John Bates of Lydd surely did not have a brother John Bate of Wherwell (16th century)

Question

Seeking collaboration and support to sever link between John Bate/Bate-37 and purported father, Andrew Bate/Bate-36.

• http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bate-37
• http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bate-36

While I suspect there was no real person Bate-37, John Bate b. 1520 at Hampshire, England who had wife Dorcas, there is no reason to believe such personality was the brother of John Bate/Bates of Lydd, Kent, England (Bates-3600). 

The latter man, Bates-3600, is found often in print as son of Andrew Bate of Lydd. Both John Bate and Andrew Bate of Lydd are reportedly the ancestors of New England immigrant brothers, James Bate of Dorchester and Clement Bate of Hingham. 

James and Clement Bate migrated 1635 aboard the Elizabeth.[1] 

Much has been written concerning the ancestry of the two brothers; substantial records about the Bate family of Lydd have been published as abstracts or extracts. Some of these published reports have been posted to the profile of John Bates of Lydd/Bates-3600. 

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bates-3600

Andrew Bate of Lydd (Bate-36) left a will dated 22 February 1532/33. No reference is found to two sons John. Accounts of Andrew's will appear in family materials by Albert C. Bates (1945), and those compiled in 1897 from the records of Issac C. Bates.

-----

[1] Robert Charles Anderson, George F. Sanborn, Jr. and Melinde Lutz Sanborn, Great Migration Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, Volume I, A-B, 195-198 (Clement Bate) and 198-200 (James Bate).

Comments

Narrative of John Bate/Bate-37 reports marriage to linked wife, "Dorcas unknown," on 15 June 1579 at Lydd, Kent, England. 

Indeed, the marriage of a John Bate appears in records published about the Lydd Parish Register--but the wife is "Mary Bennett" (not Dorcas _____). See Alfred C. Bates [and H. G. Somerby], “Lydd Parish Register,” The Bates Bulletin, Series 3/Volume 1 (1917):6, for marriage.

While I haven't attempted the further diligence on the record, source that follows reports this as the second marriage of John Bates/Bates-3600, whose first wife was Mildred Ward. See Henry F. Waters, “Genealogical Gleanings in England,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register 51 (1897):269; digital images, Internet Archive (accessed 2014).

---

Gene, is it possible that John Bate-37 is a duplicate of John Bates-3600, the latter simply misspelled?

---

Hi Jillaine, 

Thank you so much for your time and interest.

Having thought it through a little bit, untangling the confused logic/lineage between this Bate-37 and John Bate/Bate-426 (closely related to Rev. Stephen Bachiler) might be easier if we do not treat Bate-37 and Bates-3600 as duplicates. 

Some comments follow. As your time permits, what do you think?

1. On WikiTree, John Bate (Bate-37) and John Bates (Bates-3600) are associated mostly with unique names, dates, places and descendants. Both are reported sons of Andrew Bate, whose will is known. It calls out only one son John who is almost certainly Bates-3600. The problem profile, thus, is that of John Bate (Bate-37).

2. Work to date suggests the majority of the information about Bate-37 is probably false. There was a John Bate who had wife Dorcas _____, but that man succeeded Rev. Stephen Bachiler as Vicar of Wherwell, being appointed 9 August 1605.[1] Bachiler's close relative, John Bate of Wherwell, left will "proved at Winchester 1633." I have not found anything about his parentage or ancestry documented. Same John Bate, one time Vicar of Wherwell, left widow Dorcas and had "children Anne who m. Robert Southward, John Bate and Gabriel Bate."[2] 

The current proposal does not seek to solve all the possible problems in the profile of John Bate/Bate-37, just to sever the parent child link from Bate-37 to Andrew Bate (Bate-36).

---- 

[1] Charles Batchelder, "Batchelder/Bachilder Genealogy, through Rev. Stephen Batchiler's son Stephen Bachilder," 1985, Carl W. Brage, ed., p. 1; digital images, ''Lane Memorial (Hampton, New Hampshire) Library'' (http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/genealog/batchelder/index.htm : accessed 2014).

[2] Charles Batchelder, "Batchelder/Bachilder Genealogy, through Rev. Stephen Batchiler's son Stephen Bachilder," 1985, Carl W. Brage, ed., p. 2; digital images, ''Lane Memorial (Hampton, New Hampshire) Library'' (http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/genealog/batchelder/index.htm : accessed 2014).

---

P.S. In the process of (hopefully) unravelling the tangled lineage between Bate-37 and John Bate/Bate-426, it's possible wife "Dorcas" (Bate-75) will become better identified as the wife of John Bate/Bate-426, If that is the case, we'll have the option of severing the spousal link (Bate-37 and Bate-75). 

This would leave Bate-37 in good order to be merged into Bates-3600. 

---

Now understood. I think your last point is right on. Go forth, Gene!

---

Wow...

---

Hi Jillaine and M. Gaulden,

Thank you borth for your time and interest, as I know following these threads can take a bit of both.

Have now added a "dispute" section to the profile of John Bate/Bate-37. Explained and then severed this profile from the parents.

Again, so many thanks. --Genej

---

Thank YOU, Gene for the amazing amount of time and attention to detail you're investing into getting these PGM profiles cleared up. I, for one, am thrilled with your involvement here.

Answer 1

I concur with Jillian! Again, Wow. Mags

Comments

Thanks, Mags.

Have severed the relationship.

Will move on now to take another bite out of the elephant! --GeneJ

Answer 2

Thank you all for helping me sort out the Bate, Bates folk. It would have been far easier had they not named them all "James" or "John" or "James John" or "John James". When I first began tracing my family I had no idea my humble grandmother, Nora Bates Lynch, (1874-1959) would lead me on such a merry chase!

Comments

Hi Jeanne Aloia,

Thank you for your answer and for your many contributions to WikiTree. Congrats on making your Bate link back to Lydd.

Nice work, Jeanne.

---

Well it seems Bates-40's parents were probably not John Bates and Mary Martine. In fact, we don't really know for sure who the heck his parents were.

I'd certainly like to find out at this really changes my tree significantly!