Captain Robert Badcock/Babcock, immigrant ancestor, was born about 1620 in England. There is much evidence to show that the first Badcock/Babcocks to seek homes in New England were closely related, but no positive proof is recorded. Brothers Robert Badcock and George Babcock settled in that part of Dorchester, Massachusetts which is now Milton. Robert was on the list of proprietors of Dorchester, Massachusetts, before 1648, when he bought additional land. In 1649, he married Joanna [Phillips?] in Dorchester. He was a town officer and captain of the Dorchester military company. He was the First Town Clerk of Milton.[1][2][3] On March 18, 1669 Robert purchased a town lot from Abraham Howe. [4]
“Robert Badcock” is mentioned in the Last Will and Testament of his brother George:
“Further it is my will that my Deare and Loving Brother Robert Badcock and my Neighbour Joseph Belcher shalt bee overseers that this my will bee fullfilled.”
George Badcock died in 1671; he wrote his will 26 Sep 1671, and it was proved at Boston 2 February, 1672.[5][3]
Robert is similarly assigned as overseer and mentioned as "my Loving Brother" in The Will of Henry Layland copied in "The Leland Magazine." [6] Leland was the husband of Margaret Badcock, and these two Wills taken together confirm that Robert, George and Margaret were siblings.
In January 1674/75, Robert Badcock was living in Sherborn, Massachusetts, and was chosen on a town committee to treaty with Captain Gookin in regard to the exchange of lands between Natick and Sherborn. He soon returned to Milton, likely because of King Philip's War. On 11 Feb 1675, he was appointed sergeant and served in the War.[1][2]
Robert Badcock died 12 Nov 1694. His will was dated 11 Nov 1694 and proved 7 Nov 1695. He bequeathed to his wife Joanna, who died 14 Dec 1700, age 71 years, to son, Nathaniel, to grandchild, Caleb, and to son-in-law, Henry Vose.[1][2][7]
Uncertain Origin
According to Appleton, Robert Badcock was "probably" the son of David Badcock of Dorchester and the brother of George Badcock of Milton, seemingly the brother of Margaret Badcock who married Henry Leland, and "possibly" the brother of James Badcock of Rhode Island.[3] Identification of these relationships was apparently based on circumstantial evidence: the same last name, places, and the common use of the first names in subsequent generations.
Updates:
See Biography. George Badcocke calls Robert Badcock his brother in his will dated 26 Sep 1671. Henry Leland who married Margaret Badcock does as well, though he is a brother-in-law. This establishes that Robert, George and Margaret were siblings.
In early 2023 Y-DNA research established that the Milton line and Westerly line are genetically distinct, meaning James Badcocke of Rhode Island was not the brother of Robert, Margaret, and George Badcock of Milton. [8]
Robert was born about 1625 in England.[3] Birth date is estimated, based on the birth of his first child in 1650.
[9] mention George Badcock and his brother Robert multiple times:
1656 (page 83) George Badkok as Super Visor for the High Wayes and Robert Badkok as Rator
1655 (page 81) Robert Badcock payment for running the lyne
1658 (page 94) Extensive town council discussion about common landing place above Naponsett River including votes by Robert Badcocke and mention viewing a way to house of George Badcocke
1659 (page 98) Robert Badcocke Superviser of the heighwayes
1660 (page 103 and 107) Robert Badcocke running line between Dorchester and Brantrey paid from town coffers.
1661 (page 111) Georg Badcocke paid one pound from town for killing a Wolfe
1667 (page 147) Robt Badcock to pay annual maintenence fee on 5 acres in gated Commonly Shared Lot called "great lots. "
1676 (page 214) From town council "liberty granted to Srgnt Robt Badcock to git fower loads of Clobords at beare-Swamp."
Samuel Badcock b. at Dorchester in 1650; d. Sept. 17, 1690. m. July 1, 1674, Hannah Eames.
Jonathan Badcock b. at Dorchester in 1652; d. Coventry, CT Jan. 5, 1632; m. 1st, August 1, 1676, at Milton, Mary Curtis ; m. 2nd Oct. 19, 1719 Mary Hebard.
Robert Babcock married Joanna[3] about 1650. According to Williams, Joanna's maiden name is unknown.[12]
Property and Positions
Robert was mentioned in the Dorchester church record on 19 April 1654 in regards to some cattle he had sold to Isabel Breck.[13] He held several public positions: as a Rater for Dorchester in 1657, as a Supervisor of Highways in 1660, as a Selectman for Milton in 1678 and in 1691 and probably other years. He was called Captain.[3]
Robert bought land in 1672 located beyond Medfield at that place commonly called Bogistow (now Sherborn) and at Natick.[3]
First Church at Dover Records
Robert Badcock is mentioned about 11 times in "Records of the First Church at Dorchester, in New England, 1636-1734" giving a glimpse into his sometimes troublesome personality and much detail about his family. The records is preserved with the original spelling and Robert can be found as Badcock, Badcocke, and Badcocke. [14]
Death
Robert died 12 Nov 1694 at Milton, Suffolk (now Norfolk) County, Massachusetts.[3][15]
Research Notes
Possibly brother or relation to two other Babcocks or Badcocks in New England ca1640. It is well known that there were two brothers George and Robert Badcock who settled in Dorchester (now Milton), Mass., about the year 1650. William S. Appleton writes the following about George and Robert in his book The family of Badcock of Massachusetts, which is repeated in Stephen Babcock's book Babcock Genealogy.1671.[3][16]
"I have no doubt that the family in Massachusetts was founded by David Badcock, who was a member of the Church of Dorchester 1640, and was probably father of George Badcock and Robert Badcock, both of Milton, and possibly father of James Babcock who was born about 1612, was of Newport, R. I., 1642, and of Westerly, R. I., 1661. The names David, George and Robert are all found among the early descendants of this James, and his grandson James Babcock of Stonington, Conn., came for a wife to Milton, the home of his presumed cousins, where he married 12 June, 1706, Sarah Vose. Margaret, wife of Henry Leland of Sherborn, seems to have been sister of George and Robert Badcock, who are first found about 1650 in that part of Dorchester, which in 1662 was incorporated as Milton.”
Robert Badcock had wife Joanna ; he was a Rater for Dorchester 1657 ; Supervisor of Highways 1660 ; he was a Selectman of Milton 1678 and 1691, and probably other years, and was Captain; in 1672 he bought land "beyond Medfield at that place commonly called Bogistow," now Sherborn, and at Natick ; he died 12 November, 1694; his widow died 4 December, 1700, aged 71.
Records included in the Milton Records ...:[15]
Milton Births: Children: BABCOCK/BADCOCK (p. 2)
BABCOCK/BADCOCK , Johanna, relick of Capt. Robert, Dec. 4, 1700. Age 71 years. (p. 205)
LNAB Discussion
All contemporary documents use Badcock, however later genealogies used Babcock, a style the Badcocks of Milton embraced after the Revolutionary War. In later years they often were used interchangeably. Discussion on this specific family is contained in the G2G section. The link is at the top of this profile.
↑ 2.02.12.2 Cutter, William Richard, 1847-1918. Genealogical and family history of central New York : a record of the achievements of her people in the making of a commonwealth and the building of a nation. New York : Lewis Historical Pub. Co. 1912. Captain Robert Babcock pg. 1215
Ramsburgh, Edith Roberts. Genealogical Department, "Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine" (The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, July 1923) Vol. 57, No. 7, Whole No. 371, Page 433: 10851a. Babcock.
Henry Pope, The Pioneers of Massachusetts: a descriptive list, drawn from records of the colonies, towns and churches, and other contemporaneous documents (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1965-1998), 27, digitized by Google Books. [See page 27.]
