Is Richard Blood son of James Blood?

Question

The profile of James Blood (c 1605-1683) lists five children of which several are absent documentation of parentage. One is born in the colony, the others perhaps in England. Two years ago the parentage of son Richard (b 1617) was marked Uncertain on his profile but without comment as to reason.

Anderson places arrival of James Blood as 1640 but includes none of the Blood children in the GMD. Great Migration Newsletter includes citation of birth of daughter Mary in 1640. Richard Blood, without mention of parentage, is found in tangential references in 1670 and 1680s (Immigrants to New England IV:193-94, subscription).

Are the children, other than Mary, found on the profile speculative based on surname?

Comments

Douglas Richardson addressed the parentage of several of the children presently attached to James Blood in TAG 70:144 (1995) with reasoned conjecture that they are the sons of Richard Blood, not James. However, no children of Richard are found in the Bishop's Transcripts of Ruddington. In 1995, Richardson wrote that he planned a future article to address the parentage/origin of the Bloods who immigrated to New England. No later article appears in TAG (at least it is not indexed if it does). Does anyone know if he did the research and it was published elsewhere?

---

He did not to my knowledge, but I have. I've gone through the records held at both the University of Nottingham Special Collection and the Nottinghamshire County Archives. While there may be more unindexed records left to be found, what I have found has led me to conclude that the Richard that Richardson referenced was highly likely to have been the father of Richard, Robert, and John, and that this same Richard was almost certainly the son of a Robert Blood of Ruddington.

---

Garry, this is helpful. Can you expound on your research and, if possible, give us the citations to the information you reference?  Thanks.

---

Happy to do so. I have tracked the Richard Blood of the will of William Lakin (1633) back as far as 1611, and forward to 1637 using his distinctive legal mark. He uses a "cross-in-circle" mark (sort of like a gunsight or a plus sign with a circle around it) on six records during that period, and is mentioned in a seventh (and possibly an eight):

15 May 1611 - marriage bond of Anne Blood of Ruddington. Richard acts as bondsman for the bride, the father of whom is Robert Blood of Ruddington (University of Nottingham Manuscripts and Special Collections, ref. AN/MB 18/1), and signs with his cross-in-circle mark.

9 Nov 1620 - Richard Blood is named as one of the two churchwardens on the churchwarden's presentment for St Mary's Chapel Ruddington (later to become St Peter's Church Ruddington). Neither churchwarden makes their mark, presumably since no parishioners were presented for infractions. (Univ. of Nott. M&SC, ref. AN/PB 314/1/12)

3 Feb 1621 - Richard Blood makes his cross-in-circle mark on another churchwarden's presentment of this date. (Univ. of Nott. M&SC, ref. AN/PB 314/1/2)

11 Apr 1621 - Another churchwarden's presentment; Richard Blood makes the same mark. (Univ. of Nott. M&SC, ref. AN/PB 314/2/30)

7 Feb 1633 - A Richard Blood, Senior, of Ruddington is both named in and witnesses the will of William Lakin of Ruddington. He signs with the same cross-in-circle mark. (Nottinghamshire County Archives, Wills of the Deaconry of Bingham, ref. PR/NW, Accession no. 7245)

1 Dec 1636 - serving a second term as a churchwarden for St Mary's Chapel, marks a presentment of this date. (Univ. of Nott. M&SC, ref. AN/PB 315/11/35)

19 May 1637 - last known record, a final churchwarden's presentment of this date. (Univ. of Nott. M&SC, ref. AN/PB 315/12/32).

Neither Richard Blood nor any other Bloods appear on the Protestation Return for Ruddington of 9 Mar 1642, so presumably he died somewhere between these final two dates.

Richardson is almost certainly correct that Richard's wife was a Lakin woman, and almost certainly an unknown sister of William. This would go a long way in explaining the deep and multi-decade dealings the Bloods had with the Lakins (sons of this William) once in the Massachusetts Bay Colony - they were all cousins. It also explains why the still-minors Robert and John lived with Richard in Lynn in the MBC after emigrating probably in 1639 - they were all brothers. And Richard Senior acting as bondsman for Anne Blood of Ruddington in 1611 is strong evidence she was his sister, as typically bride's bondsman was either a brother or the father, and as her father (Robert Blood) is named, it stand to reason Richard was her brother. And if Robert was Anne's father, then he was Richard's as well.

