Person Page - 18

Home Index Surnames Stats Chrono Locations Occupations

Ryan Patrick DUNN

M, #I915, b. 02 January 1993

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Brian Frederick DUNN

M, #I916, b. 03 August 1959

Family

Marriage 1 : Marianne Partricia SCOLL m. 1982, b. 30 October 1958

  1.    Erin Elizabeth DUNN, b. 07 November 1987
  2.    Michael Frederick DUNN, b. 04 December 1990

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Marianne Partricia SCOLL

F, #I917, b. 30 October 1958

Family

Marriage 1 : Brian Frederick DUNN m. 1982, b. 03 August 1959

  1.    Erin Elizabeth DUNN, b. 07 November 1987
  2.    Michael Frederick DUNN, b. 04 December 1990

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Erin Elizabeth DUNN

F, #I918, b. 07 November 1987

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Michael Frederick DUNN

M, #I919, b. 04 December 1990

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Sally Lavon DUNN

F, #I920, b. 07 August 1961

Family

Marriage 1 : Ralph David ENOS m. 1991 Issaquah, King, Washington, USA, b. 20 January 1960

  1.    Brenden David ENOS, b. 19 May 1993
  2.    Conner Joeseph ENOS, b. 19 March 1996

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Ralph David ENOS

M, #I921, b. 20 January 1960

Family

Marriage 1 : Sally Lavon DUNN m. 1991 Issaquah, King, Washington, USA, b. 07 August 1961

  1.    Brenden David ENOS, b. 19 May 1993
  2.    Conner Joeseph ENOS, b. 19 March 1996

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Brenden David ENOS

M, #I922, b. 19 May 1993

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Conner Joeseph ENOS

M, #I923, b. 19 March 1996

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Kenneth Richard STARK

M, #I924, b. 14 August 1971

Family

Marriage 1 : Stacey Leigh MYERS m. 30 May 1998 Dublin, Alameda, California, USA, b. 25 April 1972

  1.    Kaitlyn Michelle STARK, b. 02 January 2000
  2.    Madison Leigh STARK, b. 03 September 2003
  3.    Michael Joshua STARK, b. 06 June 2006
  4.    Kelsey Lynn STARK, b. 28 June 2011
  5.    Kyle STARK, b. 11 November 2010, d. 17 May 2010

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Matthew WEBSTER

M, #I925, b. 1566, d. 13 September 1592

Family

Marriage 1 : Elizabeth Lettie ASHTON , b. 1556, d. UNKNOWN

  1. John WEBSTER, b. 27 January 1604, d. 30 March 1646
  2.    Elizabeth WEBSTER, b. abt. 1607, d. UNKNOWN
  3.    Arthur WEBSTER, b. abt. 1609, d. UNKNOWN
  4.    Henry WEBSTER, b. abt. 1610, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. U.S. and Canada, Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s,
  3. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Elizabeth Lettie ASHTON

F, #I926, b. 1556, d. UNKNOWN

Family

Marriage 1 : Matthew WEBSTER , b. 1566, d. 13 September 1592

  1. John WEBSTER, b. 27 January 1604, d. 30 March 1646
  2.    Elizabeth WEBSTER, b. abt. 1607, d. UNKNOWN
  3.    Arthur WEBSTER, b. abt. 1609, d. UNKNOWN
  4.    Henry WEBSTER, b. abt. 1610, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Elizabeth WEBSTER

F, #I927, b. abt. 1607, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Arthur WEBSTER

M, #I928, b. abt. 1609, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Henry WEBSTER

M, #I929, b. abt. 1610, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


John AYER

M, #I930, b. 02 September 1592, d. 31 March 1657

Family

Marriage 1 : Hannah Webb EVERARD m. abt. 1635 Ipswich, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 02 September 1582, d. 08 October 1688

  1. Hannah AYER, b. 21 October 1644, d. 02 June 1676
  2. Mary AYER, b. 1634, d. 22 September 1692
  3. Cornet Peter AYER, b. 01 November 1633, d. 03 January 1699
  4. Thomas AYER, b. 1626, d. 09 November 1686
  5. Rebecca AYER, b. 1627, d. 1702
  6. Robert AYER, b. 1625, d. 1711
  7. John AYER, Capt, b. abt. 1622, d. 19 July 1692
  8. Obdiah AYER, b. 01 October 1635, d. 14 November 1694
  9. Nathaniel AYER, b. 1638, d. 17 November 1717

Notes:

John Eyre/Ayer. A common spelling of the name in England was Eyre, and it was with the name of John Eyer that the son of Robert and Cecely (Crosse) Eyer was baptized in Bromham parish on 28 March 1596. It is most likely that this child was our John. He left Wiltshire, England, most likely in 1635 on the ship James and came to Massachusetts. He was in Salisbury in 1640, and may have arrived there before 1637. He was in Haverhill, Massachusetts in 1645 when he was counted as one of the landholders of the town. John died 31 March 1657, at Haverhill.

John was married to Hannah, whose family name is often reported as Evered alias Webb, without any supporting evidence. The most likely connection to the Evered alias Webb family is through Rebecca Eyer, a sister of John Ayers. The Haverhill town records report the death of Hannah Ayer on 8 October 1688.

Sources

  1. England & Wales Christening Records, 1530-1906,
  2. Stephen R. Myers,
  3. U.S. Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current,

[TOP]


Hannah Webb EVERARD

F, #I931, b. 02 September 1582, d. 08 October 1688

Family

Marriage 1 : John AYER m. abt. 1635 Ipswich, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 02 September 1592, d. 31 March 1657

  1. Hannah AYER, b. 21 October 1644, d. 02 June 1676
  2. Mary AYER, b. 1634, d. 22 September 1692
  3. Cornet Peter AYER, b. 01 November 1633, d. 03 January 1699
  4. Thomas AYER, b. 1626, d. 09 November 1686
  5. Rebecca AYER, b. 1627, d. 1702
  6. Robert AYER, b. 1625, d. 1711
  7. John AYER, Capt, b. abt. 1622, d. 19 July 1692
  8. Obdiah AYER, b. 01 October 1635, d. 14 November 1694
  9. Nathaniel AYER, b. 1638, d. 17 November 1717

Notes:

Hannah, whose family name is often reported as Evered alias Webb, without any supporting evidence. The most likely connection to the Evered alias Webb family is through Rebecca Eyer, a sister of John Ayers. The Haverhill town records report the death of Hannah Ayer on 8 October 1688

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


John EVERARD

M, #I932, b. 1580, d. UNKNOWN

Family

Marriage 1 : Mary WEBB , b. 1562, d. UNKNOWN

  1. Hannah Webb EVERARD, b. 02 September 1582, d. 08 October 1688

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. U.S. and Canada, Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s,

[TOP]


Mary WEBB

F, #I933, b. 1562, d. UNKNOWN

Family

Marriage 1 : John EVERARD , b. 1580, d. UNKNOWN

  1. Hannah Webb EVERARD, b. 02 September 1582, d. 08 October 1688

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Mary AYER

F, #I934, b. 1634, d. 22 September 1692

Family

Marriage 1 : Nathan PARKER m. 20 November 1648, b. 1622, d. 25 June 1685

  1. Hannah PARKER, b. 1659, d. UNKNOWN
  2.    James PARKER, b. 1655, d. UNKNOWN
  3.    Peter PARKER, b. 1676
  4. Joseph PARKER, b. abt. 1669, d. UNKNOWN
  5.    Mary PARKER, b. 1660
  6. Elizabeth PARKER, b. 20 JAN 1662/63, d. 11 JAN 1716/17
  7.    Sara PARKER, b. 1670

Notes:



Written by Jacqueline Kelly (copyright, 2005>

History 209, An Undergraduate Course, Cornell University

Spring Semester, 2003

Revised for presentation at the Berkshire Conference, June, 2005

In September1692, Mary Ayer Parker of Andover came to trial in Salem Massachusetts, suspected of witchcraft. During her examination she was asked, "How long have ye been in the snare of the devil?" She responded, "I know nothing of it." Many people confessed under the pressure of the court of Oyer and Terminer, but she asserted they had the wrong woman. "There is another woman of the same name in Andover,"1 she proclaimed. At the time, no one paid much attention. Mary Ayer Parker was convicted and hanged by the end of the month. Modern historians have let her claim fall to the wayside as well, but what if she told the truth? Was there another Mary Parker in Andover? Could it be possible that the wrong Mary Parker was executed? We know little about the Mary Parker of 1692. Other scholars presumed her case was unimportant-but perhaps that assumption was wrong.

The end of her story is recorded for every generation to see, but the identity of this woman remained shrouded in mystery for over three centuries. We still don't know why she was accused in 1692. Puritan women were not particularly noteworthy to contemporary writers and record-keepers. They appeared occasionally in the court records as witnesses and plaintiffs but their roles were restricted to the house and family. Mary Parker was a typical Puritan wife. She appeared in the records only in birth notices and the records associated with the will of her late husband Nathan Parker. Notably, the records included no legal trouble at all, for witchcraft or anything else.

John and Hannah Ayer gave birth to their daughter Mary sometime in the early to mid 1600's. Mary and her siblings may have been born in England, and later moved to North America with their parents. The Ayers moved several times during the early stages of their settlement in America but resettled for the last time in 1647 in Haverhill.2

The family was apparently of some prominence. Tax records from 1646 showed that John Ayer possessed at least one hundred and sixty pounds, making him one of the wealthiest settlers in Haverhill.

Mary Ayer married Nathan Parker sometime before her father's death in 1657. Although no marriage record survived in the hometowns of either Nathan or Mary, the wording of her father John Ayer's will made it obvious that she was married with children when it was written.3 Nathan married his first wife Susanna Short on November 20, 1648.4 Within the next three years, the couple relocated to Andover, where she soon after died on August 26, 1651.5 Andover's Vital Records listed the birth of Nathan and Mary Parker's first son John in 1653.6 Nathan could have remarried and had children within the two years after the death of his first wife.

Mary and Nathan marriage was not documented but we do know Nathan and his brother Joseph settled in Newbury, Massachusetts sometime in the early 1630's. They settled in Andover where they were amongst its first settlers.7 Nathan came over from England as an indentured servant8, but eventually he became rather wealthy in Andover. The original size of his house lot was four acres but the Parker's landholdings improved significantly over the years to 213.5 acres.9 His brother Joseph, a founding member of the Church, possessed even more land than his brother, increasing his wealth as a tanner.10 By 1660, there were forty household lots in Andover, and no more were created. The early settlers, including the Parkers, would be those of importance. By 1650, Nathan began serving as a constable in Andover.11 By the time he married Mary Ayer, his status was on the rise. It continued to do so during the early years of their marriage as he acquired more land.

Mary and Nathan continued to have children for over twenty years after the birth of John Parker in 1653. Mary bore four more sons: James in 1655, Robert in 1665, Peter in 1676, and a son Joseph.12 She and Nathan also had four daughters: Mary, born in 1660 (or 1657)13, Hannah in 1659, Elizabeth in 1663, and Sara in 1670. James died on June 29, 1677, killed in an Indian skirmish at Black Point.14 Robert died in 1688 at the age of 23. Hannah married John Tyler in 1682.15 Nathan and Mary's daughter Elizabeth married John Farnum in 1684.

When Nathan died on June 25, 1685, he left an ample estate to his wife and children.16 Mary Ayer Parker brought an inventory of the estate to court in September of the same year, totaling 463 pounds and 4 shillings. The court awarded her one-third of the house and lands, equal shares to Robert, Joseph, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sarah, and a double share to John.17 Mary Parker widow obtained an estate of over 154 pounds-a good amount of money in the late seventeenth century.

Mary Parker did not appear in Essex County records after September 29, 1685 when she brought the inventory to court. We know little about her interaction with her neighbors and the community after her husband's death. The Parkers were a respectable family that continued to root itself in the community. So why, less than a decade after her husband's death, was Mary accused as a witch? There was no documented friction with any of her neighbors, any no prior accusations. The closest tie Mary had with witchcraft was a distant cousin on her father's side, William Ayers whose his wife Judith was accused of witchcraft in 1662.18 But this was not enough to justify Mary's accusation. What really happened in 1692 to Mary Ayer Parker?

The Salem crisis had spread to Andover when William Barker Jr. named her in his confession on September 1, 1692.19 He testified that "goode Parker went w'th him last Night to Afflict Martha Sprague." He elaborated that Goody Parker "rod upon a pole & was baptized at 5 Mile pond," a common reference to a union made with the devil. The examination of Mary Parker occurred the next day. At the examination, afflicted girls from both Salem and Andover fell into fits when her name was spoken. The girls included Mary Warren, Sarah Churchill, Hannah Post, Sara Bridges, and Mercy Wardwell. The records state that when Mary came before the justices, the girls were cured of their fits by her touch-the satisfactory result of the commonly used "touch test," signifying a witch's guilt.20

When Mary denied being the witch they were after Martha Sprague, one of her accusers, quickly responded that is was for certain this Mary Parker, who had afflicted her. Sprague and Mary Lacy effectively fell into fits. Historian Mary Beth Norton discovered that Mary Parker was related to Sprague; she was Sprague's step-great-aunt.21 Mary Parker's son-in-law John Tyler's father Moses Tyler had married Martha's mother.22 Martha also lived in Andover, and the Tylers and the Parkers were friendly for sometime before their families were joined in marriage.23 Still, it was a distant relation and Martha was only sixteen years old at the time of the trial, so it is doubtful she knew Mary Parker personally.

Nevertheless, Mary Parker's defense was ignored, both by the courtroom, and most historians until now. However, Mary Ayer Parker told the truth: there was another Mary Parker living in Andover. In fact there were not one, but three other Mary Parkers in Andover. One was Mary Ayer's sister-in-law, Mary Stevens Parker, wife of Nathan's brother Joseph. The second was Joseph and Mary's daughter Mary. The third was the wife of Mary and Joseph's son, Stephen. Mary Marstone Parker married Stephen in 1680.24 To complicate things even further, there was yet another Mary Parker living nearby in Salem Towne.

Confusion could easily have arisen from the multitude of Mary Parkers abound in Essex County. However, similarities between Mary Ayer Parker and her sister-in-law may have instigated confusion in even her accusers. The two Mary's married the Parker brothers by the late 1640's, and began having children in the early 1650's. They had children of the same name including sons named Joseph and daughters Mary and Sara (Mary, daughter of Nathan and Mary may have died soon after her father 25). Nathan and Mary Parker's son James, born in 1655, and Joseph and Mary Parker's son John born in 1656, died on June 29, 1677, killed by the Indians at Black Point.26 In 1692, both Mary Parker Sr.'s were reasonably wealthy widows. Joseph's wife received their house and ample land from his will, dated November 4, 1678.27 The two women shared almost fifty years of family ties. But in September of 1692, it was only Nathan Parker's wife who was accused, tried, and found guilty of witchcraft. Why was Mary Ayer brought to trial?

On the surface, the two Mary Parkers seemed almost interchangeable but the will of Joseph Parker revealed something important about his branch of the Parker family. Joseph made some peculiar stipulations regarding the inheritance of his son Thomas. The will described Thomas as "who by god's providence is disenabled for providing for himself or managing an estate if committed to him by reason of distemper of mind att certain seasons."28 The management of his portion of the estate was given to his mother Mary until her death, after which, Thomas would choose his own guardian.

This "distemper of mind" seemed to run in the family. Stephen Parker later petitioned in September 1685 that his mother be barred from the management of her own affairs for the same reason. Stephen revealed that his mother was in a "distracted condition and not capable of improving any of her estate for her owne comfort."29 Whether mental illness influenced the reputation of Joseph Parker's wife cannot be ascertained, but it is likely that if she was mentally instable, it was well known in the tight-knit community of Andover.

Mental illness was often distrusted and feared. In fact, a case in 1692 involved a woman with a history of mental illness. Rebecca Fox Jacobs confessed to witchcraft in 1692 and her mother Rebecca Fox petitioned both the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Massachusetts Governor Phips for her release on the grounds of mental illness. According to her mother, it was well known that Rebecca Jacobs had long been a "Person Craz'd Distracted & Broken in mind."30 Evidently mental illness could have made someone more vulnerable to witchcraft accusations. This does not guarantee the girls intended to accuse Mary Stevens Parker but it does make the case for Mary Ayer Parker's misidentification stronger.

A notorious figure in Salem Towne, also named Mary Parker muddled the case further. This Mary Parker appeared multiple times in the Essex courts and made a reputation for herself beginning in 1670's. In 1669, she was sentenced for fornication.31 In 1672, the court extended her indenture to Moses Gillman for bearing a child out of wedlock. A year later, she went back to court for child support from Teague Disco of Exiter.32 The court sentenced her ten stripes for fornication. She came to trial two more times for fornication in 1676 33. A scandalous figure indeed, Mary from Salem further sullied the name "Mary Parker."

A disreputable name could have been enough to kill the wrong woman in 1692. In a society where the literate were the minority, the spoken word was the most damaging. Gossip, passed from household to household and from town to town through the ears and mouths of women, was the most prevalent source of information. The damaged reputation of one woman could be confused with another as tales of "Goode So-and-so" filtered though the community. The accused Sarah Bishop had a history of witchcraft suspicions, especially concerning the death of Christian Trask. Her death, ruled a suicide, remained a controversy and many believed that Sarah Bishop had bewitched her.34 The Court of Oyer and Terminer questioned Sarah on April 22, 1692, but the "Goode Bishop" business did not stop there. Susanna Sheldon, joining the cast of afflicted girls, claimed that she saw Bridget Bishop in an apparition who told her she killed three women, one of them being Christian Trask.35 Sarah and Bridget lived in different parts of Salem but Susanna wrongly attributed gossip about Sarah Bishop to Bridget Bishop simply because they shared a last name. The confusion associated with their cases proved how easily gossip could be attributed to the wrong woman. The bad reputations garnered by Mary Parker the fornicator from Salem, and the mentally ill Mary Stevens Parker of Andover could have affected the vulnerability of Mary Ayer Parker.

Mary Ayer Parker told the truth about the other Marys, but the court ignored her. William Barker Jr. came in to speak against her. He testified "looking upon Mary Parker said to her face that she was one of his company, And that the last night she afflicted Martha Sprague in company with him."36 Barker Jr. pointed Mary out in court but he may have been confused himself. In his own confession, William accused a "goode Parker," but of course, he did not specify which Goody Parker he meant.37 There was a good possibility that William Barker Jr. heard gossip about one Goody Parker or another and the magistrates of the court took it upon themselves to issue a warrant for the arrest of Mary Ayer Parker without making sure they had the right woman in custody.

Mary Parker's luck plummeted when Mary Warren suffered a violent fit in which a pin ran through her hand and blood came from her mouth during her examination. Indictments followed for the torture and other evil acts against Sarah Phelps, Hanna Bigsbee, and Martha Sprague. Martha's indictment was rejected, returned reading "ignoramus,"38 but the indictments for both Hannah Bigsbee and Sarah Phelps were returned "billa vera", and the court held Mary Parker for trial. Sara claimed that Mary tortured her on the last day of August as well as "diverse other days and times." Hannah said that Mary tortured her on the first day of September: the indictment stated that she had been "Tortured aflicted Consumed Pined Wasted and Tormented and also for Sundry othe[r] Acts of Witchcraft."39

Capt. Thomas Chandler approved both indictments. Significantly both Sarah and Hanna were members of the Chandler family, one of the founding families in Andover. The Captain's daughter Sarah Chandler married Samuel Phelps on May 29, 1682. Their daughter Sara Jr. testified against Mary Parker in 1692.40 Hannah Chandler, also the daughter of Capt. Thomas, married Daniel Bigsbee on December 2, 1974.41 Capt. Thomas Chandler's daughter Hannah and granddaughter Sarah.gave evidence that held Mary for trial. Did the Chandler family have it out for the Parkers?

