Should Elizabeth Miller be detached as wife of Robert Husted - may depend on information in NYGBR 129?

Question

Elizabeth Miller was baptized on 4 Feb 1614/5 in Stratton, Dorset, daughter of Lawrence Miller & Joane Smith.

Gordon L. Remington wrote an article in 1998-99 titled, "Robert Huestis of Westchester County: his Ancestry and Descendants." (NYGBR, 129:191-206) in which he pointed out that Joanne Smith's father, or grandfather, was Angell Smith, a " General of Stratton."

Apparently the only basis for connecting Elizabeth Miller in marriage to Robert Husted (or Huestis) is the use of the name, Angell, in both families (Robert and his wife, Elizabeth, named their son Angell). 

Robert C. Anderson featured Robert Huestis in his ''Great Migration'' series and reports that the 2nd wife was Elizabeth _______. Anderson certainly read Remington's article; it is referenced in regards to origin, but does not report that Elizabeth Miller was Robert's wife.

In addition, we have serious date problems with Elizabeth Miller as his wife.  The three children of Robert and Elizabeth were born between "say" 1624 and 1628.  Elizabeth was baptized in 1614/5 making her only about ten years old when the first child was born.

The Remington article was published in NYGBR 129:1-12, 97-108, 191-206, 276-84, 130:54-60, but the applicable pages seem to be 129:191-206 and maybe even more specifically, 201-206.  I have not seen the article (unfortunately AmercianAncestors only has NYGBR through about 1920).

Bottom line, unless there is compelling new information in the NYGBR article (or elsewhere), we should probably disconnect Elizabeth Miller as wife of Robert, add a section to both profiles explaining the situation, and create a new Elizabeth Unknown.

Anyone have access to NYGBR 1998, Vol 129?

PS: we also have a marriage to George Grey attached to this Elizabeth Miller.  Source is an Ancestral File which points to a 1635 marriage in England.  Maybe this is the correct marriage for Elizabeth Miller? If so, would be nice to have something more substantial than an Ancestral File.

 

Comments

Cynthia, the NYBGR is available at FindMyPast.  If you don't have a subscription, I'll look at it. Let me know. Vic

---

NYGBR 129:201 states that IN THE 2d GENERATION, Robert Huestis(2) (son of Robert Huestis(1)) born circa 1628, possibly in Pilsdon, Dorset, England, and died 23 November 1704 in Westchester, New York, married ELIZABETH BUXTON, at Stamford, CT, January 1655/56 (citing Stamford Town Records) and that she was probably the daughter of Clement Buxton. She is said to have been born about 1639 (based on the date of birth of her son David) and to have died by April 1711 as she does not appear as a witness to David's marriage.

This obviously refers to the son of Robert Huestis(1) 1st GENERATION
NYGBR 129:200 gives the names of the two wives of Robert Huestis(1) as:
ANNE MOON and ELIZABETH ______ .

NYGBR 129:200 also has a footnote, which may be what you are really looking for:
George E. McCracken, in "Rebecca wife of Angel2 Husted of Greenwich,"TAG 30(1954): 127, hypothesized she was a Sherwood. Donald Lines Jacobus, the editor of TAG, added a note expressing his view that the while the theory was a good one, insufficient circumstantial evidence existed to accept it as conclusive. For a new consideration of this question and of the children of Husted see Gordon L. Remington, "Rebecca Revisited: The Unidentified Wives of Angell2 Husted and Jonathan2 Reynolds of Greenwich, Connecticut" TAG 73(july 1998): 201-06

Answer 1

Regarding Elizabeth's DOB, it is possible she was not a new born when she was baptized. While it wasn't common, it did occur. That being said, there seems to be enough evidence to remove Robert and his children from Elizabeth's profile. A new spouse, and mother should be created for Robert et al with an LNAB of Unknown. If this take place, Elizabeth Miller's bio should be edited to remove the information about Robert.

Comments

Thank you, Bob.  Appreciate your comment.  I do believe we have two different Elizabeths.

Still would like to know what might be in NYGBR 1998, Vol 129:201-206, if anyone has access?  Thanks!

Today found this article in FamilySearch.org which "relied heavily on Remington's work on this family ..." and concluded the 2nd wife was Elizabeth _____.

---

According to the NYGBR article, two of Elizabeth's siblings were baptized in 1607 and 1608, so, if she was not baptized at birth, she was at least not born in 1608.