I've glossed over a lot of details here. For instance, the wording in the will of William Lakin adds additional circumstantial evidence that the above is most probably the correct interpretation of the evidence.

Caution: There were at least two, and possibly three other Richard Bloods who were adult contemporaries of this Richard Blood in Ruddington at the same time, one probably a bit older, one probably much older.

I've written a paper laying out the above, and It contains images of the marks used on all the cited documents. But I'm not sure if I can attach it to posts. I don't see any means to do so, but I'm new here.

Hope this is of some help. Anything I can do to kill the idea that James was the father of Richard, Robert, or John, I will happily do. That notion should have died a death a long time ago as it's unlikely to the point of being impossible.

---

Garry, I have created a free-space profile which is now linked to the Richard Blood profile in Research Notes. That free-space page is located here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Richard_Blood_-_Family_Relationships_Studies

On this free-space profile you can add any information with citations that you feel is relevant to establishing or furthering the familial relationships. You can also add images from the Images tab.

Thanks very much for contributing your research on this.

---

Done.

---

Garry, thanks for the deep research as well as for compiling and sharing all this. I enjoyed reading through your process.

---

Excellent research, Garry!

---

Maybe this is clearer in Richardson's article (which I should re-read), but what is the strongest evidence that Richard Blood #1 (b abt 1590, son of Robert and brother of Anne) was the father of the emigrating brothers?

---

It's not any clearer in Richardson I'm afraid. This is where it gets 100% circumstantial, unfortunately, given the apparent complete loss of all the Flawford parish records from this time period. I'd say the best single thread of circumstantial evidence is the strong and ongoing relationship between the Bloods and the Lakins once in the Mass Bay Colony. I didn't realise just how the deep the relationship went until I started editing a draft book by another Blood researcher. He went into far more depth on their relationship than I'd ever seen. It was extensive and decades-long. This relationship begs an explanation. It's just too much of a coincidence that both families originated from Ruddington for them not to have been allied families in England. Richard Senior's probable marriage to a Lakin woman gives us the basis for that alliance.

---

Hello Garry,

I just spent an enjoyable 1/2 hour or so reading through your very detailed and well-organized Blood and Lakin details. Thank you so much for this well-described 'evidence' that you have accumulated and documented. Thank you so much.

I believe I am descended from a Richard Blood (1617-1683), a 10th great grandfather (m. Isabel Wilkinson) https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Blood-147. There is a comment left on this profile in 2018 questioning this Richard Blood's parents. I would need more time and re-read all of your 'evidence' to see if this particular profile on Wikitree is in error.

The joys and tribulations of genealogy; however, one must go where the evidence leads, like it or not. That's how it works in research, too. Again, thank you for this fine work.

---

Hi Carol,

I think the fact James was 12 years old when Richard was born really puts the nail in the coffin of that hypothesis for me.

Garry

---

Yes, Garry, you 'nailed' it! Pardon the pun. I just checked the birth year for his father...1605.

@T Stanton and Garry, might there be a Wikitreer, who can take a look at Blood-147 and determine the status of his 12 y/o father and what needs to be done relevant to this and other Blood profiles to make them as accurate as possible? There has been no follow up from Brad McNellen's post of 2018 regarding the parental age for Richard Blood.

Again, I want to thank you Garry, as well as T and Jillaine for these thought-provoking proof-seeking comments.

---

I've changed the parents on Blood-147.  We need to add the two other brothers. Can someone take that on?

---

I'd love to help but I'm new to Wikitrees and frankly have no idea what I'm doing. I maintain all my work on Ancestry.com. I have a substantial amount of information on Robert Blood (my direct ancestor) and I see a number of errors in his entry. Likewise I have further information of value for Richard and some for John, but not sure what to do with it all. I mostly have primary sources, some of which I've never seen referenced anywhere before. I finally ran across a primary source (a court case) that repeatedly refers to Robert and John as brothers, something we've all "known" but never had proof of.

Is there some sort of tutorial for Wikitrees?

---

Garry, under the Help menu, you'll find "Intro to WikiTree"

---

Thanks. Looking at it now.