Thomas and his son William settled in Andover in the 1640s.42 Elinor Abbot wrote that they originally came from Hertford, England.43 The revelation of strong Chandler ties to Mary's case is peculiar because until then, the relationship between the Parkers and the Chandlers seemed friendly. Public and private ties between William, Thomas, and the Parker brothers were manifest in the public records. Nathan and William Chandler held the responsibility of laying out the land lots, and probably shared other public duties as well.44 Joseph Parker's will called Ensigne Thomas Chandler45 his "loving friend", and made him overseer of his estate.46 Nathan Parker's land bordered Thomas Chandler's and there was no evidence of neighborly disputes.47 It is difficult to understand where the relationship went bad.

The only hint of any fallout between the families came more than a decade before Joseph Parker's 1678 will. On June 6, 1662, Nathan Parker testified in an apprenticeship dispute between the Tylers and the Chandlers.48 The Chandler family may have felt Nathan Parker unfairly favored the Tyler family in the incident. Bad blood between the Chandler and Tyler families could have translated into problems between the Chandler and Parker families. This discord would have been worsened by the alliance between the Tyler and Parker families through Hannah Parker and John Tyler's marriage in 1682.

This still does not seem enough to explain the Chandlers' involvement 1692. Perhaps after Nathan Parker's death in 1685, neighborly tensions arose between Mary's inherited state and the bordering Chandler estate. The existing records betray nothing further. Perhaps these speculated neighborly problems were coupled with the desire to distract attention from an internal scandal in the Chandler family.

In 1690 Hannah and Daniel Bigsbee testified in the trial of Elizabeth Sessions, a single woman in Andover who claimed to be pregnant with the child of Hannah's brother Joseph. The Bigsbees refuted her claim and insisted she carried the child of another man.49 The Chandlers were respected people in Andover; even Elizabeth referred to them as "great men," and they surely resented the gossip. The crisis of 1692 was a perfect opportunity for them to divert attention away from the scandal. When Mary Parker was arrested, they found the ideal candidate to take advantage of: her husband and her brother-in-law were no longer around to defend her and her young sons could not counter the power of the Chandlers.

After the initial indictments, Hannah Bigsbee and Sarah Phelps dropped from documented involvement in the case. Here, the documentation gets rather sloppy and confused. Essex Institute archivists erroneously mixed much of the testimony from Alice Parker's case in with Mary Parker's. When the irrelevant material is extracted, there is very little left of the actual case.50

The only other testimony came from two teenage confessors: Mercy Wardwell and William Barker Jr. On September 16, fourteen-year-old Barker told the Grand Inquest that Mary "did in Company with him s'd Barker : afflict Martha Sprag by: witchcraft. the night before: s'd Barker Confessed: which was: the 1 of Sept'r 1692".51 Eighteen-year-old Mercy did not name Mary a witch, but did say that "she had seen: the shape of Mary Parker: When she: s'd Wardwell: afflicted: Timo Swan: also: she: s'd she saw: s'd parkers Shape: when the s'd wardwell afflicted Martha Sprage".52

Nothing else remains of Mary Parker case. It appeared that Mary's trial was over on September 16, 1692. She was executed only six days later. Evidence seems lacking. In essence, Mary was convicted almost solely from the testimony from two teenage confessors. Her examination, indictment, and grand inquest all took place expediently, and within one month, Mary was accused, convicted and executed.

Her death seems irresponsible at the least, and even almost outrageous. She was convicted with such little evidence, and even that seems tainted and misconstrued. The Salem trials did her no justice, and her treatment was indicative of the chaos and ineffectualness that had over taken the Salem trials by the fall of 1692. However, her treatment by historians is even less excusable. The records of her case are disorganized and erroneous, but what has been written about the case is even more misinformed. Today it is impossible to exonerate the reputation of Mary Ayer Parker. The records that survive are too incomplete and confused. But perhaps we can acknowledge the possibility that amidst the fracas of 1692, a truly innocent woman died as the result of sharing the unfortunate name "Mary Parker."
This previous material comes from Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum ed. Salem Witchcraft Papers, Volume 2 30, available at http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/ The will of John "Eyer" of Haverhill can be found in Essex County Records Volume III. 200-201. The will stipulated that if Mary died before she received her inheritance, it would pass to her children. The same was said for her sister Rebecca. However, if her other siblings Nathaniel and Hannah died before they received similar bequests and left no children, their shares would pass to their brother Obadiah If Nathaniel and Hannah had children when the will was written I assume their father would have made the same stipulations regarding the passing of their inheritance to their children. Birth records from Essex County listing at least two children of Nathan and Mary before 1657 back this claim up. Vital Records of Newbury, Volume 2 (Salem, 1918). Vital Records of Andover, Volume 2. James Savage noted this marriage but believed Susanna bore no children. I refute this claim. I believe Hannah gave birth to Nathan's first son, Nathan Jr. before she died (Perhaps she died in childbirth?). Andover Vital Records, Volume 1 (Topsfield, 1912). Phillip Greven, Four Generations: Population, Land, and Family in Colonial Andover, Massachusetts. (London, 1970), 59. Phillip Greven, Four Generations. Greven writes that "Nathan Parker, who came to Andover in 1638 as an indentured servant received more than 213.5 acres from the town and left an estate of over 225 acres at his death in 1685. Andover Public Record 20536 from Phillip Greven's Four Generations. Joseph Parker's landholdings are discussed in Greven as well. He is referred to as tanner on many occasions in the Essex County Records. Essex County Court Records, Volume I. Andover Vital Records, Volume 1 records the births of all Nathan and Mary's children except Joseph. I assume Joseph to be at least older than Peter, who was only sixteen in 1692. In that same year, both Robert and James have died-Robert of unknown causes and James by the Indians at Black Point. There are two Mary Parkers listed as daughters in the Vital Records of Andover, born three years apart in 1657 and 1660. They could be of the same parents, with one dying before the birth of the other-in fact Nathan's first daughter Mary died in 1676 and I believe they did have another daughter after her death and named her, too, Mary. However, I suspect that one of the Mary's listed here was mistakenly identified, and was actually the daughter of Joseph and Mary Parker, who have children in the same time period. This speculation comes from the will of Joseph Parker, which listed a daughter Mary Parker although she is unlisted in the birth records. Andover Vital Records, Volume II. All death and marriage records come from this volume unless otherwise noted. Essex County Court Records, Volume II. 366, 327. The alliance between the Tylers and Parkers was extensive. Nathan testified on Job Tyler (John Tyler's father), behalf in several cases prior to the marriage of their children. Essex County Court Records, Volume II, 234. These records list a will dated 1679 that historians normally attribute to the elder Nathan Parker. However, I speculate that this will actually belongs to his son Nathan Jr., who seemed to have died around the same time. I am convinced because first, the record is from Newbuy, where Nathan Jr. was born and lived, and secondly, because the will mentions only one child, Mary. Essex County Court Records IX, 195. 18 Anderson, Robert Charles, George F. Sanborn Jr., Melinda Lutz Sanborn, The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England 1634-1635, Volume II (Boston 2001), 331. 19. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum edition of The Salem Witchcraft Papers I: 33,75. Barker's testimony will be referred to from this source unless otherwise noted. The material in the preceding paragraph comes from Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum ed., Salem Witchcraft Papers, Volume III, which takes this record from Essex County Archives, Salem-Witchcraft Vol. II, 30. Norton, Mary Beth. In the Devil's Snare (New York, 2002) 260. Vital Records of Andover to 1849. For records of the families' relationship see Essex County Court Records Volume II, Godfry vs. Tyler, 366; also Joseph Parker's will, Volume VII, 142-143 The information preceding in this paragraph is taken from the Vital Records of Andover to 1850, Volumes I and II. I make this assumption from Nathan Parker's will, found on 234 of Volume VII of the Vital Records of Andover, and the inventory brought by Mary Ayer Parker in the same year, found in Volume IX on 595. Mary Jr. appeared as a special interest to her father, even though she was one of the elder daughters, and did not appear at all in the distribution of her father's property. There was no death date listed for her, but she did not appear again in any of the court or vital records. Vital Records of Andover to 1850, Volume II. Essex County Court Records, Volume VII, 142-143. Essex County Court Records, Volume VII, 142-143. Essex County Court Records, Volume IX, 516. Ibid, 496. Essex County Court Records, Volume V, 102,103. Essex County Court Records, Volume V, 240. Essex County Court Records, Volume VI, 216. Mary Beth Norton, The Devil's Snare (New York, 2002) 137. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum ed., Salem Witchcraft Papers, Volume I, 320-21, 105-106. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum. Salem Witchcraft Papers from the Essex County Archives, Salem. Volume II, 30. All other details from the examination were also taken from this source. Ibid, Volume I, 74. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum ed., Salem Witchcraft Papers from the Essex Institute MSS Collection. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum ed., Salem Witchcraft Papers from the Essex Institute MSS Collection. Note that the reverse of the Sarah Phelps indictment is only available on the original document. Essex County Court Records, Volume VII, 53. The marriage records appear in Vital Records of Andover to 1849, Volume II. Phillip Greven, Four Generations, 46. Elinor Abbot, Transformations, 99. Essex County Public Court Records, Volume VII, 82. Ensigne Thomas Chandler later became Captain Thomas Chandler. Essex County Court Records, Volume VII, 143. Andover Public Town Record, Volume I. Andover Town Hall. The information preceding in the paragraph comes from Essex County Court Records, Volume II, 404-405. Nathan had written a document binding Job Tyler's son Hope as apprentice to Thomas Chandler. The two families made the request jointly-but sometime in the next three years, the Tyler family grew dissatisfied with the arrangement. Moses Tyler and John Godfry (more often opponents in court) came to the Parker house when Nathan was not home and burnt the document. The information about Session's trial comes from the Essex County Court Papers, Volume 50, 62-63, from Phillip Greven's Four Generations. John Westgate's testimony obviously referred to Alice Parker, calling her wife of John.49 Samuel Shattuck's deposition also referred to the "wife of Jno".49 John Bullock's deposition depicted Parker as lying in the middle of the road "upon the durt and snow," after which he solicited another man's help in taking her home. After they did so, and put her in her bed she "rises up and laughs in o'r faces". Although Bullock did not specify which Parker he spoke about, he was from Salem Town, so it seemed logical that he referred also to Alice Parker. Martha Dutch also testified that she had seen Parker in such a condition several times.49 Although it cannot be proven, this kind of behavior may have been "typical" of Alice Parker, who seemed to have quite a volatile personality according to her trial records.xlix . On the contrary, there is no other evidence for behavior like this on the part of Mary Ayer Parker. See Salem Witchcraft Papers, Mary Parker for this evidence. Ibid. Paul Boyer and Stephen Nissenbaum, Salem Witchcraft Papers, Essex County Archives, Volume II, 33.
top

Copyright 2002 by Benjamin Ray and The University of Virginia

Sources

  1. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI),
  2. New England, Salem Witches and Others Tried for Witchcraft, 1647-1697,
  3. Stephen R. Myers,
  4. Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,

[TOP]


Cornet Peter AYER

M, #I935, b. 01 November 1633, d. 03 January 1699

Family

Marriage 1 : Hannah ALLEN m. 01 November 1659 Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 17 June 1642, d. 22 December 1729

Sources

  1. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI),
  2. Stephen R. Myers,
  3. U.S. Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current,

[TOP]


Thomas AYER

M, #I936, b. 1626, d. 09 November 1686

Family

Marriage 1 : Elizabeth HUTCHINS m. UNKNOWN Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 1636, d. 1686

  1. Love AYER, b. 15 April 1663, d. 09 April 1741
  2. Elizabeth AYER, b. 23 December 1659, d. 26 October 1695

Sources

  1. Massachusetts Applications of Freemen, 1630-91,
  2. U.S. Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970,
  3. Stephen R. Myers,
  4. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Rebecca AYER

F, #I937, b. 1627, d. 1702

Family

Marriage 1 : John ASLEBEE m. 08 October 1648 Newbury, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 1614, d. abt. 1671

Marriage 2 : George KEYSER m. UNKNOWN, b. UNKNOWN, d. abt. 1671

Sources

  1. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI),
  2. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Robert AYER

M, #I938, b. 1625, d. 1711

Family

Marriage 1 : Elizabeth PALMER m. 27 February 1651, b. 1634, d. 24 April 1705

  1. Elizabeth AYER, b. 10 November 1652, d. 26 October 1695

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Massachusetts Applications of Freemen, 1630-91,
  3. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI),
  4. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Capt John AYER, Capt

M, #I939, b. abt. 1622, d. 19 July 1692

Family

Marriage 1 : Sarah WILLIAMS m. 05 May 1646, b. abt. 1628, d. 25 July 1662

  1.    John AYER, b. 18 March 1647, d. UNKNOWN

Marriage 2 : Mary WOODDAM m. 26 March 1663, b. abt. 1634, d. aft. 1694

Sources

  1. RootsWeb Birth Index,
  2. U.S. Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current,

[TOP]


