Wheaton Wood

Robert Wheaton in Salem Part one

Posted on November 4, 2012     Leave a Comment

Why Context matters. When we look at records or individuals in isolation it is easy to be misled. The first record of Robert Wheaton in New England is in 1636 in the Salem town meetings records where it reads.

The 16th of the 11th month 1636 (i.e.16 January 1637 on modern calendar)

“Robt Wheato refused to be an Inhabitant”

First it is important to note that these records are recorded in a shorthand so that Wheato would be shorthand for Wheaton. In this case the recorder was Governor John Endecott, a Devon man who would have known how the name was generally spelled. Please note other abbreviatios below. It has been interpreted that the refusal was on the part of Robert. This is possible but other possibilities have come to light. In the years from 1634-1637 I have located several other men who “refused to be inhabitant” and all were subsequently received. Examples:

“Mathew Waller Received for an Inhabitant p a Certifficate from Mr Atherton haugh.”

“Tho: Trace Recd. for Inhabitant vpon a Certificate from Divers of watter Towne.”

“Jno Tompkins is promised to be Recd. for Inhabitant in case he peure [procure] free Dismission”

“Ricd. Graves Refused to be an Inhabitant.”

“Robt. Baker refused to be acknowledged inhabitant heare [here].”

“Geo; Roaps cannot yet be recd. because he hathe a yr. to serue [serve].”

“Joshua Tidd is admitted for an Inhabitant provided he bringeth a certificate from ye magistrates for his appbation [approbation] in ye Jurisdiction.”

In addition in 1634 an oath was required of Salem residents to be Inhabitants. More on the reasons for the Oath later.

“At A Court holden att Boston, April Ith, 1634

It was further ordered, that euy man of or above the age of twenty yeares, whoe hath bene or shall herefter be resident within this juridiccon by the space of six monethes, as an householder or soiorner, and not infranchised, shall take the oath herevnder written, before the Gounr, or Deputy Gounr, or some two of the nexte Assistants, whoe shall haue power to convent him for that purpose, and vpon his refuseall the second tyme, hee shalbe banished, except the Court shall see cause to giue him further respite.

THE OATH OF THE RESIDENTS

I doe heare sweare, and call God to witnes, that, being nowe an inhabitant within the lymitts of this juridiccon of the Massachusetts, I doe acknowledge myselfe lawfully subject to the aucthoritie and gouermt there established, and doe accordingly submitt my pson, family, and estate, to be ptected, ordered, & gouerned by the lawes & constitucons thereof, and doe faithfully pmise to be from time to time obedient and comformeable therevnto, and to the aucthoritie of the Gounr, & all other the magistrates there, and their successrs, and to all such lawes, orders, sentences, decrees, as nowe are or hereafter shalbe lawfully made, decreed, published by them or their successrs. And I will alwayes indeavr (as in duty I am bound) to advance the peace & wellfaire of this body pollitique, and I will (to my best power & meanes) seeke to devert & prevent whatsoeyer may tende to the ruine or damage thereof, or ye Gounr, or Assistants, or any of them or their successrs, and will giue speedy notice to them, or some of them, of any sedicon, violence, treacherie, or othr hurte or euill wch I shall knowe, heare, or vehemently suspect to be plotted or intended against them or any of them, or against the said Comon-wealth or goumt established. Soe helpe mee God.”

So now we have many possibilities for Robert Wheaton’s “refused to be Inhabitant.”

• Lacked Certification from former residence
• Was not free of servitude
• Had not reached age of twenty
• Had not sworn the oath within 6 months of arrival in Salem

Merry Christmas??

Posted on November 3, 2012     Leave a Comment

Okay it’s not Christmas yet, but I do have news for the Wheaton group B folks. The expected results for Jerry’s Walk through the Y is December 26th. Not quite Christmas but close. So hopefully it won’t be rocks and coal in our stockings.

Also in Group B news I have some revisions in commonly held assumptions about Robert Wheatons early time in Salem. This comes from reading through the Salem Town records page by page and research on various early families. Hope to have time to get more written on this soon.

Although I’ve been quiet it doesn’t mean I haven’t been busy.

