Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Brad
There is no proof that my branch of Angells are related to Thomas. My lot came from Northamptonshire and my branch moved to London in about the 1580s to make their fortune.
My gggg etc grandfather William born 1560c and died 1625 became a warden of the company of Fishmongers and fishmonger to the King. He was dabbling in the 'New World' in 1606 when he rented his boat the Triall out for a trip to Virginia, but the bloke who rented the boat just went round the country embezzeling and partying eventually dumping the boat and joining up with a pirate.
However, there is a connection between my Angells and Roger Williams - one of William's daughters, Catherine married a John Pemberton of St. Albans and his aunt was Roger's mother.
Most people seem to think Thomas was about 12 years old at the time he went to North America, this would not fit in with the norm for the sons of London merchants, boys were apprenticed at 15, and William Angell was wealthy enough to place his boys with reputable merchants, not as some have Thomas as a servant of a somewhat dispreputable puritan minister.
The sons of London merchants were normally sent to school, a survey of merchants from a few years after Thomas left England indicates that about 90 percent could sign their own name, this is probably not the case with Thomas.
However, this does not mean that he was not the son of a poorer branch of the family which had remained behind in rural Northamptonshire.
It should also be borne in mind that Angell as a last name was not uncommon for foundling babies, I have even located a woman who baptised her 'negra boye' Edward Angell. Considering Thomas' tender age when he emmigrated alone it is more likely that he came from a poorer background than a rich merchant family.
Just a few thoughts
Vanessa
|
Followups: |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/angell/messages/75.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|