Edward Harris Wood 1598-1642 didn't seem to marry Ruth Mousell despite all of ancestry.com assuming so.

+3 votes
Edward Harris Wood did marry Ruth Lee in Nuneaton, England and bore 6 of his 7 children there - through about 1636. Edward arrived us 1640 by most records but no ship manifest confirms this. There are apprenticeship contracts in 1639 as well as a land conveyance from William Brackenberry that year also in Charlestown, Mass., so 1638 is more likely.

I am guessing the confusion partially arisesdue to Both Edward and Ruth Lee dying in 1642 and the second youngest child, Ruth Wood, was raised by the Deacon Mousal land his wife

If this is all accurate, who did Ruth Mosell marry?
WikiTree profile: Edward Wood
in Genealogy Help by
retagged by Jillaine Smith
Also, what is the source for the middle name "Harris"? People of this time period and location typically did not use middle names.
Hi Jillian,  Hopefully this isn't a duplicate but have been having computer woes.

I did get a photocopy of the original 1619 marriage in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England of Ruth Lee and Edward Wodd (Wood). There are 2 other records for Ruth Lee but the feedback from the parish is that they are now unreadable.

Although this doesn't make things airtight, it sure contributes to my sense of solidity of Ruth Lee being his marriage partner rather than the generally considered Ruth Mousell. That, thrown in with the childrens births/dates/places and the report from Gale Research, Passenger and Immigration records, he appears to have arrived 1639/40, became a freeman and had the final child in 1641.

Thank you so much for all the help and positive encouragement. Please thank Martin? who also participated. Glad to get this solidified to my satisfaction.

It would be great if you could get an account (free) here, and incorporate your findings into the pertinent profiles. You've done a lot of great work. In the meantime, I'm going to try to flag this for the integration project for their help in integrating what we have here in G2G with the pertinent profiles.

-- Jillaine
"Harris" is simply a piece of complete stupidity.  There is no actual legitimate contemporary record of my honored ancestor Edward Wood being given a middle name of any kind, much less "Harris."
Well, Barry, it's been about 7 years since I worked this same 'Honored ancestor' of mine but the stupidity part, would be with NEGHS and Wikitree where I presented the evidence with senior Genealogists.

Middle names weren't common in names of the time and also not unknown but a document from NEHGS (I believe or Scotlands people)  had it just that way. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to them or much of anything else at this time. I have low vision in the single working eye I have left so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. Should you do the required work to access further documents, you might find a surprise.

1 Answer

+2 votes
The confusion seems to be about the maiden name of Ruth who married Edward Harris Wood. Some believe Lee; others believe Mousall. What is needed is documentation that proves WHICH Ruth he married. Anonymous, what is the source for your conviction that it was Ruth LEE?

I'll go poke around NEHGS and see what I can find.
by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (783k points)
That seems a fair summary, Jillaine. A couple more points:

You could request the Warwickshire OPC for details of Edward Wood's baptism and the marriage.

I can't find R. Lee on the IGI, so that would need to be checked too.

Is there a look-up offer for the Warwickshire County Record Office anywhere?
Gee, Martin, that's why I called on you! ;-)

Seriously, I know nada (perhaps "rien" would be more appropriate) about doing research on your side of the pond.

I wasn't expecting you to know about the UK, but I'm nowhere near Warwick either

My idea about lookups was thinking of many of the websites that offer them. You could try here.

Thank you both for continuing to work on this. I'm trying, myself, but don't have much experience with the specific databases. I did find that "England, Warwckshire Parish Registers, 1538-1900 is digitalized online - see https://familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=25349&disp=Parish+registers+for+Nuneaton%20%20&columns=*,0,0 but when I get there and search, I continually get a 'technical difficulties page. 

I got there by first going here - https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Photoduplication_Services and then entering R* Lee, Ruth Lee, Edward Wood and birth or marriage

The three film numbers I have are 548397, 548398 and 501441. The 548397 is the R* Lee christening and refers to a Digital Folder number 4290814 and an Image Number of 00037 and image number00076 for the marriage to Edward Wodd.

Is there some hoop I haven't managed to negotiate that blocks me at this point? Are you familiar or can you access this stuff?


I thionk you've got everything that you can online, Christopher. You can srrange to see copies at a Family Hostory Centre.
That would be nice but I live in ultra-rural, wilderness Alaska and its 146 miles to the grocery store, 200 miles to a hospital and about 2000 miles to the "lower 48 states" so my access to Family History Centers is somewhat limited.

However, FamilySearch says they are actually 'online' and I have put in a request through them.

Thanks for keeping up on me.
In the six and a half years since you posted this note, I assume that you have found the parish register of Nuneaton, online at familysearch.org.  If not, go to the "catalog" tab.  The microfilm is not always easy to decipher but I have found a few things in it that escaped the attention of the otherwise fabulous researcher Janet Ireland Delory (see her article on the family in The Genealogist for 1988).  Also, I found the Edward Wood family's whereabouts in Leicestershire after they left Nuneaton and before their arrival in Mass. Bay.
Dear Anonymous - I have no idea how you got the idea that Warwickshire was some bucolic forest with only "2,000 folks" in the early 17th century.  The population of the Shire was FAR larger than that, and they were not all bumpkins.  You may be familiar with a Warwickshire man named Will Shakespeare.  As to our Woods, Edward (the immigrant was clearly a man of ability and entrepreneurial spirit, as he operated bakeries in Leicestershire before buying the bakery in Charlestown from William Brackenberry, taking care to secure a covenant not to compete from Brackenberry.  His father Lewis Wood, a "brazier and pewterer" was likewise a skilled craftsman.  I surmise that he may have died of lead poisoning, as lead was formerly used in the manufacture of pewter in lieu of tin, before people understood the dangers associated with lead absorption.  Lewis' ancestry is unknown.  However, there is at least a chance that he was from a cadet branch of the Wood family who, at least as of the time of the hearth tax returns of the late 17th century, were the wealthiest family in Nuneaton.  I surface this possibilty because the well-to-do Woods also favored the given name "Lewis."

The perceived surname "Wodd" that seems to have thrown some people in this thread for a loop is merely a function of the curate's or parish clerk's pen having slipped on the second "o," making it look like a "d."  There is no such actual name as "Wodd."  Every other entry on the family in the Nuneaton register gives the name as "Wood."  Ditto with those in Leicestershire where they are found in the 1630s.
Hi again Barry, I have to disagree on the name issue. Wood and Woods are the most common in present use, Atwood was a few centuries ago but when you go through the myriad of very old records you will regularly find Wodd, Wode, Woodde, Whod Whodde. The precurser of this in Middle English is Wode which itself has variants from Wood to Frenzy.

According the Media Research Bureau, Washington, D.C. and their report of 'the Name  and Family of Wood(s)'.

I have many lines of wood that are still close in the family - some of the nicest people I know.
Kudo's Barry on the family description. That the name is Wood and probably originated deep in pre-history as 'people of the forest' does not mean that situation applied to the centuries of people with that name.

In the 24 years of my genealogies, I find most of the folks I run across are upstanding, hard-working and vibrant - the dolts just don't really make it in history. I have a couple of 'thousand year' lines and though there are always under-performing members, the line rarely succeeds by brutishness alone.

Related questions

+1 vote
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
+11 votes
10 answers
+7 votes
1 answer
217 views asked Jan 23, 2015 in WikiTree Tech by Andrea Powell G2G6 Mach 4 (42.2k points)
+3 votes
2 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
180 views asked Jan 16, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (783k points)
+2 votes
4 answers
281 views asked Dec 8, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Barry Smith G2G6 Pilot (220k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright