Duplicate and spurious PGM Mosley/Maudleys

Question

John Moseley-1030 and his spouse Elizabeth Cicely-5 appear to be a duplicates of John Maudsley/Moseley-965 and his wife Elizabeth (Unknown-253805) Moseley (AKA  Cicely).

Also, duplicate Moseley-1030 has parents: John Moseley-1031, b. c. 1592, Lancashire, England and Phelie Scampion-1 -- are these, as I suspect, bogus?  
(All three are unsourced; Phelie is clearly junk, try googling.)

What evidence is there of Lancashire ancestry for John Maudsley/Moseley-965 of Dorchester?  (Also, what do PGM sources say about him, if anything? He was a member of the Dorchester church by 1636, but I can't get the AmericanAncesters db search to cough up anything.)

Edward Strong Moseley states that it's a family tradition that he is from Lancashire and that a Henry Moseley (no profile) is John's brother ([https://books.google.com/books?id=TR05AAAAMAAJ&q=Dorchester#v=snippet&q=Dorchester&f=false| A Genealogical Sketch of One Branch of the Moseley Family]], but I think that's it.

Absent other evidence, I propose detatching the parents and marking them "probably don't exist", and merging Moseley-1031 into Moseley-965, and Cicely-5 into Unknown-253805. And changing her first name to Cicely (have seen no evidence of "Elizabeth.")

Links:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Moseley-965  John Moseley of Dorchester
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Unknown-253805 Wife Cicely/Elizabeth

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Moseley-1030 John Moseley duplicate
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Cicely-5     Cicely duplicate

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Moseley-1031 John Moseley of Lancashire, spurious?
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Scampion-1  Phelie Scampion, google shows she's utter junk.

Comments

Here is the passenger list with some caveats from  the ship the Mary and John 1630.  They are not in list A, B, or C.  So that note is likely incorrect.   http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist_a.html

Here is the passenger list for the ship James 1635 and they are not listed here either.   Nor are they listed on the second voyage of the James in 1635  http://winthropsociety.com/ships/james2.htm  and http://winthropsociety.com/ships/james1.htm

 

 

---

One last find:  Full text of "Genealogical and family history of the state of New Hampshire : a record of the achievements of her people in the making of a commonwealth and the founding of a nation"   In this source it says (but I think some of this wrong and based on conjecture not fact)  

PP:  994-996

The original bearer of this cognomen 
MOSELEY took it without doubt from the lo- 
cality in which he dwelt. The as- 
sumption of the name indicates that He was one 
who dwelt permanently at that place, and was a 
person of settled habits. When the religious 
troubles of the seventeenth century arose, a de- 
scendant of the first Moseley found his environ- 
ment made intolerable by fanatical oppression and 
removed from England to the freedom of the New 
England forest, and settling there was the first of 
five generations who lived contentedly, like their de- 
scendants, in the same town. The name and the 
record of the family both show that the Moseleys 
were (and still are) of that class of citizens who 
are well thought of by their neighbors, love 
home and can succeed wherever they choose to 
make their abiding place. 

(I) John Moseley, whose name in the ancient 
records is spelled with many variations, as Mawdes- 
ley, Modesley. Madesley, but has long been fixed as 
Moseley, came probably in the ship "Mary and 
John," which sailed from Plymouth, England, 
March 20, 1630. settled at Dorchester, Massachu- 
setts, in 1630, was admitted freeman, March 14. 
1639, and died there August 29, 1661. (see my earlier postings he was not listed on this ship) He married 
(first) Elizabeth (surname unknown), and by her 
had a son Joseph or John, born 1638, but whether 
any more children or not is unknown. His second 

wife. Cicely , died November 3, 1661. She 

named in her will three children: John, Elizabeth 
and Thomas. 

(II) Thomas, youngest child of John and Cicely 
Moseley, was born in Dorchester, where he died Oc- 
tober 22, 1706. He was admitted to the church in 
1658. He married, October 28, 1658, Mary, daugh- 
ter of Thomas Lawrence, of Hingham. She died 
.\pril, 1723. They had nine children: Increase, 
John, Mary, Thomas, Elizabeth, L'nite, Ebenezer, 
Nathaniel and Joseph. 

More if you go to the link taking the family line into the 1800s

---

Profile Moseley-965 states "He joined the First Church in Dorchester sometime between 1630 and 1636, as he was listed as already a member when the church reformed itself, on 23 August 1636," and similar information is repeated later in the same profile with attribution to various online genealogies, but I believe the source is misinterpreted. There are only 7 names clearly associated with the 1636 document. The list of names that includes John Maudesley appears to be of later vintage; the dates when names were added are not clear (as discussed by the compiler on this page).

