Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Hi Neil:
It sounds to me like weÕre both interested in trying to find the facts about the early Bancrofts - and I think thatÕs great. We may not agree at present, but at least we can talk about things and try to find the best answers.
On the Barcroft/Bancroft question, I think itÕs clear that John and Jane Barcroft were NOT Bancrofts, and IÕd make the following points:
1) Barcroft is not such an unusual name, and there ARE (and were) Barcrofts in England. In fact, thereÕs a Genforum page for the Barcrofts, which you might want to check out. It does seem that most of the family came from England to Virginia (more on that later).
2) The Òtranscription errorÓ theory isnÕt credible. The passenger list for the ÒJamesÓ (1632) does read John Barcrofte and his wife Jane (but no kids, which there should have been if these were the Bancrofts). You could argue that the scribe should have written Bancroft, but that doesnÕt explain why there are other records in Boston, written by different people, which refer to John and Jane Barcroft - not Bancroft! (It seems that the Barcrofts were often on the wrong side of acceptable behavior, and left quite a paper trail.) For example, Gov. John Winthrop, in his Journal dated Sept 12, 1633, wrote that Captain Stone had been found Òwith BarcrofteÕs wife ..... lying in bed one night.Ó This is probably the same incident referred to in a Boston court action in which John was fined, Òthe condition of this recognizance is, that Jane Barcrofte wife of the said John, shall be of good behavior towards all persons.Ó (ShurtleffÕs ÒRecords of Massachussetts Bay, V1, p.108). The Òtranscription errorÓ hypothesis requires that the same error was made by the shipÕs captain AND John Winthrop AND the Boston Court!
3) Shortly after the above events, John and Jane Barcrofte disappear from the records in Massachussetts, but one Arthur Smith claimed to have transported ÒJon Barcroft and Jane his wifeÓ to Virginia - where folks had a more tolerant lifestyle. John seems to have died there, because in August, 1636 Charles Barcroft of Middlesex, England, went to Virginia to collect the debts of his deceased brother John. Charles stayed in Virginia and may have been the ancestor of at least some of the Barcrofts of Virginia.
So, given all that, IÕd say that John and Jane were Barcrofts, not Bancrofts!
Well maybe thatÕs enough for now. Let me know what you think.
Best wishes, Hal
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/bancroft/messages/437.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|