Re: Important message to "ALL" Orcutt's!
-
In reply to:
Re: Important message to "ALL" Orcutt's!
Judy Orcutt Holy 7/01/01
Hi,
A couple of thoughts here..
Has anyone determined for certain Keith recorded the marriage in question? It would seem to be a moot point until that is established for sure. I am very interested in knowing if he were in fact the person that made that record, but cannot offer susposition he did. The funky spelling/rendition would more seem to indicate he didn't, as if he were very interested in that family to the point of wanting to memorialize them as being Urquharts you might think he would know how that name was spelled. If the person making the record knew the Orcutts and knew they were really members of the Urquhart family of Scotland then why the obvious misspelling of the name in this case?
Also, Dr. F. S. Orcutt went into the pronunciation of Urquhart/Orcutt/ Urchar, ect. ect., as to how they were similary pronounced as proof that Orcutt=Urquhart . Using the same logic, (even more As there IS documented proof in regard to the Aucotts of Warwickshire, but none in regards to Urquhart there), then what is the significance of Orcutt/Aucott in the similarities?If ORCUTT could have been reffering to URQUHART (such as anyone hearing it), than logic dictates the reverse could work just as well. Both spellings, Urxxohart and Aucott, in these cases, can said to be variant spellings, of Orcutt/Orcott.
Also, Mr. Urquhart states on the Clan Urquhart website that the spelling he renders for the name on the marriage record is a "common rendition" of Urquhart, but can it be found to have been used in any manner what-so-ever that could be termed common? Common is by definition "general...widespread". It's the only listing in the entire IGI for that spelling, and as I e-mailed Mr. Urquhart in regards to obtaining information as to some other times it has been found, (as it is "a common rendition" there should be,if not widespread useage, at least MANY times it is to be found), but Mr. Urquhart named the one time he could think of in regards to one Urquhart in a book, and he has probably been too busy to even send that. It seems it is much more logical to ascertain that in this instance this spelling is clearly a variant of Orcutt, and not the reverse. No matter how it is rendered, Urrohart/Urxxohart,Uyyohart, ect., is unique among genealogical records in general. Oral tradition and legend aside, (not tangible enoughwithout some proof/accompaning record in my, (and most all pro genealogist's opinion), where is any proof to be found that connects the Orcutts with the Urquharts?Mr. F.W. Ingalsbee clearly had no knowledge of any connection in regards to William Orcutt as revealed in the Orcutt Association newsletter for many years, as he stated in regards to William Orcutt, April 24, 1935,
“ Perhaps was first at Weymouth but earlierthan that the great passage of timeand nothing about him has come down to this time and is not knownfurther of him anything...” , and also in
Orcutt Family Association1935
"WilliamOrcutt (whence he came we have no trace) married Mary Lane of
Hingham Jan. 24, 1664, daughter of Andrew and Triphany.When he died his
widow was MarthaWhether this is a twist of names or an evidence that he married
again, I am uncertain. Benjamin was the ninth child born 1679. I have just returned
from Plymouth, where I have been looking up old Orcutt deeds, and I have some
good materials.We are rapidly collecting data for an "Orcutt Genealogy" and will
be thankful if anyone having any data on the family will send it to the Transcript.
The reunion of the Orcutt Family Association will be held this summer, and all new
material will be made public at that time, in the various addresses."
In light of the many references to William Orcutt in earlier Orcutt Association newsletters it is obvious Mr. I is here speaking of the country of origin of William, and he, nor any of the many Orcutt researchers he was in contact with seemed to have any inkling of any of the early origins of William. If they suspected he was a Scot it surely would have been mentioned.
I was 1937 when Mr. Ingalsbee first makes any mention of any Scottish connection in his letters. It could hardly be argued Mr. Ingalsbe knew or suspected all along about the Urquharts, but didn't mention it earlier as he simply had no proof, as in fact he had no proof (and none has yet to be brought forth),when he DID mention it. It should be noted that while he stated in newsletters, before making the Scottish assumption, that he knew William Orcutt II had a second wife, Hannah, he never give the surname of Hannah, or any information or dateto indicate he had seen, or found the marriage record. It looks very much like the knowledge of the marriage record with the funny spelling and the fact that Mr. Ingalsbee tied the Orcutts to the Urquharts happened very close together. Probably at the same time, which is very indicitive that it was the spelling on the marriage record that led Mr. Ingalsbe to make the Scottish call. Anyone that has read many of Mr. Ingalsbe's newsletters, I doubt would seriousy suggest that he would have missed even one opportunity to expound about anything he, or anyone else knew as far as the early origins of William. If the Urquhart/Orcutt thing was general knowledge among members of the Orcutt family there is no good explaination as to why it might take Mr. Ingalsbe,
(surely the Orcutt "expert" at that time), 10 years or more to catch on to it. Mrs. Hinckley in her Orcutt History states she learned of the Scottish Urquhart thing from Mr. Ingalsbee, and F.S. Orcutt points to Mrs. Hinckley, and their opening information as to the Urchard name, ect. is very much the same. Mrs. Judson's information mirros that of what Mr. Ingalsbe had stated in regards to the Scottish issue. Hard to reconcile how it, (the legend), could have been of such widespread general knowledge among the Orcutts and the very people at the center of Orcutt History seemed to have no inkling of it.
It should also be noted that Mr. Ingalsbe had stated that William Orcutt was a member of the Urquhart family as many as 3 years before he expanded his theory to include any Warwickshire connection, and that no doubt as a result of having Jarvis B. Edson's account of Susannah and Samuel Edson brought before him, as can easily be ascertained by his narrative in his March 3rd, 1940 newsletter.It would seem to be amazing that anyone having any knowledge that the Orcutts were members of the Urquhart family would have kept Mr. Ingalsbe, and the many researchers he was in constant contact with, in the dark as to that fact for so long.
The parish records transcriptions for Fillongley back to 1535, and most all of the neighboring parishes can easily be accessed via the IGI on the LDS website, and are very accurate transrciptions. Very few parishes in the near area of Fillongley don't have at least most of the records fully extant back to the late 1500's.
Best Regards Judy and Steve, and happy searching to everyone!!
Joel Thomas Orcutt