---

I spent about 2 hours reading through land grants for the area.  There are several attributed to John Moseely with various spellings but none in 1656 that I could find in MA.  

I found records from the First Church of Dorchester  https://archive.org/stream/recordsoffirstch00firs/recordsoffirstch00firs_djvu.txt

At a meeting of the Church In Dorchester Nov. 26"', 1734. 
Voted 

5 that John Moselev & his wife be Dismissed &. recom- 
mended according to v r Desire to the Chh In Newton where 
they have removed. 

list of Moseley various spellings in the record:  

Maudesley, Maudsley, Maudsly, Moseley: 
Abigail, 235, 236; Clark, 234. »42 ; Eb: 
25; Ebenezer, 41, 152, 159, 163,204,229, 
330, 232, 234, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241.243, 
243, 245. 250; Elizabeth, 39, 174, 201, 230, 
332, 340, 242, 243; father, 25, 156; Han- 
nah, 232, 236, 242; Increase, 194,206,323, 
324; John, 5, 14, 151, 167, 172, 206,232, 
234. 235, 242, 243; Joseph, 41, 170, 243, 
358; Margaret, 235; Mary, 22, 33, 117, 192, 
196, 206, 234, 242. Mr., 164; Nathaniel, 
175, 210, 238; Samuel, 234, 231, 233, 246; 
Sarah, 223, 232, 234, 242, 245; Silence, 
231, 239; Susan, 233; Susanna, 224; Re- 
becca, 232, 238; Thankful, 229; Thomas, 
«. 32. 33. 39. 40, 102, 128, 131, 148, 192, 
194, 196, 198, 201, 202, 204, 206, 210, 221, 
323, 224, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 
243. 245. 248, 250, 252, 253; Unite, 202, 
238; wid., 253. 

---

Here is a list of MA old records available to someone living in the area.  I live in the middle of the US and no where close to there...  

http://library.nehgs.org/search~S0?/dRegisters+of+births%2C+etc.+--+Massachusetts+--+Bos/dregisters+of+births+etc+massachusetts+boston/47%2C-1%2C0%2CB/exact&FF=dregisters+of+births+etc+massachusetts+dorchester+boston&1%2C7%2C

http://library.nehgs.org/record=b1079643~S0

https://books.google.com/books?id=davty16_aRgC&q=mauds#v=onepage&q=1656&f=false  this is a history of Dorchester MA which includes Matapan.  It starts in 1630 and comes forward.  I have checked every list in the book and do NOT find John Moseley under any spelling.  The first mention of any Moseley is on page 88 Thomas.  Time period of 1688.

I have tried to find something anything that supports the earlier dates with no luck online  perhaps someone who lives in the area can go to the local sources and see if something exists on microfilm or paper...

---

Yes, the Dorchester church records are VERY helpful.  I just rewrote the profile for Moseley-965 yesterday using them; everything above "Old Bios and Sources" has been reworked by me over the last couple of days. So are the cranky remarks just after that! (I also used Cutter as a source because I had him; but IMO he's best replaced as soon as possible.)

I recommend reading the front matter -- it's an excellent discussion of the history of this group -- Mary & John passengers, and later comers -- by the Church, who cared about its own continuity and identity.  See the discussion of Nicolas Clapp's membership [EDIT: oh, wait, I need to reread  page xxi and make notes] -- they use him to prove that he did join before 1636, and was still considered to be a member without having signed the Covenant -- and he is listed  just above John Maudsley/Moseley-965  on p. 3, so the same is true of John, and the rest of that list.

(The 1734 John Moseley is a descendant, btw; our guy died in 1661.)

I've seen nothing at all yet to support the first wife "Elizabeth."  I have a suspicion that John and Cicely came over as young servants or dependants; that he joined the church while in his teens, and that he became freeman when he turned 21. Which makes "Father Maudsley" who appears in this same period a person of interest.

Can anyone track down the "Richardson" sources mentioned in the Old Bios section?

And is there anything in the Great Migration research that mentions John Moseley-965?  All I could wring out of the American Ancesters database was a useless Torry NE Marriages bad guess.

---

Regarding Great Migration series, see my answer below. There is reference to a John Maudsley who was first documented in Dorchester in 1638.

---

Laura, thanks for ALL the work and resources!  The nehgs items look particularly useful!

I did find the Mary and John Clearinghouse, but think they missed a category in their criteria.