Is Robert your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or
contact
a profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Greetings everyone. My name is Kent Babcock. I posted the first iteration of this post in the Comment section for James Badcock (1612-1679). Today I am posting to Robert Badcock, as well as George Badcock, with the goal of disseminating some revelatory findings. The Massachusetts settlement and Rhode Island settlement are not only separate locales, but the Badcock families settling each locale are genetically quite distinct from one another. I am the administrator for the Babcock-Badcock Project on Family Tree. Recent Y-DNA findings have revealed the following — descendants of John Babcock (1644-1685). son of James Badcock (1612-1679), have been assigned terminal SNP of E-FT216584. A descendant of a male sibling of John (1644-1685), i.e., James, Job, Joseph, has not been found to test as of to date. Therefore no claim can be made that James Badcock (1612-1679) is of the same clade (group) as his son John (1644-1685) (though it is likely he is). That acknowledged, we have also had a descendant of Robert Badcock (ca 1620-1694) and a descendant of George Badcock (ca 1620s-1671) Big Y 700 test. The two descendants are a Big Y and Y-111 match to one another and have been assigned I-FTC83788 as their terminal SNP. Therefore we have the Rhode Island settlement belonging to the ' E ' haplogroup and the Massachusetts settlement belonging to the ' I ' haplogroup. These two haplogroups are totally disparate from one another (branching in 60,000+ BCE). Though it is always possible that a non-paternal event (NPE) may be the explanation for what we are observing with the Y-DNA results, the NPE had to occur before/with John's (1644-1685) birth. More likely the NPE would have occurred in England. Perhaps even more likely is that we have two genetically distinct families who have both adopted the Badcock surname (or one of its variant spellings) with the advent of surnames around 1100 CE.
I'm wondering if the last name at birth should be changed back to Badcock. The early records (including baptisms of his children) spell it Badcock instead of Babcock.
This is true that most people look for "Babcock" , but it is also true that many many secondary sources over-simplify this American family by listing persons who clearly lived as "Badcocks" by the other spelling maybe because almost all in the American family lines would later settle on the Babcock spelling.
The problem with looking/searching only under "Babcock" is that the Milton Branch generally retained the "Badcock" spelling for such a long time and so many wonderful primary sources and town histories use the Badcock spelling....so those researching can easily fail to see the absolute crush of sources available. It is no coincidence that the Badcock line is much less thoroughly represented in various platforms such as Wikitree and Find A Grave. Of course, part of that has to do with Stephen Babcock doing such fine work with the Westerly Rhode Island line making life easy for us all of the Westerly line.
For me when looking at how family clusters migrated or co-located out of the Milton Massachusetts area, it is useful to know who was born a Badcock and who tended to use that spelling in legal documents.
About the names being interchangeable, this is true for researchers and for the Name Study Project, but it is definitely not true for wikitree's search engine in most cases. Also in their own time frame, it seems the spelling of the name was to some degree a point of family group identity (ie. "who are we?") and later there really seems to be a pattern where loyalist families tended to stick with the "British" spelling of Badcock (ie, nationalist identity?) . There is even a case of a woman refusing to marry an man with the "Badcock" name, so he had the legislature change his name to his mother's LNAB (Issacher Badcock/Issacher Marsters 1902 Essex Antiquarian Vol. VI V2.0.pdf
https://magenweb.org/Essex/1902%20Essex%20Antiquarian%20Vol.%20VI%20V2.0.pdf page 1360)
How they called themselves says something about them, so to the extent that I can, I add the alternate "other" spelling to every person who used "Badcock" in formal documents but is sporting a Babcock profile. I slap on the "other" because that is the quickest and least confrontational way to alert others, even if this practice completely sidesteps some of the technicalities about profile naming on wikitree.
This comment was a throwaway to show that I saw no good reason to change the way it it now. The other comment was my real argument. I had to draw a line in the sand.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know and it doesn't matter anyway. Both names are listed.
Searching in Wikitree for Babcock or Badcock will find this profile since Badcock is in Other Last Names. If a LNAB was done to change it to Badcock, that forces another re-direct that is not needed. Babcock would then need to be included in the Other Last Names field to avoid duplication. There is no new document that shows that Badcock was used at Birth vs Babcock. Badcock was used at his death and Birth of children, but that doesn't mean it was used earlier 'or' that they knew how to spell one variation vs the other.
i agree it should be Badcock. Badcock-12 was merged into this profile, again, merged in the wrong direction as was his son Jonathan. See his Milton death record as noted above.
LNAB means last Name at Birth, not last name at Death. Most of the sources used here are secondary and some use Badcock throughout, some use Babcock. His descendants in my personal line use Badcock. We're using Babcock for his father and brother. I'm making the assumption his name was Babcock and his was the generation where it changed to Badcock. Therefore the existing naming is consistent with that assumption.
