So long, Hatevil, been nice being your descendant :(

+15 votes
313 views

For many years, I've been perversely proud of being a 9th-great-grandson of Hatevil Nutter, a noted religious bigot and especially cruel persecutor of Quakers of Dover, New Hampshire. Disclaimer: I have NOTHING AGAINST QUAKERS! But in the process of working on the profile of my 5th-great-grandmother, Susannah (Leighton) Ricker, I decided to find some better sources for her birth and parents. What I discovered was that she could not have been the daughter of Thomas and Susannah Leighton of Dover. And that meant that I had to lop off a huge branch of my tree, including my line to Hatevil.

So long, Hateveil, I will miss you.crying And doggone you, Wikitree!angry

WikiTree profile: Susannah Ricker
in The Tree House by Stu Bloom G2G6 Mach 6 (64.6k points)
Wonder I he grew to become bigoted because of his name or his parents had a ‘premonition ‘?
so if thomas leighton and susannah chesley are not her parents then who are they then.

I have Susannah "Hannah" Leighton marrying Ephraim Ricker but I also have her listed as marrying Josiah Tucker and having many children as well. Her birthdate is seen as 12 6 1732 or 1742

I don't know who the parents of Susannah (Leighton) Ricker were. I wish I did; right now, it's one of my brick walls.

Since originally editing her profile to remove her parents (and posting the first message in this thread), I have softened things a bit, from "was not" the daughter of Thomas and Susannah (Chesley) Leighton to "was almost certainly not." Ephraim and Susannah Ricker recorded the births of their sons but not their daughters. In Master Tate's diary, when he lists the children of Ephraim and Susannah (whom he calls "Hannah"), their daughter Eleanor precedes their son Tobias, who was their first recorded child, born in 1759. That implies that Eleanor was born about 1757. The Susannah Leighton who was the daughter of Thomas and Susannah was born in 1742. To be the mother of a child born in 1757, she would have had to been married at 14 or 15. Those very early marriages did occur in the period, but they were very rare.

The birth date of Susannah, daughter of Thomas and Susannah, is also inconsistent with the age at death on her gravestone. Ages at death shown on gravestones should be taken with a large amount of salt, but it would be unusual for a woman's age to have been overstated by nine years.

In addition, the author of the Leighton genealogy looked at the question and could find no evidence that Susannah (Leighton) Ricker was the daughter of Thomas and Susannah.

I don't think that the Susannah Leighton who married Ephraim Ricker was also the spouse of a Joseph Tucker. She was Leighton at her marriage, and she died before Ephraim did.

Incidentally, the Ricker genealogy totally screws up the Ephraim Ricker family. See the Research Note on his profile for the details.

I have "Hatevils" in my line well and learned (something everyone else probably knows) that the name was originally "Hate Evil" which is one of the most hardcore names you could give a guy. I guess it's along the lines of Prudence or Chastity.
Hatevil was actually a pretty common name. Makes sense considering the religious climate of the time.
So...funny story...I AM a descendant. (Well sourced) I'm not at all proud of this.
Most of those unusual Puritan names died off after the secong generation in New England. Hatevil was an exception. His descendants were still naming sons Hatevil into the mid-Eighteenth Century.
Same here, Heather, he was my 11th GGF.

3 Answers

+8 votes
 
Best answer
I have come to embrace the change.  These events usually mean that we have discovered good evidence that a faulty connection was made.  That is a good thing.  In fact, I now look at all connections with a skeptical eye.  Rather than proving a connection, I enjoy disproving a connection.  Then, if I can find no fault in the connection, I can take statisfaction that the relationship is likely a good one.  

You are a better genealogist for embracing the truth.  Good on you! I remember giving up my Mayflower connection. But it opened my eyes to discovering the truth.

There are plenty of great stories in your family to share I am sure.  

 - Winning Genealogy one byte at a time.
by Michael Stills G2G6 Pilot (397k points)
edited by Michael Stills
+9 votes
This happens way too often.....  I try to be cautious about making connections but when another descendant comes along and connects parents without a real source,  it's very time consuming to challenge it.

Glad you caught it!
by Peggy McReynolds G2G6 Pilot (426k points)
I can't blame other descendants - the initial error was all mine (though based on a not-very-reliable family genealogy).
+8 votes
We all have them in our family tree. America was founded by people seeking religious freedom yet many were quick to deny that freedom to others. You are free in America but only if your religious values are in line mine. I have encountered some extremely " intolerant and rough " people in the history of Churchill family.
by George Churchill G2G6 Mach 8 (86.7k points)

Related questions

+3 votes
2 answers
123 views asked Aug 7, 2017 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
+3 votes
0 answers
+4 votes
1 answer
85 views asked Feb 9, 2013 in Genealogy Help by anonymous
0 votes
1 answer
56 views asked Jan 30, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Kerri Hults G2G Rookie (280 points)
+15 votes
2 answers
+9 votes
3 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+6 votes
3 answers
+5 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...