They consider: "Passengers appeared in Windsor, as single adults, and married there between 1635 to 1642. They may have come as servants or relatives of the other families and were too young to be found in the records until they came of age. Possibly 20 to 25 percent of all the passengers (28-35) may have come as servants or young relatives."

But they miss similar young people who stayed in Dorchester, as many of the Mary and John passengers did, and who would then appear in Dorchester between 1635 to 1642.

In fact, I doubt he did come on the Mary and John -- but I also think it can't be ruled out.  1635 with Richard Mather is far likelier, or 1636, to join his brother.

Criteria given: http://www.maryandjohn1630.com/passengerlist.html

---

Patricia, has this post been resolved to your satisfaction? If so, please Close it; if not, please post what remains to be resolved. This helps the PGM project better track g2g threads. Thanks so much!

---

Laura Bozzay - the Mary and John link is still good but the Winthrop ones are no longer linking up

I found the New Hampshire link very good for my NH people that I recently started exploring - thanks bunches!

---

This is a link that works to the main page.  https://www.winthropsociety.com/

Try this  https://www.winthropsociety.com/journal.php

https://www.winthropsociety.com/links.php

It might be buried under one of those.  Not sure why it no longer works....

---

oh thanks so much!  I am not sure why I read this thread but have already benefited with some of the links that contain info I need as well, so enjoy checking out these new source books - it is like buried treasure

Answer 1

Have you seen this account?  https://www.geni.com/people/John-Moseley/5509702667480023214

Comments

Unfortunately, no sources so not very helpful. :-(

---

Granted but it did contain information that could then be further checked which I did on additional posts disproving the ship information and finding a source that this data came from which included a longer genealogy of the family.

---

Yes, the ship information you found is very helpful. Thanks!

---

Also found source information from a state genealogical text that indicates he had 2 wives, Elizabeth with her children listed, and then Cicely with her children listed.  Not sure why this is all in a New Hampshire document when the article is pointing to Massachusettes.  But I do believe this publication is the source of that geni data.

Answer 2

There is a Henry Maudsley profiled in The Great Migration (link to page on AmericanAncestors). Origins unknown, arrived on the Hopewell in 1635, first settled at Dorchester. Also spelled Mosley in some records. He is "probably the brother" of John Maudsley, who showed up in Dorchester in 1638.

Comments

Oh very nice!  Thank you!  So Henry is a likely brother, but Lancashire is dubious, and parents are right out.

Now I'd best work out whether I'm right that John Moseley-965 showed up by 1636, or not; I can see the bar is high if I'm arguing against The Great Migration. Printing out that Church Records page...

---

OK, having re-read the Introduction, sure looks to me like the
vast majority of the congregation signed the covenant the 23rd of August 1636.  The introduction is written as if they did.

Also the layout looks like it: husbands and wives signed on the same line, left & right; the illiterate made an X. 

Comments in the Introduction include:

"Such as signed or owned the covenant of the church reconstituted Aug. 23, 1636..." p.xvi

and

"...most preferred to own the new covenant. Among those who did this prior to  1639 was Nicholas Clapp..."  p. xxi

Also note that the Covenant is dated at the top "Dorchester, the 23th day of the 6th moneth. Anno. 1636." Immediately after the covenant, there's a long list of signers; these start on page 2, fill page 3 and most of page 4.  

Partway down page 4 is the date "4 da 9th mo 1639," and further dates are interspersed after that.

It sure looks like there was a big signing August 23rd 1636,
followed by smaller signings in 1639 and later. Why, except for those with doubts, would they hang about and wait to sign? 

Also, see the pre-Aug-1636 freemen listed on p. xvi, who were therefore members of the church before August 1636. 16 mentionsigned the new covenant; three were among the seven first
signers. Of the remaining 13, 9 signed on page 2 or 3; a 10th
signed on page 4, but before the "4 da 9th mo 1639."  John Maudsley signed halfway down page 3, just before three noted as "ministers."

And the last three pre-Aug-1636 freemen waited years to sign.

Reading the Introduction, there was considerable motivation
to have a covenant and form a new community out of those who had come more recently, and those who had been part of the old church and felt the loss of the Windsor emigrants.  (Blake notes that Richard Mather brought "100 passengers and 23 seamen" from Lancashire(!) in 1635 -- that's a big influx.)

So... I'll argue John Maudsley/Mosley-9 was in Dorchester as of
August 1636, and signed the covenant.