Answer 2

I wasn't able to find any support for either marriage when I looked some time ago.The 40 assorted pedigree and ancestral files who have her marrying both George Gray and then Robert Husted have only one verifiable event.
:the date that they give for her birth . This is in fact the date of her baptism. They get the place wrong .All events (in Dorset )are supposed to have  occured in Frome.The parish which I assume they mean was Frome Whitfield. By 1600 this parish was virtually deserted of everything but sheep. In 1606, the chapel was being used as a hay store and in 1609 the parish was amalgamated with Holy Trinity Dorchester. Elizabeth was certainly not married there .
She was baptised on 4th Feb 1614 at Stratton  the neighbouring parish on the other side from Dorchester. This is where her maternal grand father was Lord of the manor and her parents appear to have lived at least for a time. There is no marriage nor burial for her in the registers or at Holy Trinity Dorchester where some of the other members of the Miller family are to be
found.
EDIT Found my notes This paragraph from Hutchins ( vol 2 p570) suggests that it was one if Angell Smith's daughters that married George Gray .( ie one of Elizabeth's Aunts... wrong see below)
Angel Smith, gent. who was buried in 1626, is described in the parish register as having been “Lord of Stratton 58 years.” He was probably lessee under the prebendary of Sarum. One of his daughters and coheirs married George Grey; and the manor and farm, value 210l. per annum, afterwards belonged to the Greys of Kingston Maurward, who were also lessees under the prebendary of Sarum.
EDIT 2 Hutchins vol 2 p563
"3 Jac 1605 , a marriage settlement occurs between George son and heir of Christopher Grey, and Joanna, daughter of Angell Smith, before wife of Laurence Mellor ( my note Miller and Meller are both used in records for this family) There is more but isn't relevant to this matter.  
Joanne, wife of Laurence Meller was buried at Stinsford 24th May 1618 . This  is the parish for Kingston.

Comments

Hi Helen,

Thank you for your very well researched and thought-out response.  I've been looking, too.  The ''Visitation of the county of Dorset, taken in the year 1623 ...'' (Page 71). seems to say that Lawrence, son of Frome Meller married the da. & hey. of Angell Smith.

She is named "Joanne" in WikiTree, Joanna in your reference, and she married 1) George Grey and 2) Lawrence Miller/Meller.

What is "hey" in da. & hey.?  da. seems to be daughter, but what is hey?

Is "Hutchins ( vol 2 p570)" online?  I would love to see it.  Thank you!

---

Was getting confused and thought Hutchins was wrong when I found burial but that makes sense. Her place of burial was in the parish  where George Grey's home was.
Hutchins (History and Antiquities of Dorset) is downloadable from the family search library .The books are huge  so very big pdfs. Have to  stop now doing this on phone and battery running out.

---

I've added the death information to the profile for Elizabeth Miller, but I did not have the source.  When you have a chance, would you please add the source?

Thank you in advance, and also for all your help!

---

Cynthia, I think "hey." would be "heiress" - a "y" for "i" shift is a common one and the period would indicate an abbreviation.

---

Thank you, Susan.  First time I've seen the "hey" for heir.  Makes sense.

Answer 3

Remington states that the name Angell was reasonably common in Dorset, so that the association of the descendant's name of Angell with that of Angell Smith, is not sound.

The article shows that Lawrence Miller's father-in-law, Angell Smith, made his Will on 6 Nov 1623, mentioning Ann, Mary, Elizabeth and Jasper Miller.  When Sir Robert "Meller" made his Will five months later in April 1624, he mentioned only two daughters of his brother Lawrence, Mary and Anne, and he did not mention Elizabeth. The author, Remington, concludes, logically, that Lawrence Miller's daughter Elizabeth died between those two dates, and therefore she could not possibly have been the wife of Robert Husted.

Comments

Thank you, Vic.  This is perfect.  Just as I suspected, but good to know for sure.  You're the best!

---

There are some notes I made on the contents of Angell Smith's will including the National Archives  catalogue no in a comment I made on his profile last year Smith-4825 (I had forgotten I had done that)There are also details from Robert Mellers will on his (Meller-49) Will transcribe Angell Smith's will in full when I hopefully get internet access this week . I found it again and it wasn't that long.It is just too frustrating trying  to do this on a satellite connection with phone

---

That's great, Helen. Thank you!  I'm impressed (I'm terrible at reading that 17th C. scrolling handwriting).

Answer 4

I agree that Elizabeth Miller should be disconnected as Robert Husted's wife for several reasons. Robert Huste on the passenger manifest of the Mary and John is listed as a husbandman. Typically, a husbandman is a small landowner who sustains his family by farming and keeping animals for milk, cheese, eggs and the like. Angell Smith's family was gentry. He was "Lord of Stratton", and the family was included in the 1623 survey of Dorset. They are notably large landowners. I doubt in 1623 that there was much of a crossover in social classes for a marriage between the two to take place. A search of the first name only "Angell" in Dorset in this time frame using Family Search.org turns up many men with the first name "Angell". I think the wrong Elizabeth has been added to our family tree.