Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
I thought it would be helpful to set out here the supportable facts about Captain Francis-1 Drake. I would be happy to supply my sources to anyone who would like them
Francis Drake, the immigrant ancestor, was born around 1615 in England. The identities of his birthplace and parents are presently unknown, although it is probable that he was born in Devonshire.
Some sources note that he may have been the son of Robert Drake. This Robert was baptized at Halstead on 23 July 1581, and emigrated to Exeter, New Hampshire and then to Hampton, New Hampshire in 1645. The Nathaniel Drake who owned land next to Francis was Robert's son, and Nathaniel and Francis served on the same grand juries, were elected Surveyors at the same time, and both signed the petitions of 1665.
But there is absolutely NO genealogical proof that Francis was Robert's son. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary It should be noted that Robert's will fails to make any mention of Francis, although Robert mentions all his children by name. In addition, it should be noted that Francis named none of his children Robert, after his purported father, or Nathaniel, after his purported brother.
Given the name Francis Drake, there have been many who have speculated as to a familial connection between our ancestor and Sir Francis Drake (1540?-1596), the great Elizabethan Admiral. Again, there is absolutely no proof to substantiate this claim. It may have been that Francis was the grandson of Sir Francis' brother Thomas. Claims that he was a direct descendant are almost certainly spurious, since Sir Francis had no offspring (at least, no legitimate offspring).
In any event, Francis was one of the first settlers of Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire. He was a royalist, and favored by Champerowne, one of the holders of the New Hampshire grant. In April 1646, he was one of twenty-one persons who signed an agreement to have a committee lay out land in the area. He lived in an area called Old Strawberry Bank -- a neck between two creeks that grew to become Portsmouth -- and owned land adjacent to a Nathaniel Drake.
He married MARY ------ around 1650. While some sources have mentioned that her surname was WALKER, I have seen no documentary proof to support such as assertion. They had at least three, but probably four, children:
i Francis b.c. 1651 m.
ii Elizabeth b.c. 1652 m. Hugh Dunn
iii George b.c. 1653 m. Mary Oliver
+ iv John b.c. 1654 m.
He owned a houselot on Roger Knight's Island in 1654. He served on grand juries in 1660 and 1661, and in 1663. That same year -- 1663 -- he was chosen Surveyor of Highways. He served in the militia, and was made an Ensign in July 1661. In 1662, he was brought to court for mowing another man's meadow.
In July 1665, he signed two petitions to the Commission for Affairs of New England in America -- the governing body of the English colonies in America -- and to the King asking that Portsmouth be removed from the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That colony was known for its rigid Puritanism, and governed the territories to the north with a heavy hand. In addition, their assertion of jurisdiction conflicted with others, and caused a number of land boundary disputes in the area. The petition to the Commissioners read:
" The Peticon of part of the inhabitants of Portesmouth and Strawberry Bank, Humbly sheweth:
That whereas yor peticoners for severall years last past have bin kept under the ovrmnt of the Massachusets by an usurped power whose laws are derogatory to the laws of England under which power five or six of the ritchest men of this parish have ruled swaied and ordered all offices both civill & military at their pleasures, none of yor Honors peticonrs though Loyall subjects, & some of them well acquainted with the Laws of England, durst make any opposition for feare of great fines or long imprisonment and for want of estates could not peticon home to his Matie for relief, which the contrary party well knoweth, have kept us under hard servitude, and denyed us in our publique meeting the Common prayer Sacramts and decent buriall of the dead contrary to the Laws of England & his Maties lre sent by Simon Broadstreet & John Norton in the yeare 1662. And not only so but have also denied us the benefit of freemen, contrary to his Maties said letter and likewise at the election of officers the aforesaid party or the greatest part of them have always kept themselves in offices for the manageing of the gifts of lands & setling them, whereby yor peticoners are not only disabled but also descouraged for continuance in the plantation, & have engrosed the greatest part of the lands within the precincts & limits of this plantation into theire owne hands and other honest men that have been here a considerable time have no lands at all given them, and some that have had lands given & laid out to them, the said contrary party have desowned the grants, and laid it out to others.
The premisses considered, we hope your Honors will take it under yor protection, and government & rectifie those miscariages, that thereby his Maties Loyall Subjects may pertake of all such priviledges & liberties, as his Maties gratious pleasure hath bin pleased to confer upon his Subjects in forraigne plantacons and that thereby we may be the more stirred up to glorifie God for his mercies towards us in releasing us out of such great servitude & tirany & your peticoners shall always pray for your Honors happiness in this life, & eternall felicitie in the life to come."
The second petition to the King was similar:
" The humble peticon of the inhabitants of Portesmouth and Strawberry Bank Dover: Exiter and Hampton. Humbly sheweth:
That yor Maties peticoers were much transported with joy and hope of settlemt when they heard of the care yor Matie had of these plantacions in New England and had heard the power wch yor Matie had given yor Commissioer for the appointing of bounds and gourmt amongst us here. But yor Maties peticoers find to theire great greife that the Masachusetts Denying that authorytie wch yor Matie gave yor Commissionrs hath hindered us from that good wch were Expected from those Commissionrs.
Wherefore yor Maties peticoers humbly desire that your Matie would be gratiously pleased to take them into yor Royall Pteccon and gournment and ioyne them to the pvince of Mayne that they may be goved by the knowne lawes of England and enjoy the use of both the sacramts wch they have bin too deprived of. And as in all duty bound, yor peticoers shall dayly pray for the increase of all earthly honor untill you arive at the heavenly kingdome."
Unable to tolerate these conditions any longer, Francis began to cast his eyes elsewhere for a place to live. On 18 December 1666, four men from the Piscataqua region of New Hampshire acquired a grant of 40,000 acres on the Raritan River in New Jersey, at a place later called Piscataway, Middlesex County; Francis decided to join them. On 5 August 1668, he and Mary sold their lands in an area called Greenland; and between then and the beginning of 1669, removed to Piscataway where they were among the first settlers.
He owned a considerable tract of land in the township. His name appears on the 1675 list of patent holders with 245 acres. He is listed on another compilation that same year as having a sixty-acre right "besides homelot and meadow."
He was a weaver and cloth maker by profession. At his death, his account books showed that almost all of the prominant families in town owed him money for his work. In addition, on 15 July 1673, he was granted a license to keep an ordinary (tavern).
On 11 December 1674, he and three others were ordered by the court to view the meadows on the other side of the Raritan River and make a peport to the court "at the request of the Piscataway men." On 15 July 1675, Francis was commissioned the Captain of the New Piscataway Militia Company. He was discharged at his own request on 30 May 1678, probably because of his advancing age.
He died in Piscataway sometime in the 1680's, almost certainly in 1687. On October 28 of that year, letters of administration were granted to his son George Drake and Benjamin Hull of Piscataway. It appears that the value of his estate was £67.07.00. An account of the estate dated 20 August 1688 included payments to the doctor who attended Francis "in his sickness." Another account was dated 27 February 1692/3, and like the other is largely illegible.
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/drake/messages/1048.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|