Obdiah AYER

M, #I940, b. 01 October 1635, d. 14 November 1694

Family

Marriage 1 : Hannah PIKE m. 19 March 1661, b. 26 April 1643, d. 31 May 1689

Sources

  1. U.S. Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970,
  2. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Nathaniel AYER

M, #I941, b. 1638, d. 17 November 1717

Family

Marriage 1 : Tamesin TURLOAR m. 10 May 1670 Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. abt. 1647, d. 13 December 1700

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Elizabeth PALMER

F, #I942, b. 1634, d. 24 April 1705

Family

Marriage 1 : Robert AYER m. 27 February 1651, b. 1625, d. 1711

  1. Elizabeth AYER, b. 10 November 1652, d. 26 October 1695

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Massachusetts, Find A Grave Index, 1620-2013,
  3. U.S. Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current,

[TOP]


Elizabeth HUTCHINS

F, #I943, b. 1636, d. 1686

Family

Marriage 1 : Thomas AYER m. UNKNOWN Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 1626, d. 09 November 1686

  1. Love AYER, b. 15 April 1663, d. 09 April 1741
  2. Elizabeth AYER, b. 23 December 1659, d. 26 October 1695

Notes:

Another member of the Ayer Family (by marriage) was Francis Hutchins - mother-in-law to Thomas Ayer (son of John and Hannah). Thomas married Elizabeth Hutchins (daughter of John and Francis Hutchins) in 1656.

Francis Hutchins was arrested on the 19th August 1692 as a result of a witchcraft complaint filed by Timothy Swan, Ann Putnam, Jr., and Mary Walcott. She was imprisoned until the 21st December 1692 when she was released on bond. No trial records were found. Samuel Hutchins and John Kingsbury posted the bond.

Sources

  1. U.S. Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970,
  2. EARLY SETTLERS VA. MARYLAND & PENNSYLVANIA & MASS,

[TOP]


Love AYER

F, #I944, b. 15 April 1663, d. 09 April 1741

Family

Marriage 1 : Joseph KINGSBURY m. UNKNOWN, b. 1656, d. 1741

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,
  3. U.S. Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970,

[TOP]


Hannah ALLEN

F, #I945, b. 17 June 1642, d. 22 December 1729

Family

Marriage 1 : Cornet Peter AYER m. 01 November 1659 Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 01 November 1633, d. 03 January 1699

Sources

  1. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI),
  2. Stephen R. Myers,
  3. Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,

[TOP]


Nathan PARKER

M, #I946, b. 1622, d. 25 June 1685

Family

Marriage 1 : Mary AYER m. 20 November 1648, b. 1634, d. 22 September 1692

  1. Hannah PARKER, b. 1659, d. UNKNOWN
  2.    James PARKER, b. 1655, d. UNKNOWN
  3.    Peter PARKER, b. 1676
  4. Joseph PARKER, b. abt. 1669, d. UNKNOWN
  5.    Mary PARKER, b. 1660
  6. Elizabeth PARKER, b. 20 JAN 1662/63, d. 11 JAN 1716/17
  7.    Sara PARKER, b. 1670

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. New England Historical and Genealogical Register,

[TOP]


Hannah PARKER

F, #I947, b. 1659, d. UNKNOWN

Family

Marriage 1 : John TYLER m. 1682, b. 1653, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Hannah PIKE

F, #I948, b. 26 April 1643, d. 31 May 1689

Family

Marriage 1 : Obdiah AYER m. 19 March 1661, b. 01 October 1635, d. 14 November 1694

Sources

  1. U.S. Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970,
  2. Stephen R. Myers,
  3. Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,
  4. New Jersey, Find A Grave Index, 1664-2012,

[TOP]


Captain John PIKE, Captain

M, #I949, b. 08 November 1613, d. 20 JAN 1687/88

Family

Marriage 1 : Mary TARVILLE m. 1637 Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. abt. 1615, d. 1689

  1. Hannah PIKE, b. 26 April 1643, d. 31 May 1689

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. New Jersey, Find A Grave Index, 1664-2012,

[TOP]


Mary TARVILLE

F, #I950, b. abt. 1615, d. 1689

Family

Marriage 1 : John PIKE, Captain m. 1637 Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 08 November 1613, d. 20 JAN 1687/88

  1. Hannah PIKE, b. 26 April 1643, d. 31 May 1689

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Tamesin TURLOAR

F, #I951, b. abt. 1647, d. 13 December 1700

Family

Marriage 1 : Nathaniel AYER m. 10 May 1670 Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, USA, b. 1638, d. 17 November 1717

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI),
  3. Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620-1988,
  4. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Sir Thomas SAINT LEGER

M, #I952, b. 22 MAR 1441/42, d. 13 November 1483

Family

Marriage 1 : Anne of YORK m. UNKNOWN, b. 10 August 1439, d. 12 January 1476

  1. Anne SAINT LEGER, b. 1476, d. 21 April 1526

Notes:

Sir Thomas St Leger KB (c. 1440 - executed 8 November 1483) was the second son of Sir John St Leger of Ulcombe, Kent, and his wife, Margery Donnet. He was also the second husband of Anne of York (10 August 1439 - 14 January 1476), daughter of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (by his wife Cecily Neville) and thus she was an elder sister of Kings Edward IV (1461-1483) and Richard III (1483-1485). His younger brother, Sir James St Leger of Annery in Devon, married Anne Butler, daughter of Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormond, and was therefore an uncle to Thomas Boleyn, 1st

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Anne of YORK

F, #I953, b. 10 August 1439, d. 12 January 1476

Family

Marriage 1 : Sir Thomas SAINT LEGER m. UNKNOWN, b. 22 MAR 1441/42, d. 13 November 1483

  1. Anne SAINT LEGER, b. 1476, d. 21 April 1526

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]


Richard 3rd Duke of YORK

M, #I954, b. 21 September 1411, d. 30 December 1460

Family

Marriage 1 : Cecily NEVILLE m. UNKNOWN, b. 21 September 1415, d. 31 May 1495

  1. Anne of YORK, b. 10 August 1439, d. 12 January 1476
  2. Edward IV King of ENGLAND, b. 28 April 1442, d. 09 April 1483
  3.    Edmund Earl of RUTLAND, b. 17 May 1443, d. 29 December 1460
  4. George Plantagenet Duke of CLARENCE, b. 21 October 1449, d. 18 FEB 1477/78
  5. Richard III King of England PLANTAGENET, b. 02 October 1452, d. 22 August 1485
  6. Margaret of YORK, b. 03 May 1446, d. 23 November 1503
  7.    Ursula of York PLANTAGENET, b. 20 July 1455, d. abt. 1456
  8.    John Of YORK, b. 07 November 1448, d. UNKNOWN
  9.    William Of YORK, b. 07 November 1447, d. abt. 1448
  10. Elizabeth Of YORK, b. 22 April 1444, d. January 1502
  11.    Joan of YORK, b. abt. 1438, d. UNKNOWN
  12.    Henry of YORK, b. abt. 1441, d. UNKNOWN
  13.    Thomas of YORK, b. abt. 1451, d. UNKNOWN

Notes:

Richard Plantagenet was the only son of Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge, himself the second son of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York and Isabella of Castille, Edmund of Langley was the fourth surviving son of King Edward III. Richard's mother was Anne Mortimer, sister to Richard II's heir, Roger Mortimer, Earl of March who after his death became the premier descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, Edward's second surviving son. By the strict laws of primogeniture, this made Richard the heir of Edward III, giving him a slightly better claim to the throne than Henry VI, who descended from Edward's third son.