---

Supporting items:

Blake's notes on 1635 and 1636:
https://archive.org/stream/annalsoftownofdo00blakuoft#page/13/mode/1up

List of freemen before August 1636, with those signing the
covenant starred:
https://archive.org/stream/recordsoffirstch00firs#page/n25/mode/1up
Upsall/Upshall p3; Dyer p4; Grenaway p2; Smith p3; Stoughton p2,
top of the list; Capen as Capinne, p4 (probably a flourish);
Swift p3; Deeble p3; Read as Reede, p3; Clement p3.

Minot, Pope, Duncan were among the first 7 signers, as selectmen and officers.

Those who signed much later: Tuchell p6, Bray Wilkins p5, Henry Wright p5.

 

Answer 3

This merge was never done.  But someone just now proposed it.  

One thing that concerns me is the different death places-- one in Dorchester, Mass; the other in Connecticut.  Are they really the same man?

Also one has parents. The other does not.

Please advise.  Thanks.

Comments

They are definitely the same man. The children attached both belong to the Dorchester guy. I looked fairly closely. I think the Connecticut place is just wrong. I tried to look up the death at NEHGS but the site must be having trouble this am. I have a couple of things come back as errors. I think the Aug / Oct is an 8th month thing the 27/29 was what I wanted to check. The Elizabeth Cicely wife is I think an error. should be Elizabeth Unknown or Cicely unknown from my quick perusal.

I looked up death 27 Oct 1661 Dorchester.

---

I won't vouch for whether the parents are correct

---

Don't you just love collaboration. Now that I could check date, I went to change it, only to discover that Chris Hoyt beat me to the punch.

---

Now it says the admin and inventory were done 4 Oct and he didn't die until the 27th Oct.

Perhaps it means 4th of 10th month, ie Dec, but Cicely is supposed to have died in November.

Answer 4

I don't think Cicely is his wife.  Her will states she is the wife of ''Thomas Moseley, deceased'', not John, and the children listed in the will are the children of Thomas.  See the note/source on his bulletin board..

Answer 5

There's a gravestone photo in circulation

https://www.geni.com/people/John-Moseley/5509702667480023214

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/37450018/john-moseley

Has the later spelling.  Looks ancient, but not right somehow.  Hope it's not one of those Photoshop jobs.

Anybody know the source of the quote that says Cicely administered John's estate?

 

Comments

The photo looks genuine to me.  If the description of the grave as of 1878 (quoted on th memorial page) is genuine, it looks to me as if the inscription is on the stone which in the other photos can be seen lying flat on top of the brick tomb. The flat surface of the stone where the inscription is locat d is raised up at least a foot or two above ground level.  This is not an easy inscription to photograph and the photographer probably wasn’t able to look straight down on it, but had to take the picture from a point to one side or another of the tomb looking at it from an angle.  This would have resulted in a slightly distorted image due to perspective, which would have been more evident if the edges had not been cropped into a neat rectangle.

---

I see what you mean.  But that brickwork doesn't look 350 years old to me.  The lettering seems to be stamped on a brass plate, which if it isn't original would be the opportunity to mess with the spelling.

Answer 6

The American books are writing as if Maudsley was only ever a variant of Moseley.  But they're distinct names in England.

There's a bunch of places called Mossley, Mosley, Moseley, Mowsley etc (modern spellings - early spellings weren't necessarily distinctive) which presumably led to a bunch of families with similar names.

Mawdesley (modern spelling) is in Lancashire, between Ormskirk and Preston.  The name seems to have been taken by several families that proliferated in the local area, so by 1550-1650 there are quite a few in the Ormskirk and Blackburn areas.  Spelt every which way with a d.  As a surname, the common modern spelling is Maudsley.  In 1881 the name was still heavily concentrated in mid-Lancashire and rare outside Lancashire.

There were lots of Mosleys in Manchester, and they collide with the Maudsleys halfway in Bolton, where both names appear, and were possibly confused sometimes, but not interchangeable.

The Dorchester church records are consistently spelt Maudsley or very similar for several generations.

But then we have several lines of Moseleys claiming descent. And of course the writers of the Moseley family histories are assuming that Moseley was the original correct form and Maudsley was just an aberration.

This same evolution from Maudsley to Moseley seems to have happened separately in Vermont, Connecticut etc.

Either that, or some real Moseleys have been hooked up to the Dorchester Maudsleys when really they were fresh off the boat.

Comments

I was looking at this, but it's nonsense.

https://archive.org/stream/agenealogicalsk00mosegoog#page/n9/

The writer seems to imagine there was one ancient Moseley family that gave its name to a whole bunch of villages scattered around England.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  Village names are much older than surnames.