Robert where art thou? Group B

Posted on October 14, 2012     Leave a Comment

I’m not sure if or when we will be able to solve the riddle of Robert Wheaton’s origins but that doesn’t stop me from trying.

What I believe we have proved is that Robert Wheaton’s ancestry lies in Devon, England. To whit:

• The oldest document written by Robert’s great-grandson states Robert came from England and was in his 90th year in 1696 when he died.
• Our Wheaton Group B DNA matches that of a Hancock from South Molton (north Devon).
• The 1332 Lay Subsidy Rolls have only one Hanecock  a Richard in Devon, in the parish of Esse Abbatus (Ashford). About 12 miles northeast from South Molton.
• Also in the 1332 Lay Subsidy Rolls there is a Thomas de Whitton in South Molton as well as Roger de Weydon in nearby Meshaw (5 miles), a William Whetena in Woolfardisworthy (20 miles) and a William Whetene in Halberton (35 Miles). There are a total of 9 Wheton/Whiddon/etc in Devon in 1332 plus another 6 Wootons.

Vowels “e,” “i” and “y” seem to be used interchangeably. Consonants “t”, “tt,” “d,” & “dd” seem to be used interchangeably as well as “w” and “wh.” Assumptions based on spelling are fraught with error, so at this point nothing can be ruled out. Also this is just around the time of surname adoption. The Richard Hanecock and The William Whetna are showing surnames but the Thomas de Whitton and Roger de Wheydon we can not be sure they adopted these as last names or not. It is not impossible that two brothers adopted very different names or that two men of the same name were known for having come from somewhere they had in common rather than any familial relationship. That is why a combination of traditional research and DNA is our best hope of sorting our Wheatons into family groupings.

DEVON WHEATON INTERACTIVE MAP

Posted on October 13, 2012     Leave a Comment

I have replaced the maps on my Devon Wheaton webpage with an interactive map which shows the earliest 1300’s Wheatons/Hancocks (point with dots). Those Push pins are DNA results and the other points (without dots) are records as I add them. This is a screen shot:

I hope you find it interesting. You can find the original here.

The map above is a screenshot but on the original you can zoom in and out and clicking or hovering over a point brings up more detail. Let me know what you think.

Group B News

Posted on October 12, 2012     Leave a Comment

Among other things I monitor the U152 Project for results and we have a new entry into the L2* group and this one is a man who tracks back to a William Dodd 1668 of Dean Prior Devon. You can have a look here

This individual has very different markers then our cluster of Wheaton/ Hancock yet this provides further evidence for  the ancient clan of L2* in Devon.  Why this is important? Because should Jerry’s Walk Through the Y turn up some new mutations (SNPs) this will although others in the L2* group to test for those SNPs. This further defines the migration of the clan from the mountains of Northern Italy into Devon.

Any questions?

Robert Wheaton “DEVON MAN?”

Posted on October 11, 2012     Leave a Comment

Thanks to Susan and Ben about their comments on Robert’s literacy and for Susan’s comment about Roger le Wheaton being a Devon man. Having never been to Devon or lived there I am at a bit of a disadvantage—-however if this means a stubborn stick-to-it-ness, a principled man. I can see that to this day most affectionately with my own Wheatons.  More on Robert’s character in a bit

As to the records in Bristol County. The records are all transcribed in the hand of the then clerk. When a person has signed a document he writes out the name and when the person has used a “mark” it says so. For instance in the distribution of Robert’s estate Jeremiah, Obadiah, John, and Benjamin Wheaton have signed as well as John Butterworth and Mary M Mann. It lists the Mark of Bethiah Wheaton. In both his will and an agreement he reached late in life with his neighbor Robert Fuller Robert Wheaton’s mark is listed. Please note that Robert Fuller’s daughter Alice married Robert Wheaton’s son Benjamin. Rehoboth Town Meetings Book II:

An agreement made the 28th of (torn) 1679 Betwixt Robat Wheaton and Robert ffuller, both of Rehoboth in order to make the ending of a contriversie that hath ben longe between them Respecting Bounds of thire home lott, the said Robat Wheton ingaeing in the personne of Mr. James Browne and other neighbors; that betwist this day and winter sets in he would pluk up his fence and set in it in the bounds where the thre stakes stands, and they both agreeing that those stakes shall be the bounds betwixt them: witness my hand the day and year written.

The marke of

 

Robert Wheaton

This was acknowledged before me

James Browne Assistant

This is a rue copey of the agreement betwixt Robert ffuller and Robert Wheaton Transcribed out of the original By me.

William Carpenter

Town Clerk

                                     

The very first record we have of Robert Wheaton in America is that in the Salem Town Meeting 6 Nov. 1636 Where it simply states:

Robert Wheato. refused to be Inhabitant.

 

Later added in the margin in Governor John Endecott’s hand:

We have made a show of making him Inhabitant

Here’s some important tidbits. Gov. Endecott was himself a “Devon Man” having been of the Endecott’s of Chagford, Devon. There is some disagreemet as to whether he was born in Dorchester, Chagford, or on a farm near North Bovey or at Middlecot (between North Bovey and Chagford). In any event Gov. Endecott would have been a contemporary of Robert and may well have been acquainted with him back in England.  The land that was granted to Robert in Salem was in the part of Salem known as “Danvers” “at the foot of the hill, near the pear-tree said to have been set out by Gov. Endecott on his farm.” It is also known that Gov. Endecott was a Baptist sympathizer and gave shelter to Roger Williams. Gov. Endecott was known for his “pious zeal, genial manners and hot head.” For some reason this strikes true to Robert Wheaton as well. [Chagford coincidentally is the home of the Whiddon family although no DNA match exists with this group.]

Robert was earlier granted land at Marblehead, where not too surprisingly, we find that Roger Williams had tried to establish a church and had been denied. Roger Williams goes on to move to what becomes Rehoboth and then further across the River to establish the colony of Rhode Island.

In the most extensive of any written genealogies about Robert Wheaton; “The Family Record pf Deacon’s James W. Converse and Elisha S. Converse” by William G. Hill 1887 he writes:

That Robert Wheaton came from the pure, unmixed, native Welsh or rather Cumry race…..

It is believed that his wife Alice (Elce, Alce) Bowen was of Welsh origins but to date their is no proof of Robert having been Welsh and unless we are talking way, way back such as in Roger’s father or grandfather this is not likely to be true. But perhaps a long standing Celtic origin could be interpreted nearly 200 years after his death as Welsh. An original document from 1775 in the archives in Rhode Island states Robert came from England.

The records of Robert’s life are quite scant and much of what we “know” of him is a reading of tea leaves. That does not deter me from trying to do so. I collected information not only on Wheatons in Devon but any Rehoboth inhabitants with possible Devon connections. Which keeps leading me round and round like a dog chasing her tail…..

MORE ON MAYOR Roger Bevyn Le Wheaton

Posted on October 10, 2012     5 Comments

Not sure which group would like to be related to our dear Mayor! He sounds just as feisty as Robert of Rehoboth. However Robert was not literate and Roger surely is!

This from Exeter Memories re Mayors|

1302 Roger Beynim (Roger le Whetene) – a dispute arose between Mayor and people of the city, and tenants of the Lord of Kenton and Wyke, who refused to pay Murage for their wares and merchandises. Murage was a tax for repairing the walls.

 

 

1303 Roger Wheaton (Roger Beyvin) – Wheaton decreed that persons who set up for Lammas Fair before the appointed time had to answer to the Mayor.

 

1309 Roger Beynim – Hugh Courtenay was in dispute with Bishop Cator over the purchase of three pots of fish in the market. The Mayor intervened and ordered that one box be allocated to Courtenay, one to the bishop and one to the market. Courtenay berated the Mayor over the affair with the citizens outside, afraid for the Mayor’s safety. The Mayor wearing a coat bearing the Earl’s coat of arms, suddenly took the coat off and flung it to the ground, stating that Exeter’s Mayors from then on would only answer to the king.

 

1313 Roger Beynim – the Mayor this year fined the bakers of the city for underweight bread. Seventeen complained, but lost their case.

EARLIEST WHEATON now the year 1288

Posted on October 10, 2012     1 Comment

Back from a trip to Salt Lake City I will be sharing lots of information in the next few weeks.

