1577 and 1588, and the link of Richard Warren to London is extremely tenuous to begin with.

If naming patterns were so strong in the Warren family, let's look at Richard Warren's other son Joseph. Were his kids named Richard, <maternal grandfather>, John? No, in fact they were Joseph and Benjamin. Hmm. Of course, not to mention that Richard Warren did not have a known son named John as evidence of strong naming patterns.

There is some discussion on a sword, and the argument is made that anyone who owned a sword in New England must be descended from a knight or an armorer? I don't understand this logic.

Please don't take my tone as attacking; the discussion is interesting and it is good to see the suggestion and work through it. If there really are other associations between John Warren, armorer, and Great Amwell, those may very well be fruitful avenues to investigate.

But at this time I do not agree with the author that there is "no doubt" that the father of Richard Warren is proven.

--Joe Cook

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

It seems to be accepted that Richard Warren came from London, and not some other location in England, but this article was very hard for me to follow, as it assumed prior knowledge of the family. (It also didn't seem to be well-written, but that's a different problem.) Possibly the author has never dealt with "John Greene" and his wife "Mary" in Rhode Island. (I found four in just one county. Before 1700.)

[Jan Wolfe]

A quick search of the parish records from the London Metropolitan Archives available on Ancestry.com suggests that there were at least six children named Richard Warren baptized in greater London between 1575 and 1595. One of them is indeed the one at St Peter Upon Cornhill selected by the author of the article.

[Jan Wolfe]

The book of transcriptions of the parish records of St Peter upon Cornhill has two entries concerning Richard Warren in addition to the entries mentioned by the author of the article recently published by the California Mayflower Society:
https://archive.org/details/registerofallchr01lond/page/182/mode/1up
p. 182
1624
November 16 Buried Richard Warren free of the Cutlers dwelling in Gracechurchstreete pit in the Liberary Coff'

image of original record on Ancestry:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1624/images/31281_a102156-00162?pId=7889365

https://archive.org/details/registerofallchr01lond/page/64/mode/1up
p. 64
1615[/16]
March 6 Wednesday Luke Warren the sonne of Richard Warren Cutler in Gracechurch streete

image of original record on Ancestry:
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1624/images/31281_a102156-00039?pId=7887338

These two records suggest that it is unlikely that Richard Warren, son of John Warren and his wife Lettice of St Peter upon Cornhill, was the same man as the Mayflower passenger. It seems odd that the author of the article didn't mention these two records. They are listed in the index of the book. She did notice the burial of the Cornhill Richard's brother William in 1619.

[joseph cook]

On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 10:36:08 AM UTC-4, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> A quick search of the parish records from the London Metropolitan Archives available on Ancestry.com suggests that there were at least six children named Richard Warren baptized in greater London between 1575 and 1595. One of them is indeed the one at St Peter Upon Cornhill selected by the author of the article.

Of those records that survived. Since we know that Richard Warren's daughter's were born in England, but their baptism records have not yet been located, it is not a slam dunk at all that a baptism of their father must be one of those that survived to today.

--Joe Cook

[Jan Wolfe]

As a solution to the problem mentioned below, Louise Walsh Throop proposes that the Richard Warren, cutler, who had a son baptized in 1616 and was buried in 1624 was the son of George Warren who she proposes may have been a brother of John Warren, the proposed father of the immigrant Richard Warren.

Boyd's Inhabitants of London has a page about George Warren and his wife Elizabeth Cage who were married in 1564 in St Matthew Friday Street in London. Their children were baptized there, Richard in 1571. There is a connection of this Warren family to the parish of St Peter upon Cornhill as one of George's daughters married John Record who was a Merchant Taylor in St Peter upon Cornhill. Two of George Warren's children, Jane and Ananias, died at the home of John Record and were buried in St Peter upon Cornhill. John Record himself and three of his children died the same month. *If* George Warren and John Warren were brothers, it may not be implausible for George's son Richard to have followed the profession (cutler) of John Warren's widow's second husband, Lawrence Evans.

As several have mentioned, the facts gathered so far do not demonstrate that Richard, son of John and Lettice Warren, was the same man as the Mayflower passenger, but they are consistent with Louise's proposal.

[taf]

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 8:16:06 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Almost the very next sentence is "Thus there is no doubt that the parents
> of Richard Warren, passenger in 1620 on the Mayflower, were John and
> [Lettes] Warren.". No doubt?! Strong words, indeed! The only evidence given
> to this point is that the 3rd son of Richard's son Nathaniel was named John,
> so Richard's father would have to be named John; and THIS John has to be
> the one because he is in London. Any one of those assumptions quite
> tenuous, and do not strengthen with aggregation.

<snip>

> If naming patterns were so strong in the Warren family, let's look at Richard
> Warren's other son Joseph. Were his kids named Richard, <maternal
> grandfather>, John? No, in fact they were Joseph and Benjamin. Hmm. Of
> course, not to mention that Richard Warren did not have a known son named
> John as evidence of strong naming patterns.

At this time and place, no onomastic arguments should be made based on John - it was too common, and the Pilgrims did not follow traditional onomastic patterns. Also, given that neither of Richard's sons knew their grandfather, there is a reduced likelihood that they would choose to memorialize him. The name that would be diagnostic is Lettes, and of RIchard's five known daughters, and something like 38 granddaughters, exactly zero bore this name, while one finds the name Mercy given 5 granddaughters. Such sloppy onomastics are, of course, way too common, basing arguments on the appearance of the most common names of the period, sometimes generations away. (I recall one New England immigrant origin argued based on the use of the name James five generations earlier, which is absurd.)

> But at this time I do not agree with the author that there is "no doubt" that the
> father of Richard Warren is proven.

Unfortunately, you will be in the minority. The origin of Richard Warren will doubtless be _taken as proven_ by the genealogical community. Once an argument like this gets published in a flagship journal, it becomes the default solution, even if it is not the strongest (and just to be clear, I am speaking generically - I have not had time to read the specific article in question yet). Wikipedia now has a source to cite, the online genealogies will all copy it one to the other, with scholars who underappreciate the complexity of the question will take it at face value as 'doubtless' per the author's assertion and repeat it in their summary publications. Like it or not, this is now The Answer.

taf

[joseph cook]

Todd,
I hope you are wrong, and I am surprised that any journal was willing to publish the article as-is. Other than the onomastics, the only argument made in favor of the identification is that a sword was once found (in 1898!) buried within a few miles of where richard warren lived in massachusetts. So, if this sword belonged to Richard, then this "proves" he was directly descended from a knight or an armorer. And this John is an armorer, then viola! He's the dad. And the only reason to believe it was owned by Richard Warren is because another Warren listed "2 swords" in his probate inventory.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that any 17th century owner of a sword much be descended from a knight or an armorer.

--Joe C

[taf]

On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 9:46:37 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I hope you are wrong,

So do I, but I have seen it happen too often in the past.

One that comes to mind was an immigrant couple named William and Elizabeth with a -son patronymic, located in England simply by finding these incredibly rare (not!) names in a marriage record. It was published in TAG, _as a possibility_, and next thing you know it is canon, showing up in colonial genealogical compendia without qualification. And that was before the internet and Wikipedia age. And in this case we instead have a "no doubt" conclusion, which will only give it more credibility.

> I wholeheartedly reject the idea that any 17th century owner of a sword
> much be descended from a knight or an armorer.

And I wholeheartedly reject the idea that any 17th century man naming a third son John must have had a grandfather of that name. Or for that matter, that a sword found in an area that had gone through a number of colonial wars in the interim must have belonged to a specific person who lived a few miles away 250 years before. Yet here we are.

taf