---

By the way, another curveball for you on Richard b.1617. I'm part of the Blood Family Y-DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA, managed by Joe Flood (actually a Blood) who is a genius when it comes to analysing DNA. Two of Richard's current, living, proven male descendants (from different families, didn't know each other) tested as Y-DNA Haplogroup I2. Problem is I and ever other male Blood of English origin is R1b. These two men's last common ancestor is Richard b.1617 himself. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that whoever Richard thought his father was, it probably wasn't.

---

I'd urge some caution in making lineage decisions based on DNA information when the subjects are 400 years in the past. I'm not a DNA specialist but I have seen so many erroneous assumptions made that aren't actually supported by the results of those tested.

---

I agree. I provide it for completeness of information only. It might answer some question for someone. For my parts it’s interesting but irrelevant. Even if true, clearly Richard’s father didn’t know and we can assume Richard didn’t either, otherwise I doubt he’d have the surname to begin with.

---

First, T is correct about DNA that far back. I've taken a class with Blaine Bettinger, as well as DNA classes with our local genealogy society. I did my mtDNA & manage my brothers Y700 DNA (this goes beyond genealogy to migration patterns). However, Donn Devine, a CG who died about 2 years ago, a wonderful person, organized the Baldwin surname DNA on FTDNA as his wife was a Pennsylvania Baldwin. I am now working with our DNA SIG to track the CT Baldwins and MA Baldwins to their common ancestor (likely Henry and Alice Kinge Baldwin) using the DNA supplied by these current Baldwin descendants on FTDNA. This is not easy, but we believe it will help clear up some of the confusion about the various Baldwins, particularly all the "John" Baldwins.

It sounds like Joe Blood is doing something similar on FTDNA. So, I would encourage you to do your Y DNA at FTDNA and get any and all brothers and Blood cousins to do so. Do at least Y67 as you get more markers. Hopefully, then, Joe could look at 'patterns' to help determine 'lines' as Donn Devine did with the Baldwins. That will help for about 5 generations, 7 with any luck.

Separate from this, I am going to send you an email and give you mine. It would be most appreciated if you would send me ALL the information on Robert, Richard and John, including birth and death dates, birth and death locations, wives names and their birth and death dates/locations, years of marriage and documentation. List the documentation as completely as possible and if you have links to these send the links. If there is a tree started for Robert, send his Wikitree 'handle' (like I am Baldwin-3428). Let me know the relationship between Robert with Richard and John (sons? brothers?) and if you have parents for Robert, Richard and John if they are brothers. When you send all of this info, I will set up their basic Wikitrees. You can then see how I do biography with 'inline' sourcing in the edit section.

The other thing I would strongly suggest, especially given that the Bloods were from England, is to join the 'England Team.' They have a program called the 'Orphan Trail.' You start out with a profile from between 1850 - 1920 and work on that person (it's assigned). When you have completed that one, then you are assigned 1750ish to 1849. This one might be a relative of your first orphan. When you complete that, you get assigned a person from 1650-1750. I think they do a fourth now that starts in the 1500s and goes to 1600. Personally, I found this to be the best way for me to learn how to do proper biographies with sourcing, navigate Wikitree, learn Julian calendar, etc. changes, determine a year based on the king and the time and his reign and so forth.

We don't have anything like this for the US as all work done is unpaid and people generally work on their trees, or volunteer as greeters, etc. Once I am done with your three Bloods, you can see what I did in the 'edit' section, then start adding descendants from one of these Bloods until you 'catch on' to the Wiki way.

There are wonderful people who will help you along the way, especially catching errors, providing feedback. Persons like T Stanton, Jillaine, a woman named Anne B, and two other guys, Joe Cochoit and Chase Ashley, who helped me find proper sourcing for a misnamed/ mismatched ancestral line to Franklin Roosevelt. They helped greatly with finding sources, then I did the line with all the corrections. It took about two months, but between us we got a great corrected line with biographies and sources. There just isn't anyone who can take on a given individual's tree, though, and do all the work. Everything is voluntary.

It does take a bit of time to figure out how to 'wrangle' Wikitree, but it is well worth it. I joined in 2018 and am adding my family person by person because I do not want to screw up any trees with 'GEDCOM junk.' Plus, I can check my sources and make them look nice. And, as you can tell from your first comment, you already have help along the way with T and Jillaine. OK, I'm sending a quick email now for your info as I have a zoom conference in 1/2 hour.