I'm not convinced of the need to change this profile on what is essentially a whim. Unless someone has a primary record of a birth or baptism, we have no way of knowing how his name was spelled at birth.
In the absence of a birth/baptism record, it's standard practice to use the LN in other contemporary documents such as marriage, death or will. As his will is clearly Badcock as are the births of his children - then Badcock should be used.
There are no primary sources for the name "Babcock", while all records relating to the family in primary documents spell the name "Badcock". The text for his brother's profile, George Babcock/Badcock, states "George Badcock's family name at his birth was Badcock. The surname was eventually changed to Babcock". The father's profile quotes the Appleton book saying "I have no doubt that the family in Massachusetts was founded by David Badcock" (emphasis mine).
The use of "Babcock" for the father and brother is unsupported by primary and secondary documentation. As such, all three profiles should have their LNAB changed to Badcock with Babcock as an "Other Last Name" spelling alteration.
Babcock-1467 and Badcock-12 appear to represent the same person because: Both have same death date. Both have same name for wife. Badcock is a common alternative spelling for Babcock. Nothing overtly contradictory in profiles.
Badcock-150 and Badcock-10 appear to represent the same person because: Originally Badcock-150 had been fabricated from data corresponding to Badcock-10 with fancy details added to Badcock-150. Badcock-150 has been stripped of all spurious data and connections and should be merged into Badcock-10 - the two profiles are too similar to be kept apart. See G2G discussion (which will be Closed after merging). Thank you.
Unable to find a source for wife Joanna's maiden name. Please add source for Philips/Phillips, or consider changing her last name at birth to Unknown. Thanks!
Please visit https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Y-DNA_Babcock-Badcock_Project to view some of the supporting documentation.
The problem with looking/searching only under "Babcock" is that the Milton Branch generally retained the "Badcock" spelling for such a long time and so many wonderful primary sources and town histories use the Badcock spelling....so those researching can easily fail to see the absolute crush of sources available. It is no coincidence that the Badcock line is much less thoroughly represented in various platforms such as Wikitree and Find A Grave. Of course, part of that has to do with Stephen Babcock doing such fine work with the Westerly Rhode Island line making life easy for us all of the Westerly line.
For me when looking at how family clusters migrated or co-located out of the Milton Massachusetts area, it is useful to know who was born a Badcock and who tended to use that spelling in legal documents.
About the names being interchangeable, this is true for researchers and for the Name Study Project, but it is definitely not true for wikitree's search engine in most cases. Also in their own time frame, it seems the spelling of the name was to some degree a point of family group identity (ie. "who are we?") and later there really seems to be a pattern where loyalist families tended to stick with the "British" spelling of Badcock (ie, nationalist identity?) . There is even a case of a woman refusing to marry an man with the "Badcock" name, so he had the legislature change his name to his mother's LNAB (Issacher Badcock/Issacher Marsters 1902 Essex Antiquarian Vol. VI V2.0.pdf https://magenweb.org/Essex/1902%20Essex%20Antiquarian%20Vol.%20VI%20V2.0.pdf page 1360)
How they called themselves says something about them, so to the extent that I can, I add the alternate "other" spelling to every person who used "Badcock" in formal documents but is sporting a Babcock profile. I slap on the "other" because that is the quickest and least confrontational way to alert others, even if this practice completely sidesteps some of the technicalities about profile naming on wikitree.
The fact of the matter is, we don't know and it doesn't matter anyway. Both names are listed.
Cool story.
His will says Robert Badcock as well. https://www.americanancestors.org/databases/suffolk-county-ma-probate-file-papers/image/?volumeId=48703&pageName=2212:3&rId=69456211
edited by Chris Hoyt
I'm not convinced of the need to change this profile on what is essentially a whim. Unless someone has a primary record of a birth or baptism, we have no way of knowing how his name was spelled at birth.
The use of "Babcock" for the father and brother is unsupported by primary and secondary documentation. As such, all three profiles should have their LNAB changed to Badcock with Babcock as an "Other Last Name" spelling alteration.
edited by E. Logan
Thank you for working on the early Bab/badcocks!