Calling England: John Gage conflict underway [closed]

Question

This g2g is attached to a John Gage, son of Sir John Gage, and Penelope Darcy.  

Some people believe that their son is the PGM-era immigrant John Gage-159. They are marked as rejected matches.

Much of the argument about this John Gage is taking place on Gage-159 which PGM has protected to prevent relationship attachment. I see that THIS John Gage-215 is NOT protected, but probably should be since there is conflict about him as well.

England, could you please take that on? 

Thanks!

Comments

The parents of Gage-215 should probably also be protected.

---

The England Project is looking into protecting these profiles.

---

The England Project is now comanager of this profile with the consent of the original PM. PPP has been applied while further investigations take place.

---

Thank you, Jo.

Answer 1

There are contemporary records demonstrating that John Gage-215 (second son of John Gage, Bt.) and John Gage-159 (immigrant to Massachusetts Bay Colony) cannot be the same person.

According to Records of the governor and company of Massachusetts Bay in New England (vol. 1 p. 368), John Gage-159 was made a freeman of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay on 4 March 1633/4. As such, he must have been at least 21 years of age on this date, making him born sometime prior to March 1613 (New Style date).

Even if he were born in 1613, this conflicts with the birth of John Gage-215, second son of the Baronet, which must have occurred in or after 1620. This is based on the Inquisition Post Mortem of his father John Gage-25, Baronet, an abstract of which is published in Notes of post mortem inquisitions taken in Sussex. 1 Henry VII, to 1649 and after (p. 99 no. 453). This states that eldest son and heir Thomas was aged 14 years and 6 weeks as at 16 January 1633/4, making him born in late November or early December 1619. Even if second son John Gage-215 were born very soon after Thomas, he could not have been born before late 1620.

So there is a seven year gap between the latest possible birth date for immigrant John Gage-159 and the earliest possible birth date for John Gage-215.

Comments

Thank you for that Nic. I've just downloaded the will of Sir John and his wife from the Nat Archives. It is very clear that  that the eldest son, Thomas was still a minor in 1633. Second son Thomas  John was also very well off receiving a settlement of £1250,   according to the Bank of England, that was worth in today's terms over a million.

---

Thank you, Nic.

---

Thanks Nic - great sleuthing as ever! Also thank you Helen for the comment on the wills.

---

Based on two depositions given in New England, John Gage the immigrant was born about 1607. He also made his mark on both his deeds and will.

---

I also have his mother's will in which she leaves him several manors. I have his will in which he leaves them them to his brother to be passed to his nephew. I have his nephews will in which he bequeaths the same manors. This man is clearly not the same as the immigrant.

---

Thanks everyone, it looks like the contemporary evidence is starting to build a fairly clear picture of the differences between the two.

---

I would’ve held out hope he’d come home, too, if i was his mom. Explains the last-minute codicil, where she lists a number of properties that definitely should not be considered when settling any recusancy issues (even if they stay in her name).

As for timing, there is much more recent reporting on that. In “The Gages of Hengrave and Suffolk Catholicism 1640-1767,” (2015) Dr. Francis Young puts John’s date of birth at 1614, Thomas’ at 1612. Check the link for an excerpt; the information is in the preface on page xii, a list of the excellent materials he uses to source his manuscript can be found at the end.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0902832298/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=AHNEEZ9CVAP3Q&psc=1&asin=0902832298&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1 

---

Thanks for sharing that, a very interesting read! Would be really good to know what sources were used for the 1614 birth date for John and the 1612 birth date for Thomas.

John is not mentioned in the book's index, so I expect there is little or no further material on him in the book itself.

Answer 2

If no one from the England project replies, you can use the following form to request that they take on project management of a profile:  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSefSCF_XfsxHOz2MOs6x8wq-w07bF6EoGVjbwu03HEkLVhrMA/viewform

Comments

The problem with the form (US So. Colonies has one too) is that there is no public discussion or record of the issue. While I appreciate the behind-the-scenes project management that the form allows, I really really prefer the engagement and collaboration  that happens here. Because of Nic's research, I'm able to improve the PGM-managed profile as well as bring attention to a problem profile to another project.

---

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "I hold it that a little profile controvesy now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the genealogial world as storms in the physical."

Or something like that?

---

Michael!!! Long time, no see! Hope you're well.