Oh, and Welcome to Wikitree!

---

Carol, thanks for the offer to work on this, but  profiles already exist for most if not all of these persons. And it looks like Garry (who has done the bulk of the actual recent research)  is taking on the next steps with Todd's support. Let's follow their lead at this point.

Todd and Garry, if you need specific help with specific items, let us know.

---

Hi Jillaine,

I received a kind and informative email from Garry. I had given him kudos to his work on his sourcing and searches and indicated that I will help/support where I can at his (and Todd's) convenience and request. I see some profiles exist and mentioned to Garry that Richard Blood-147 is my 10th GGF. He mentioned that he 'revisited' Richard Blood after reading the Lakin will. I am curious as to how Richard Blood-147, now disconnected from James, who would have been 12 y/o at Richard's birth might be related to James Blood-141 and his sons Robert and James. Perhaps an uncle? I will look forward to seeing how this unfolds as Garry and Todd work on the Blood tree. Thank you!

---

Just to clarify where we are here Carol, Robert is likewise not a son of James. James' only proven, undisputed son is James Jr. There is not one shred of primary evidence even implying that James is the father of Robert, and the fact Robert (and brother John) were born at least 5 years before James' first marriage is nearly as much of a show-stopper as James only being 12 when Richard was born. Uncle? Possible, but a long shot. I'd expect some form of cousin. 'James' was not a Ruddington Blood name and 'Richard' was not a Nottingham Blood name, so all evidence points to them being from separate branches. And James was undisputedly of the Nottingham branch.

---

Hi Garry, I follow. This family is not unlike a Phelps line. There are two Phelps ancestors from two regions in England. They are likely related, perhaps distant cousins; however, folks related to George get confused with William. We have a FB Phelps family and now use the DNA haplogroup for our specific William Phelps from Crewkerne line (vs. George Phelps). Not suggesting DNA or anything else. Just a similar comparison of two Phelps lines akin to the Blood lines (no pun intended). I know that you will do a great job on this family and Todd is very knowledgeable and a terrific helper. I envy your ability to keep these lines all straight!

---

Adding an addendum to my own comment here. I now have severe doubts as to whether or not James was truly a Nottingham Blood. I am beginning to suspect he was a Ruddington Blood that had apprenticed in Nottingham, and was still living there in 1630/31 when we first hear of him. 'James,' it turns out, is in fact a Ruddington Blood name and not a Nottingham Blood name if we discount this James. I'm starting to think 'uncle' may be the more likely association between him and the brothers Richard, Robert, and John.

---

What's the status of the various profiles on wikitree. Have the gross errors been corrected?

---

Other than the new topic raised by Garry, yes, the major changes to the various profiles connections were completed a few months ago.

Answer 1

Hello everyone,

I've added some new documents and analyses at Space:Richard_Blood_-_Family_Relationships_Studies for those who are still following this. Biggest development is that I've finally found Richard's wife Isabell's family. Spoiler alert: She was indeed a Wilkinson but she wasn't from Yorkshire; she was from Ruddington just like everyone else.

Best,

Garry

Comments

It’s nice to have this 9th great grandmother definitively identified. Thanks, Garry.

Answer 2

Richard was not the son of James. James' only proven son was James Junior. The fact Richard was born when James was at most 12 years old is a hard one to overcome. The most probable relationship was that Richard, Robert, and John were the sons of the Richard Blood active in Ruddington from 1611 to 1637, who was mentioned in the 1633 will of William Lakin. James, from Nottingham, was probably an extended family member, but one known to the three brothers. I doubt he was any closer relation than a cousin.

Comments

Garry, this is helpful. Can you expound on your research and, if possible, give us the citations to the information you reference?  Thanks.

---

What makes it interesting is that Richard had a son James, but naming conventions are also weak arguments for deciding there must have been a close relationship between Richard and an earlier James.

---

All three first gen English Bloods that had children at all (James, Richard, Robert) named a son James. For James and James, Jr. the connection is obvious, but for Robert and Richard it's less so. To be fair, when you've got a stable of about 5 preferred male names it doesn't take long till everyone's sons have the same names. That being said, Robert not only named a son James but named the next daughter after him Elenor.