Richard was born on 21st September, 1411, his mother died giving birth. He had an elder sister, Isabel, who was later to become Countess of Essex. When he was but four years old his father was executed by Henry V on 5th August, 1415, for his part in a plot to place his brother-in-law Roger Mortimer on the throne. On the death of his paternal uncle, Edward, Duke of York at the Battle of Agincourt, a large man who was reported to have smothered in his own armour on the battlefield, Richard succeeded to his vast estates and the title of Duke of York. His wardship was granted to Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, who in 1424 betrothed Richard, then aged thirteen, to his nine year old daughter and eighteenth child, Cecily Neville.

Lieutenant of France

Cecily Neville, Duchess of YorkYork lead an expedition to France in 1436, where he acquitted himself ably, returning to England in 1439. He was appointed Lieutenant of France in 1440. Taking on the role previously occupied by John, Duke of Bedford, the brother of Henry V. His wife Cecily, known as the Rose of Raby, accompanied him and three of his children Edward, Edmund and Elizabeth were born there.

In 1443, John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, grandson of John of Gaunt's illicit union with Katherine Swynford, was sent to France to relieve Gascony, leading to much ill feeling on York's part, who was denied resources required to maintain the borders of Normandy. Somerset's mission was a failure and he died on his return to England in disgrace, possibly he committed suicide. A peace was negotiated with the French and York returned to England for a second time in 1445 and firmly attached himself to the pro war party headed by the king's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester in opposition to the policies of Cardinal Henry Beaufort. The lieutenancy of France was given to Somerset's younger brother and successor, Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Earl of Somerset, which no doubt exacerbated York's resentment of the Beaufort family. The death of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester in 1447, made Richard of York the first Prince of the Blood. In 1448 he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a convenient means of keeping him out of the country.

Lord Protector of England

In 1450 rebellion broke out against Henry's rule in Kent and Sussex, led by one Jack Cade who used the name Mortimer, the use of the names of Mortimer and York, underlined the trend of popular opinion. The rebels took London and killed Henry's Lord Treasurer, John Fiennes, Baron Saye and Sele. York landed at Beaumaris on Anglesey and resisting attempts to waylay him, he marched on London and whilst insisting his loyalty to the king, demanded better government and that those responsible for the loss of Normandy, which had recently fallen to the French, face punishment. Parliament elected York's chamberlain, Sir William Oldhall, as speaker and Somerset was placed in the Tower for his own protection. In 1452, York advanced on London from Ludlow and demanded recognition as the heir of Henry VI, he laid before the king a bill of accusation against Somerset, at the same time swearing fealty to the king, and promising for the future to sue for remedy in legal form. At a meeting at Dartford, a temporary agreement was reached.

After years of a barren marriage to the king, Margaret of Anjou announced herself pregnant in 1453, a crushing blow to York's hopes. In August, 1453 at the age of 32, Henry VI began to exhibit signs of serious mental illness. By means of a "sudden fright" he entered into a trance-like state reacting to and recognising no-one. Catatonic schizophrenia or depressive stupor have been suggested as a likely diagnosis. This was probably an inheritance from his grandfather, Charles VI of France, who himself suffered from bouts of schizophrenia. York was appointed protector, to the annoyance of the Queen, who strongly felt that she and her party should govern England.
The rebel lords gathered support and in retaliation took London. Warwick met the forces loyal to the king at the Battle of Northampton, defeated them, and took the unfortunate Henry captive back to London. York returned from exile and laid formal claim to the throne. When asked why he had not previously done so, he responded that "though right for a time lies silent, yet it rotteth not, nor shall it perish." A compromise was agreed on, whereupon Henry VI was to keep the throne for the rest of his lifetime but the succession was to go to York and his heirs. No one for a moment expected that the spirited Margaret would accept the disinheriting of her son and this proved to be the case.

Margaret of Anjou attempted to gain the support of James III, King of of Scots, York and Salisbury headed north to meet the threat, arriving at Sandall Castle, a few miles to the south of Wakefield on 21 December, where they intended to spend the Christmas season. The Lancastrian forces which had regrouped under the leadership of Somerset and the Earl of Northumberland advanced on them. Instead of awaiting reinforcements, York led an impulsive charge on the Lancastrians. Two large forces of the Lancastrian army, commanded by the Earl of Wiltshire and Lord Roos, emerged from nearby woods and the jaws of the trap snapped shut on the Yorkist leader. The Duke of York was killed in the ensuing slaughter known as the Battle of Wakefield, as was his seventeen year old son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, who was killed whilst fleeing the battlefield over Wakefield Bridge, his pleas for his life being ignored. Salisbury was captured during the battle and conveyed to Pontefract Castle where he was executed. The Queen had their heads impaled on spikes on the city walls of York, York's wearing a paper crown in derision.

Two of York's sons were later to rule England as Edward IVand Richard III. His widow, Cecily Neville, survived both, living on to see the reign of the first Tudor King, Henry VII, who married her granddaughter, Elizabeth of York. She died in 1495, 35 years after her husband and was buried with him at Fotheringhay Church, Northamptonshire.

