Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
According to my copy of Hazie, George Bonham "remarried" in Plymouth in 1644 (Sarah Morton), and had 6 children with Sarah. The eldest was named Ruth (b 1645), whom Hazie lists as marrying Robert Barrow.
I use the term "remarried," because Hazie claims that George (born 1604 or 1609) had married a Miss Bishop in Essex, who later died. However, in reviewing other materials in his book, it appears that the source of this information may well have been Berry's book, which indicates that a Essex Bonham named George married "__________ Bishopp." This George Bonham, however, can't possibly be the same one as went to America, as he was deceased by 1628. (Because the George Bonham mentioned in Berry is clearly in the lineage of the historical Bonhams who were of great influence in London and Essex in the 14th-17th century, Hazie's assumption that he was the same George Bonham as came to Plymouth Colony in 1635 may have been wishful thinking.
As for Nicholas (there's more than a little controversy as to whether he was, in fact, George's son, or even if he came over with George in 1635 at all), Hazie lists his DOB as 1630. He married Hannah Fuller (daughter of Samuel Fuller, one of the original Mayflower colonists) in 1658, and had 10 children, none of which were named Ruth.
Ergo, if Ruth Bonham was married in Plymouth as you describe, it would be impossible for her to be a child of Nicholas, and appears unlikely that she was a child of George -- unless Hazie's hypothesis that George brought children (Nicholas) to Plymouth with him from England and they were just omitted from the ship's records according to the custom of the day. In such case, she might have been Nicholas' sister and George's child by his first wife, whoever she was -- although if she was, why would George name his eldest daughter by Sarah Morton "Ruth"?
If you get any answers on this, lemme know . . . . it might shed some light on the frustrating questions of tying the well-documented, post-1635 American Bonham line with the well-documented pre-1635 Essex Bonham line (which goes back to around 1300, with anecodotal information going back to 1066).
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/bonham/messages/97.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|