Is there enough evidence immigrant George Ruggles' wife was Elizabeth Bateson?

+3 votes

The timing is perfect for Elizabeth Bateson to be Elizabeth the wife of George Ruggles immigrant to Boston.  Especially since their daughter Elizabeth was baptized at Boston nine months after the marriage.  Here is the proposed timeline I posted in a comment:

Proposed 1633 timeline if immigrant George Ruggles married Elizabeth Bateson:

(1) married 06 March 1632/33, Essexshire, England.

(2) daughter Elizabeth conceived within a few days?

(3) travelled to Boston in 1633, sometime between March and November.(Anderson agrees it was in 1633).

(4) "George Ruggell" admitted to the Boston Church in November 1633 (according to Great Migration Begins).

(5) daughter Elizabeth Ruggles baptized at Boston on 08 December 1633 (nine months after her parents were married).

Source for marriage date:



WikiTree profile: George Ruggles
asked in Genealogy Help by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (45.8k points)
Just some encouragement from me. This theory certainly rings true.

I checked the marriage details on but it didn't add anything. Without an image it's not clear if the date 1632 was Old Style and therefore what we would call 1633 but you seem well-aware of that. Getting married before setting off for America seems logical.

3 Answers

+2 votes

Followup:  Not only is the timing perfect, but so is the location.  Belchamp Walter, Essexshire, is only 3 miles from Sudbury, Suffolk.  The Great Migration Directory (Anderson, 2015, page 291) says that John Ruggles of Boston was from Sudbury, Suffolk, and that son George Ruggles came to New England in 1633.   There was supposedly a George Ruggles baptized at Sudbury in 1606, but I haven't yet found a reliable source for that baptism.

answered by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (45.8k points)
+2 votes

Well, Anderson (The Great Migration Begins) deems the origin of George Ruggles to be unknown, and identifies his wife as Elizabeth, last name unknown. 

And there is a record (for which you cite a FamilySearch transcript, not associated with an image) for a George Ruggle marrying an Elizabeth Bateson in Belchamp Walter, Essex on 6 March 1632. It seems to me that this marriage could be the George and Elizabeth Ruggles who emigrated to New England, but (particularly in view of Anderson's conclusions regarding unknown origins) I'd want to see much more solid evidence before declaring this to be anything more than a speculative possibility.

answered by Ellen Smith G2G6 Pilot (912k points)
However, I think that Great Migration Directory (Anderson, 2015) was published later than Great Migration Begins. And in the Great Migration Directory, page 291, Anderson says John Ruggles was from Sudbury, Suffolk, and that his son George Ruggles came to New England in 1633.
+1 vote

There was already a wikitree profile for the father of John Ruggles, namely George Ruggles "Senior" (died 1616, Sudbury, Suffolk).  Therefore I have attached John Ruggles as his son, and I created a new profile for the youngest son Jeffrey Ruggle (born 1585; d. 1630, Boston, Massachusetts).  

What is even more exciting is that George Ruggles Senior had a  son George (Junior) who was baptized at Sudbury, Suffolk, on 26 March 1581.  This opens the possibility that George Ruggles Junior was the immigrant to Boston and that John and George were brothers as Anderson originally proposed (not father and son).  If so, Elizabeth Bateson might have been a second wife.  If there is no baptism of a George Ruggles in 1606, then the George Ruggles baptized in 1581 would likely be the immigrant. Being brothers (rather than father and son) would explain (just as well) George's connection with the inventory of John Ruggles' estate.  

Source of information about 1616 will of George Ruggles Senior is from "English Origins of New England Families, Vol. III, page 615".

See my comment on his profile:

Source for 1581 baptism of George Ruggle (Junior):  "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch( : 11 February 2018, George Ruggle, 26 Mar 1581); citing ALL SAINTS,SUDBURY,SUFFOLK,ENGLAND, index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 952,200.


answered by Kenneth Kinman G2G6 Mach 4 (45.8k points)
edited by Kenneth Kinman

Related questions

0 votes
3 answers
439 views asked Aug 8, 2013 in Genealogy Help by Bobbie Hall G2G6 Mach 8 (88.4k points)
+7 votes
1 answer
101 views asked May 17, 2016 in Genealogy Help by R B G2G6 Mach 3 (39.6k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
1 answer
139 views asked Feb 28, 2015 in Genealogy Help by J S G2G6 Mach 9 (92.6k points)

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright