To which Field brother was Jane Sotwell-1 married?

+2 votes

Hello Field, Sotwell, England, and New England folks- 

Does anybody have definitive contemporary sources proving which Field brother Jane Sotwell-1, widow of George Burdet (Burditt-188) was married to in the early 17th century?

It's either William Field (Feld-77) or his brother Sir John Field-446 or possibly both. That seems unlikely, at a glance, given both brothers lack an early death or explanation for divorce etc. More likely that's an amateur genealogy confusion we've hoovered up via trees or unsourced GEDs. 

They may or may not have a zillion living descendants if the comments posted on Field-76 4-5 years ago are correct about Field-at-Sotwell not being credible gateway ancestors. I see that as orthogonal to the question which Field brother she was married to. Though if the answer were both, that may help at Field-76 too.

Also, noted without comment is confusion about who was the mother of John Field, the astronomer, just above this Field-Sotwell family group. That's important too. 

WikiTree profile: Jane Field
in Genealogy Help by Isaac Taylor G2G6 (6.9k points)

Marriage license, 1613, William Field and Jane Burdett, widow.

We only have Paver's extracts - he's generally believed to have borrowed the original books and never returned them.

Thank you very much, RJ.

Can we dispose of the (presumably) spurious marriage connection to William's brother John, now? Or do we need to explicitly disprove it?
On behalf of the England Project I have requested that the EP is admitted as a co-manager to John Field-488, father of these two men.

There is some work to be done on that profile too.


England Project Managed Profiles Team coordinator
It's not entirely orthogonal.  John's name appears as 4th son in his father's Visitation pedigree, but that's the only record of his existence.  If he's going to be used to connect immigrants to the astronomer, he has to be beefed up a bit, to counter the impression that he probably died young.

There was a previous thread.  From memory, there was an article in the NEHGR, 1860s, which made some dubious claims based on alleged family papers.  Editorial standards were low then.  It was challenged in a later article by Osgood Field.

Joseph Foster did a big chart pedigree in his 1875 Yorkshire Pedigrees book, based on Osgood Field's work.

Sadly for Foster, Osgood Field continued his research, and when he published his own book in 1895, some things had changed.

FC Pierce (best known for Richard Pierce of Pierce Hall and other fabrications) put out the Big Book of Fields in 1901, 2 volumes.  The English end mostly follows the 1895 book (and shamelessly plagiarizes it), but makes some adjustments in favour of the immigrants.

Found the old thread

It was more complicated than I thought.

Original book by Rev Henry Field 1860

Article by Osgood Field 1863

Pamphlet by Rev Henry Field.  Not found, but used by Whitmore's article 1864

Response by Osgood Field 1868

with chart

used by Foster

Osgood Field's 1895 book

FC Pierce, 1901, Vol. 1

There was another thread, about Fields in Virginia

Pierce (Vol. 2) connected them to the bishop through two generations who seem to be completely unrecorded.  This would be a whole separate issue, except I see we have the bishop made to be a son of the astronomer.

And then we have the Hon Henry John.  Never noticed him before.

Thanks RJ, this looks it's going to be fun!


Please log in or register to answer this question.

Related questions

+2 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
0 answers
+4 votes
3 answers
135 views asked Dec 11, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Andrew Field G2G6 Mach 2 (26.2k points)
+4 votes
1 answer
151 views asked Aug 4, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Pip Sheppard G2G Astronaut (2.0m points)
+7 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+9 votes
1 answer
33 views asked Jul 24, 2020 in Appreciation by Ronel Olivier G2G6 Mach 7 (76.8k points)
0 votes
1 answer

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright