Surname Saturday: DOWNING of Salem, Massachusetts

I never would have guessed that London's Downing Street was named for my 11th great-uncle, but then I never would have thought that I had a great-uncle who was a baronet either.

Emanuel DOWNING was a lawyer with impressive family connections: his first wife was Anne WARE. She was a daughter of Sir James WARE, secretary to Lord Deputy William Fitzwilliam and sister of Sir James WARE Jr. the historian. She evidently died sometime before 1622;  that year Emanuel married second wife Lucy WINTHROP, sister of Puritan leader John WINTHROP. Aforementioned 11th great-uncle was Emanuel and Lucy's son George DOWNING, who was created a baronet and ended up being a lackey of Oliver Cromwell who married into aristocracy an important statesman.

John Winthrop kept trying to get his sister and brother-in-law to relocate to Massachusetts Colony. Lucy apparently was not enthralled with the prospect of a months-long dangerous sea trip, bitterly cold weather, and sometimes-hostile natives, but she and Emanuel came anyway and ran a tavern. They already had 12 children, including Emanuel's three by his first wife Anne, but three more would be born to them in Massachusetts.

Emanuel and Lucy would not stay in the American colonies, however; they would sell their tavern to John Proctor (yes, the one who would be executed for witchcraft) to cross the pond again and end up in Edinburgh, Scotland. Here Emanuel held the position of Clerk of Council of State, and ended his days.

Emanuel's lineage is quite impressive; through his paternal grandmother Elizabeth WINGFIELD's family line, he descends from Plantagenet royalty: King Henry III was Emanuel's 10th great-grandfather.

I actually descend from Emanuel through two of his children-- through John, son by second wife Lucy (through two of his children), and also through Susan, daughter by first wife Anne.


Ancestral chain 1:

Emanuel DOWNING (1585-1658) m. Anne WARE (1592-bef. 1622)

Susan DOWNING (1622-1666) m. Robert ROBERTS (1617-1663)

John ROBERTS (1655-1714) m. Hannah BRAY (1661-1717)

Susannah ROBERTS (1680-1719) m. David DOWNING (1678-1723)

Hannah DOWNING (1703-1771) m. Ebenezer DAY (1697-1740)

Hannah DAY (1736-1780) m. Jacob LUFKIN (1727-unknown)

Hannah LUFKIN (1752-1790) m. Amos HILTON (1738-1811)

Jacob Lufkin HILTON (1775-1855) m. Hannah TRASK (1774-1829)

Mehitable HILTON (1796-1865) m. John BAKER (1792-1861)

George Albert BAKER (1842-1914) m. Hannah Melissa SPECHT (1843-1924)

Jessie May BAKER (1873-1927) m. Thomas Parker SIMMONDS (1871-1953)

Estelle May SIMMONDS (1893-1930) m. Horace William HOWES (1882-1976)

Henry Richard HOWES (1913-1987) m. Dorothy Elizabeth PALMER (1918-1984)

S. HOWES m. my father (b. 1933)

Me (b. 1974)

Ancestral chain 2:

Emanuel DOWNING (1585-1658) m. Lucy WINTHROP (1600-1679)

John DOWNING (1640-1694) m. Mehitable BRAYBROOK (1651-1721)

David DOWNING (1678-1723) m. Susannah ROBERTS (1680-1719)

The lines converge, so the rest of the line is the same as above. David DOWNING and Susannah ROBERTS both descend from Emanuel DOWNING, who would be David's grandfather and Susannah's great grandfather. This makes them first half cousins once removed, which is genetically equivalent to second cousins. Second cousins share only 3.12% of their genetics, so it's plenty distant enough to marry and have children without dueling banjos.


Ancestral chain 3: 

Emanuel DOWNING (1585-1658) m. Lucy WINTHROP (1600-1679)

John DOWNING (1640-1694) m. Mehitable BRAYBROOK (1651-1721)

Sarah DOWNING (1673-1724) m. Thomas LUFKIN (1668-1747)

Jacob LUFKIN I (1698-1737) m. Mary DAVIS (1697-1736)

Jacob LUFKIN (1727-unknown) m. Hannah DAY (1736-1780)

The rest of the tree is the same as Ancestral chain 1 above (note that Jacob LUFKIN and Hannah DAY are second half cousins once removed, since Emanuel was Jacob's 2nd great-grandfather and Hannah's 3rd). 

Do you ever have nostalgia...

... for an era before you were even born?

I was born in the mid-seventies, but for some reason, am drawn to my parents' "time" (50's through the 60's). My folks were born in the 30's, between the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers-- technically people born at this time were called the Silent Generation, but I prefer to call them the Dean Martin generation. 

Maybe because the 50's and the before-hippies 60's was a time of such... style and class. A world of great music, of elegant dinner parties with manhattan cocktails, of ladies in pretty, feminine dresses and men in suits. 

A couple of months ago, I and a friend were having breakfast at Denny's. On the cover of their menu, in recognition of their 60th anniversary this year, they had a picture of a 1953 woman sitting in what would have been a Denny's booth back then, and across from her sat a young 2013 man in modern Denny's decor. I actually found the picture online:

Both of us remarked on how neat, beautifully dressed, and well put-together the woman is-- and how scruffy and unkept the modern "man" looks in comparison. But he looks good compared to a lot of people today who walk around like they just rolled out of bed.

Frankly, I'm just so tired of seeing overweight, tattooed people glued to cell phone screens. I bemoan the modern rap-crap gutter trash culture that seems to have taken hold-- the loss of the elegance, grace, and manners of my parents' generation. 

Couldn't we could bring it back? 

Yes, I am overweight and have a smart phone-- but try to dress neatly and nicely, and my phone is not an appendage. I also realize that we can't idealize the past, and that the "good old days" were not perfect (this was, after all, an era in which schoolchildren were drilled to get under their desks in the event of nuclear attack from the U.S.S.R.).

Perhaps this is why the music of the "Rat Pack" has been enjoying a resurgence in popularity: we want to recapture-- at least in part-- an earlier, seemingly happier era.

Years ago, I bought a CD called Donna Reed's Dinner Party, and the music just made me feel so good; the CD's fold-out even included a recipe for Chicken Tetrazzini. 

Here's a wonderful tune off of this album, courtesy of YouTube-- so mix yourself a martini and enjoy. 

Maine vital records ridonkulousness

Wow.

This all I have to say after the phone call I received from Maine's office of vital records this morning, regarding the request I recently sent for the death record of a 2nd great-grandmother who (unfortunately) died in that state.

I had sent my request, along with a check for $15 and copy of my driver's license, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope, on Monday morning before heading to work-- only to be told in a voicemail message that I would need to also submit proof of lineage from my ancestor in the form of birth certificates from me to her daughter.

Proof of lineage.... are you kidding me? I'm not trying to join the DAR, guys, I just want an 85-year-old death record. As if I would go to the trouble and expense of trying to order this if I were not related.

And what does it matter if the requestor of a 1927 death record is a relative or not anyway? Why shouldn't it be accessible to everyone?

If this were a birth record, privacy and security would be legitimate concerns because the person might still be alive. But I see no valid reason for restricting access to old death records so tightly.

Massachusetts, to its credit, doesn't request any proof of identity, and New Hampshire only asks for a copy of a photo ID. Why Maine imposes such ridiculous requirements as documents proving lineage just to get a copy of a Prohibition-age death certificate is baffling.

I have my birth certificate and my mother's. But all I have for my grandfather Henry is a document showing his birth registered in Cambridge, not an actual birth certificate. For his mother, Estelle, my great-grandmother and the daughter of the 2nd-great-grandmother whose death record I'm trying to obtain, I have only a death record, no birth record at all. The death record does list Estelle's parents' names (includes the name of my 2nd great-grandmother Jessie). I sincerely hope these are acceptable, and that Maine does not require actual, official birth certificates. If they do, they can just forget it.

It's a messed-up world we live in when the dead have more privacy than the living.

Divorce records?

I'm not sure how to go about getting a divorce record for my maternal grandparents, and thought that maybe an intrepid genea-whiz reader might be able to help.

My maternal grandparents Henry HOWES and Dorothy PALMER married in Medford, Massachusetts in 1936. Their daughter, my mother, was about 10 when they split up, which would have been around 1947 or 1948. 

The thing is, my mom and grandparents were living in New Hampshire at this time. So... which state would have the divorce record-- the state in which they were married (MA) or the state in which they resided at the time of their divorce (NH)?

I'm also not sure whether or not a divorce record as recent as the late 1940's would be able to be released. Back then, people actually had to have a serious reason for ending their marriage, and at least one party usually came out of a divorce looking really, really bad. Such unflattering details would probably be recorded in the record, and the couple could still be living today.

So if anyone could impart some knowledge regarding divorce records for MA and/or NH, I'd appreciate it.

"Our boys fought like heroes"

For Memorial Day weekend, I wanted to do a post on a relative who gave his life in service to his country. Of the many ancestors and relatives I have who fought in various wars over the past four centuries, there is only one that I know of who actually died in service: Thomas B. MACE, my 3rd great-uncle.

Thomas was born about 1843 in Plaistow, New Hampshire, the first surviving child of John and Sophronia (nee BLY) MACE. His middle initial likely stands for his mother Sophronia's maiden name. He was followed by a brother, Daniel Webster (b. 1845), and sisters Elizabeth (b. 1847) and Sarah Ellen (b. 1849). Elizabeth was my 2nd great-grandmother.

Thomas's father John, whose parentage I am still trying to discover, disappeared in 1848, and a pregnant Sophronia was left to provide for herself and her children on her own. Things must have been very difficult, because in 1857, at the ripe old age of 14, Thomas left home to join the Navy. He was listed as having brown hair, a light complexion, and hazel eyes; his height was just 4 feet,  8 1/2 inches. 

In the 1860 census, Thomas was listed in the household of a neighbor as a hired farm hand ; his mother Sophronia had just gotten remarried to Joseph FELLOWS a year earlier, so either they couldn't provide for him or they didn't want to.  

On 22 August 1861, just a few months after the outbreak of the Civil War, Thomas enlisted with Company K of the 2nd New Hampshire Infantry Regiment. 

On 5 May 1862, the soldiers of the 2nd New Hampshire met the Confederates at Williamsburg, Virginia, and a fierce battle ensued. By the day's end, 16 members of the regiment were dead, and 19-year-old Thomas B. Mace was among these fallen. Many more men were wounded or missing.

In spite of Thomas's fate, his younger brother Daniel would enlist in 1864 in the 50th and 59th Massachusetts Infantry. Daniel would be captured at Petersburg, Virginia on 19 July 1864, and held at notorious Andersonville prison camp. He was exchanged in November, and survived. It is a descendant of his, in fact, who recently contacted me and who is helping me try to break through the brick wall of his father's line.

In August of 1869, a recently-widowed Sophronia (husband Joseph FELLOWS had passed that April) filed for her late son Thomas's pension. I can only figure that she must have really needed the money. 

Thomas, at an age where today he would have been starting college, gave his life in the line of duty. May he and others who died in service to the United States never be forgotten. 

John BILLINGTON, 12th great-grandfather

Another Mayflower connection I found through the newly-broken-through brick wall of George Albert BAKER's parents John and Mehitable (HILTON) BAKER:

John BILLINGTON (1580-1630) was one of the more... ahem.. colorful characters on board the Mayflower. The Billington family in general (John, wife Eleanor, and two sons John Jr. and Francis) as a whole seem to have had a knack for causing trouble.

In addition to this, they were probably not warmly received among their fellow passengers because they were "Strangers"-- that is, new people who had not been part of the Pilgrims' close-knit community in Leiden, Holland, where many had lived together for years before coming to the New World. The Billingtons may have also been Catholics, which would certainly have done nothing to make them friends among the good uber-Reformed folk with whom they were casting their lot. 

Everything we know about the Billingtons came from the account of Governor William Bradford, who hated them. Because of this, what he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

John Sr. supposedly refused to obey Miles Standish, and tried to cause a mutiny on the Mayflower. 14-year-old son Francis almost blew up the ship when he fired a musket among barrels of gunpowder. 

The family's rep did not get any better after they arrived at Plymouth; wife Eleanor was put into stocks for insulting an official, and son John Jr. was captured by Indians while wandering in the woods. A search party had to be sent out, and they had to do some negotiating with his native hosts to get the boy released to them. 

Then John Sr. shot a neighbor who had apparently been hunting on his land. Whether John actually intended to shoot the poacher, or whether it was an unlucky warning shot, we don't know. What we do know is that John Billington was convicted of murder and sentenced to death; he was hanged in September of 1630-- the first white man to be executed in New England. 

I envision the Billingtons as the obnoxious family on the block that all of the neighbors wish would move-- I can see the Pilgrims gathered for some celebration or social event, and be like, "Oh, God, the Billingtons just arrived... I think John's been hitting the sauce already by the looks of him. And Eleanor is in full shrewish form... hope their little hellion doesn't set the place on fire like he almost did last time they were here..."

John BILLINGTON Jr., the son who was captured by natives and who inadvertently caused better relations between them and the white colonists,  died young and without issue; therefore, all Billington descendants come through Francis. I descend from Francis BILLINGTON through two of his children, Martha and Mary, in three ways total:

Ancestral line 1:

John BILLINGTON (1580-1630) m. Eleanor UNKNOWN

Francis BILLINGTON (1607-1684) m. Christian PENN 

Martha BILLINGTON (1638-1704) m. Samuel EATON I (1620-1684)

Samuel EATON II (1663-1724) m. Elizabeth FULLER (1666-1723)

Barnabas EATON (1703-1790) m. Mehitable ALDEN (1707-1739)

Hannah EATON (1730-1809) m. John CLEMENTS  (1719-1805)

John CLEMENTS (1750-unknown) m. Sarah PERRY (1750-unknown)

Hannah CLEMENTS (1771-1835) m. Jonathan BAKER (1769-1852)

John BAKER (1792-1861) m. Mehitable HILTON (1796-1865)

George Albert BAKER (1842-1914) m. Hannah Melissa SPECHT (1843-1924)

Jessie May BAKER (1873-1927) m. Thomas Parker SIMMONDS (1871-1953)

Estelle MAY SIMMONDS (1893-1930) m. Horace William HOWES (1882-1976)

Henry Richard HOWES (1913-1987) m. Dorothy Elizabeth PALMER (1918-1984)

S. HOWES (1937-1999) m. my father (b. 1933)

Me (b. 1974)

Ancestral line 2:

John BILLINGTON (1580-1630) m. Eleanor UNKNOWN

Francis BILLINGTON (1607-1684) m. Christian PENN 

Martha BILLINGTON (1638-1704) m. Samuel EATON I (1620-1684)

Samuel EATON II (1663-1724) m. Elizabeth FULLER (1666-1723)

Barnabas EATON (1703-1790) m. Mehitable ALDEN (1707-1739)

Hannah EATON (1730-1809) m. John CLEMENTS  (1719-1805)

Mehitable CLEMENTS (1754-1834) m. John TRASK (1751-1833)

Hannah TRASK (1774-1829) m. Jacob Lufkin HILTON (1775-1855)

Mehitable HILTON (1796-1865) m. John BAKER (1792-1861)

George Albert BAKER (1842-1914) m. Hannah Melissa SPECHT (1843-1924)

Jessie May BAKER (1873-1927) m. Thomas Parker SIMMONDS (1871-1953)

Estelle MAY SIMMONDS (1893-1930) m. Horace William HOWES (1882-1976)

Henry Richard HOWES (1913-1987) m. Dorothy Elizabeth PALMER (1918-1984)

S. HOWES (1937-1999) m. my father (b. 1933)

Me (b. 1974)

Ancestral line 3:

John BILLINGTON (1580-1630) m. Eleanor UNKNOWN

                                    Francis BILLINGTON (1607-1684) m. Christian PENN

                            Mary BILLINGTON (1640-1717) m. Samuel SABIN (1640-1699)

                                  Israel SABIN (1673-1718) m. Mary ORMSBY (1677-1715)

                                Jeremiah SABIN (1703-unk) m. Mary ABBOTT (1707-1818)

                         Jeremiah SABIN (1732-1815) m. Susannah LEVALLEY (1732-unk)

                               Sarah SABIN (1747-unk) m. Borden THURBER (1748-1822)

                          Samuel THURBER (1774-1847) m. Mary "Polly" LEWIS (1777-unk)

          Margaret Sophia THURBER (1808-1846) m. Anthony C.  SPECHT (1796-1875)

             Hannah Melissa SPECHT (1843-1924) m. George Albert BAKER (1842-1914)

Jessie May BAKER (1873-1927) m. Thomas Parker SIMMONDS (1871-1953)

Estelle MAY SIMMONDS (1893-1930) m. Horace William HOWES (1882-1976)

Henry Richard HOWES (1913-1987) m. Dorothy Elizabeth PALMER (1918-1984)

S. HOWES (1937-1999) m. my father (b. 1933)

 Me (b. 1974)

Myth: people in the olden days only lived to be 40

Something that I read today-- regarding teenage pregnancy and how back in the day teens having babies was normal (as if we can compare our society and teens' maturity level today with those of the Middle Ages)-- prompted me to address this.

We have a misconception-- due largely to a misunderstanding of what "average life expectancy" means-- that people only lived into their 40's, and therefore married very young.

In 1910, the average life expectancy for people in the United States was 50 for men and 54 for women-- and many people who come across this statistic would mistakenly conclude that this means that most Americans in 1910 died in their early to mid 50's.

The key to understanding average life expectancy is that it is an average-- that is, a column of numbers totaled up and divided by the number of numbers added. It's not a mode (the number appearing most often in a set of figures) or a median (a number that represents the "middle"of a group of figures, so that half of the figures are lower than the median and half are higher). An average can be skewed by a few very low or very high figures.

And this is why the average life expectancy of human beings was so low: high infant and child mortality. While many people in earlier ages lived into their 70's, 80's, and even 90's, about 1 in 4 children would die before they reached age five.

Imagine that you have a class of 20 students taking a test. 15 kids score 100, and the remaining 5 score 30. The class average would be 82.5-- but it would be inaccurate to conclude that most students in the class scored C's. The reality is that most students aced the test, and a few failed badly.

Likewise, when you throw numbers like 2, 1, and 3 in with numbers like 77, 82, and 74, that brings the average down.

Infant mortality has decreased dramatically over the past 100 years, and our average life expectancy has risen in response.

Marriage age is another issue that is related to this... the logic goes that, since people didn't live as long, they must have gotten married much earlier. What I have found in the years I've been doing genealogical research is that, at least in America and western Europe, the average age of marriage has remained pretty constant for the past 1,000 years or so: 18-22 for women, and 22-26 for men. Of course, there are women who married at 15 or 16, but that was not too common. It's only been the past three decades or so that the average marriage age has risen-- I think it's about 26-29 for women and 31-35 for men. People are holding off on marriage and having children, largely due to societal and economic issues.