 
First off is confirmation that Roger Beyvin and Roger le Whetene are one and the same man. He was an early wine merchant of Exeter and the earliest record located is a court case dated 8 Nov 1288. He along with others is cited for unloading 1 tun of wines at Colepole against the city statue. This Roger Beyvin le Whetene is listed in a number of records all having to do with importing wine and later as Mayor of Exeter. In the Book “The Local Customs Accounts of the Port of Exeter 1266-1321” by Maryanne Kowlseski 1993 pg 313 the footnote contains:

Roger le Wetene (also Whetene, Hwetene) and Roger Bevyn (also Beyvin) were the same person.

So here we have a very early account of a man with more than one name and the adoption of his surname. Bevyn is of Celtic origin and could be son of Evan or stand for young soldier.

Another of our early Wheatons is Alexander Leygh alias Alexander Wheton of Tiverton who appears in Court records in March of 1376 for owing 60 pounds (a substantial amount) to a Draper (clothing merchant) in London. As Tiverton was a town with a vibrant cloth trade this make sense. The Leygh may refer to any of several hamlets or manors near Tiverton by that name including one at Loxbeare and one in Halberton. I also have located records in 1310 listing brothers of a Alexander de la Leye as John and Joceus. In the 1332 Lay Subsidy Rolls there are 38 names listed in Halberton among them are: William Whetene, Edward de Leghe and a curious John de Mettone which I can’t help but wonder whether this should read Wettone.

I have begun updating this page so you may want to check back later:

https://sites.google.com/site/wheatonsurname/dna-in-depth-discussion/devon-wheatons

The WALK THROUGH THE Y for Group B has Been Approved!

Posted on September 25, 2012     Leave a Comment

Just got word today that we are approved for the Walk Through the Y (WTY) with Jerry’s sample. The time frame I was given is 3-4 months and this doesn’t include our request to hold up the sample for the New Plate 3.

So let the waiting begin and the hoping that something turns up. NO GUARANTEES as only a little over half have yielded new discoveries in the past—however we are in a new area of the Y so that may help. However one way of looking at it should nothing turn up is that we belong to a smaller and ancient group 😉

This further posting by Thomas on the ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogists) regarding the Genographic 2.0 and Walk Through the Y is of interest:

Geno 2.0 was a team effort. Elliott (FTDNA) was focusing on the mtDNA, Eran (from National Geographic) was focusing on the autosomal SNPs (including Neanderthal, Denisova etc.) and I did the Y-SNPs (Thomas Krahn FTDNA). Elliott was also leading the evaluation process (wetting the chip as Spencer puts it).

The difficulty was not really the high number of SNPs but rather selecting the best ones for genealogical and anthropological purpose. I started off with a contingent of 15000 SNPs that Spencer wanted for the Y chromosome and I tried to make sure that all SNPs from the existing tree and whatever we had available from the WTY and other internal sources was included on the chip. Then I selected the ones from the most reliable external sources and filled them up with data that was extracted from the 1000 genomes public datasets (excluding regions that are considered problematic from a recombination mechanism standpoint).

From the > 25000 Y-SNPs that I had available at that time we filtered out the ones that gave the best scores with a prediction tool provided by Illumina. However we always tried to keep all SNPs from the YCC and Draft Tree in our selection. After several iterations I was able to convince Spencer to increase the Y contigent to 18000 SNPs at the time when we submitted our final choice to Illumina. Many of the today known Z series SNPs have been included in the selection, however I cannot discuss each individual one. There will be other good Z series SNPs that we’ll be missing because not all currently available 1000 genomes data were available at that time. Off course all new findings from the WTY and all verified Z markers that were discovered in the mean time will be considered for the next version of the Geno chip.

The future of Y SNP testing after Geno 2.0 will be essentially:
1.) Test Geno 2.0 or predict your Y haplogroup as good as possible from Y-STR results.
2.) If necessary use individual Y-SNP tests to determine your fine haplogroup (to the last twig of the current knowledge if you want).
3.) If you still can’t solve a Y haplogroup question consider to apply for a WTY run and hopefully find a new SNP that will solve your question and/or contribute to further research and for inclusion in the next Geno Chip.

I hope this helps,

Thomas