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Monarchs of England,

[TOP]


Cecily NEVILLE

F, #I955, b. 21 September 1415, d. 31 May 1495

Family

Marriage 1 : Richard 3rd Duke of YORK m. UNKNOWN, b. 21 September 1411, d. 30 December 1460

  1. Anne of YORK, b. 10 August 1439, d. 12 January 1476
  2. Edward IV King of ENGLAND, b. 28 April 1442, d. 09 April 1483
  3.    Edmund Earl of RUTLAND, b. 17 May 1443, d. 29 December 1460
  4. George Plantagenet Duke of CLARENCE, b. 21 October 1449, d. 18 FEB 1477/78
  5. Richard III King of England PLANTAGENET, b. 02 October 1452, d. 22 August 1485
  6. Margaret of YORK, b. 03 May 1446, d. 23 November 1503
  7.    Ursula of York PLANTAGENET, b. 20 July 1455, d. abt. 1456
  8.    John Of YORK, b. 07 November 1448, d. UNKNOWN
  9.    William Of YORK, b. 07 November 1447, d. abt. 1448
  10. Elizabeth Of YORK, b. 22 April 1444, d. January 1502
  11.    Joan of YORK, b. abt. 1438, d. UNKNOWN
  12.    Henry of YORK, b. abt. 1441, d. UNKNOWN
  13.    Thomas of YORK, b. abt. 1451, d. UNKNOWN

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Monarchs of England,

[TOP]


Edward IV King of ENGLAND

M, #I956, b. 28 April 1442, d. 09 April 1483

Family

Marriage 1 : Elizabeth WOODVILLE m. 1464 Northamptonshire, England, b. abt. 1437, d. 08 June 1492

  1.    Edward V King of England YORK, b. 02 November 1470, d. abt. 1483

Notes:

Edward IV (28 April 1442 - 9 April 1483) was the King of England from 4 March 1461 until 3 October 1470,[1][2] and again from 11 April 1471 until his death in 1483. He was the first Yorkist King of England.[3] The first half of his rule was marred by the violence associated with the Wars of the Roses, but he overcame the Lancastrian challenge to the throne at Tewkesbury in 1471 to reign in peace until his sudden death. Before becoming king, he was 4th Duke of York,[4] 7th Earl of March, 5th Earl of Cambridge and 9th Earl of Ulster. He was also the 65th Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece.

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. British Chancery Records, 1386-1558,
  3. Dictionary of National Biography, Volumes 1-20, 22,

[TOP]


Elizabeth WOODVILLE

F, #I957, b. abt. 1437, d. 08 June 1492

Family

Marriage 1 : Edward IV King of ENGLAND m. 1464 Northamptonshire, England, b. 28 April 1442, d. 09 April 1483

  1.    Edward V King of England YORK, b. 02 November 1470, d. abt. 1483

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. England, Extracted Parish and Court Records,
  3. U.K. and Ireland, Find A Grave Index, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Edmund Earl of RUTLAND

M, #I958, b. 17 May 1443, d. 29 December 1460

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Monarchs of England,

[TOP]


George Plantagenet Duke of CLARENCE

M, #I959, b. 21 October 1449, d. 18 FEB 1477/78

Family

Marriage 1 : Isabel NEVILLE m. 11 July 1469 Calais, Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France, b. 05 September 1451, d. 12 September 1476

Notes:

George Duke of Clarence, 1st Earl of Salisbury, 1st Earl of Warwick, Knight of the Garter Plantagenet

George, the sixth but third surviving son of Richard, Duke of York, and Cecily Neville, was the brother of both Kings Edward IV and Richard III. He was was born in Dublin and, until the birth of Prince Edward of York in 1471, was heir presumptive to the Crown. He early appeared as a suitor, though a very unlikely husband, for the heiress of the century, Mary of Burgundy; but his sister-in-law, the Queen of England, is believed to have been steadily hostile to him, and it was not difficult for the powerful Earl of Warwick to use him as a tool against King Edward.

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Monarchs of England,
  3. Web: Netherlands, GenealogieOnline Trees Index, 1000-Current (in Dutch),
  4. U.K. and Ireland, Find A Grave Index, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Richard III King of England PLANTAGENET

M, #I960, b. 02 October 1452, d. 22 August 1485

Family

Marriage 1 : Anne NELVILLE m. UNKNOWN Middlesex, England, b. 11 June 1456, d. 16 MAR 1484/85

  1.    Edward Prince of Wales MIDDLEHAM, b. December 1473, d. 09 April 1484

Notes:

Richard III (2 October 1452 - 22 August 1485) was King of England from 1483 until his death in 1485 in the Battle of Bosworth Field. He was the last king of the House of York and the last of the Plantagenet dynasty. His defeat at Bosworth Field, the last decisive battle of the Wars of the Roses, marked the end of the Middle Ages in England. He is the subject of the fictional historical play Richard III by William Shakespeare.

When his brother King Edward IV died in April 1483, Richard was named Lord Protector of the realm for Edward's son and successor, the 12-year-old Edward V. As the young king travelled to London from Ludlow, Richard met and escorted him to lodgings in the Tower of London where Edward V's own brother Richard of Shrewsbury joined him shortly afterwards. Arrangements were made for Edward's coronation on 22 June 1483, but before the young king could be crowned, his father's marriage to his mother Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne. On 25 June, an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed the claims. The following day, Richard III began his reign, and he was crowned on 6 July 1483. The young princes were not seen in public after August, and accusations circulated that the boys had been murdered on Richard's orders, giving rise to the legend of the Princes in the Tower

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. British Chancery Records, 1386-1558,
  3. England, Extracted Parish and Court Records,
  4. Web: Netherlands, GenealogieOnline Trees Index, 1000-Current (in Dutch),
  5. U.K. and Ireland, Find A Grave Index, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Margaret of YORK

F, #I961, b. 03 May 1446, d. 23 November 1503

Family

Marriage 1 : Charles The Bold Duke of Burgandy BOURGOGNE m. UNKNOWN Oldenburg, Niedersachsen, Germany, b. 10 November 1433, d. 05 JAN 1476/77

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Web: Netherlands, GenealogieOnline Trees Index, 1000-Current (in Dutch),
  3. Global, Find A Grave Index for Non-Burials, Burials at Sea, and other Select Burial Locations, 1300s-Current,
  4. Web: International, Find A Grave Index,

[TOP]


Ursula of York PLANTAGENET

F, #I962, b. 20 July 1455, d. abt. 1456

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Web: Netherlands, GenealogieOnline Trees Index, 1000-Current (in Dutch),
  3. U.K. and Ireland, Find A Grave Index, 1300s-Current,

[TOP]


Richard Duke of YORK

M, #I963, b. September 1376, d. 05 August 1415

Family

Marriage 1 : Anne DE MORTIMER m. 23 May 1408 Yorkshire, England, b. 27 December 1390, d. September 1411

  1. Richard 3rd Duke of YORK, b. 21 September 1411, d. 30 December 1460

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,
  2. Web: Netherlands, GenealogieOnline Trees Index, 1000-Current (in Dutch),

[TOP]


Anne DE MORTIMER

F, #I964, b. 27 December 1390, d. September 1411

Family

Marriage 1 : Richard Duke of YORK m. 23 May 1408 Yorkshire, England, b. September 1376, d. 05 August 1415

  1. Richard 3rd Duke of YORK, b. 21 September 1411, d. 30 December 1460

Sources

  1. Stephen R. Myers,

[TOP]