Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
I am just beginning my research of Daniel Whitehead of Long Island, New York in the 1600s. I understand that he has been mentioned in various genealogical works, some from the early 1900s and even an article by a Harry Macy in 2000 in the NY Genealogical & Biographical Record (which I have not been fortunate enough to have read). My initial impression is that the full details (dates, places and full names) of this Daniel Whitehead's spouses (one, two, or three?) and ALL children have not been discovered and/or compiled and that research is on-going and new conclusions are being reached.
FIRST QUESTION: Am I wrong? Are the names of ALL of Daniel Whitehead's children already known? IF so, does anybody have a complete list, with at least estimated dates of birth? If so, would you please post such a list on this Genforum?
I am reasonably confident that Daniel Whitehead had AT LEAST two wives. The earlier of these two wives was the daughter of Thomas Armitage, and many researchers say her name was Sarah. For some credible looking information about Thomas Armitage, see this website:
http://www.billputman.com/Armitage.pdf
Thomas and Susan (Mitchell) Armitage had been married in Bradford, Yorkshire, England in 1625 and came to Massachusetts in 1635. The Armitage family moved to Hempstead, Long Island, NY by about 1647, and about 1653 (??) Thomas was on a list of purchasers of land at Oyster Bay from the Native Americans. Also listed as a purchaser was Daniel Whitehead. See this website for confirmation:
http://www.oysterbayhistory.org/freejh1.html
“The Early Settlement of Oyster Bay”, by John E. Hammond, published in “The Freeholder”, an electronic magazine, by The Oyster Bay [NY] Historical Society.
From this circumstantial evidence, my conclusion is that Daniel Whitehead was already the son-in-law of Thomas Armitage by the time of the Oyster Bay purchase. I also believe that Daniel Whitehead was living in the are of Hempstead at that time, not just because Thomas Armitage was, but because Daniel was one of two witnesses on a deed from Gisbert Op dyck in selling some Hempstead land to Alexander Bryan in 1655. See this website:
http://www.heritagepursuit.com/OpDyck/OpDyckWeselAmerican.htm
ASSUMING that Thomas and Susan (Mitchell) Armitage's daughter was indeed named Sarah, then this Sarah was likely born between 1626 (a year after her parents's marriage) and 1635 (if married no younger than age 18, in or before 1653, then she was born in or before 1635). I believe they were still married in 1663, when Thomas Armitage, with the "advice and consent of [his] son Daniel Whitehead", sold his Oyster Bay property to John Townsend. See this website:
http://books.google.com/books?id=afETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA591&lpg=PA591&dq=%22Thomas+Armitage%22+%22Oyster+Bay%22&source=bl&ots=zOsVydNt0y&sig=OcRgmT_L1c6rpnAld8cN3t2190Q&hl=en&ei=xo7TSriqL8PelAeK_pSpCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Thomas%20Armitage%22%20%22Oyster%20Bay%22&f=false
Oyster Bay town records ..., Volume 1 By Oyster Bay (N.Y.), John Cox, George William Cocks, at p. 591 (from “Book B” of the original Town Records)
Apparently Daniel Whitehead left a will, which was somehow discovered within the last 20 years or so, and transcibed. To see a transcription by researcher Richard Alan McCool, see this website:
http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/INGERSOLL/2003-07/1057635356
The will mentions Daniel's "loving wife Gene" and his sons Daniel, Jonathan, David, and Adam. Most interpret the "Gene" to be a Jean or possibly Jane. Daniel's Last Will does not mention any daughters, but other circumstantial evidence suggests that there were some.
Therefore, IF Thomas Armitage's daughter was Sarah, then this Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead must have died between about 1663 and 1667, and Daniel remarried, to a Jean/Jane Maiden Name Unknown. It is not clear if Daniel might have had a child or two with this Jean/Jane. Some researchers state that the son Adam was by the wife Jean/Jane.
There is a Huntington, Long Island town record from 1681 concerning the very small intestate estate of an Adam Whitehead which was administered by his "father-in-law" John Ingersoll. In the 1680s, the term "father-in-law" could mean step-father. Some researchers have concluded that the Adam Whitehead mentioned in the 1668 Last Will of Daniel Whitehead of Newtown is the same Adam Whitehead that died intestate in 1681 in Huntington. These researchers conclude that the widow Jean/Jane (MNU) Whitehead must have married John Ingersoll and moved to Huntington. ASSUMING that these two Adam Whiteheads are one and the same person, then there is circumstantial evidence from those town records that Daniel and Jean/Jane had not only Adam but also Jemima, Elizabeth and Thomas.
Returning to the subject of daughters, one must ask if Daniel might have had daughters with his earlier wife, Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead. Daniel did not mention ANY of his daughters in his Last Will and, if the two Adams above were indeed one and the same, then Daniel also did not mention his son Thomas in his Last Will. This certainly leaves open the possibility that Daniel had daughters by Sarah. If Daniel and Sarah were married from at least 1653 to 1663, then there would have been time for more than just Daniel, Jonathan and David. Some researchers suggest that the son Daniel was born about 1646. Furthermore, if Sarah Armitage was born as early as 1626, she might have married Daniel Whitehead as early as 1644, and so might have had several daughters to go with sons Daniel, Jonathan and David.
There is circumstantial evidence of at least a daughter Sarah, who married Thomas Oakley. This is inferred from the 1703 Last Will of Daniel Whitehead ("jr") of Jamaica, who provided, "I leave to my friend, John Hubbard, all that my 1/3 of meadow lying at Oldfields Island, which I bought with my brother, Thomas Oakley, and John Bayley, with all the rights thereto belonging, during the time of his continuance in the work of the ministry in this town of Jamaica, and if he continue in the ministry here till his death, then to his heirs, but if not then to my son Jonathan." In the early 1700s, the term "brother" could mean brother-in-law, and Oakley researchers mostly claim that Thomas Oakley married Sarah Whitehead, sister of Daniel Whitehead. This Thomas Oakley died in Jamaica in 1709 and his birth is estimated at 1640. If his wife Sarah was no older, but not more than 10 years younger than he, then she would have been born somewhere between about 1640 and 1650. If she was the daughter of Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead, who was born no earlier than 1626, then this daughter Sarah would have been born no earlier than about 1645. Thus, it is possible that Daniel and Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead had children from about 1645 until 1663, and so there MIGHT have been other daughters.
SECOND QUESTION: Can anyone say with absolute certainty that Daniel Whitehead did NOT have any daughters in addition to this Sarah by his earlier wife?
There is a potential conflict in the scenarios presented above. The 1681 intestate estate of Adam Whitehead seems to suggest that Adam was over 21, that his brother Thomas was under 21, and that his sisters Jemima and Elizabeth were both under 18 at that time. This would mean that Adam was born before 1660, that Thomas was born after 1660 (perhaps long after), and that Jemima and Elizabeth were born after 1664 (Jemima married Jonathan Lewis about December 1683, as shown by the Huntington town records of the intestate estate, and, if she was at least 17, then she was born in/before 1666). The 1663 land sale by Thomas Armitage, however, referring to Daniel Whitehead as his son (i.e., son-in-law) suggests that Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead was still alive and married to Daniel as of 1663. IF this inference is true, then Adam, born before 1660, might have been the son of Daniel and Sarah, and then Sarah might have died in about 1664, with Daniel marrying Jean/Jane about 1665 and having Jemima in 1666, and Thomas and Elizabeth in 1667 and 1668. It is even possible that Jean/Jane was pregnant with one of these two children at the time Daniel wrote his Last Will. Daniel would not have known the gender of the expected child and, not knowing if it would be a son or a daughter, Daniel did not provide any inheritance for this possibly posthumous child. The circumstances might even indicate that this possibly posthumous child was most likely Thomas, because if Thomas had been born by 1668, Daniel likely would have mentioned him in his Last Will, since he mentioned only his sons and not his daughters.
THIRD QUESTION: Does anyone have definitive "proof" that Adam Whitehead was the son of Jean/Jane and NOT the son of the earlier wife, Sarah (Armitage) Whitehead?
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/whitehead/messages/3994.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|