Mary (Bartlett) Doud (abt. 1669 - 1724)

There is a major genealogical controversy involving the identity of the husband of Mary Bartlett, which needs to be resolved. For the record, Connecticut, U.S., Town Marriage Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection), indicates that George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett of Guilford, Connecticut had a daughter Mary, born 01 Feb 1654/55. There is no record of a daughter Mary born in 1669. There seems to be major confusion as to the identity of her husband, however, generated by two marriage records which appear to be in conflict. The following narrative examines the nature of the problem in detail. Per Connecticut, U.S., Town Marriage Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection), Mary Bartlett married Nathaniel Stone in Guilford on 10 Jul 1673. This is what is shown in the work by Dr. Alvin Talcott, Compiler, & Jacquelyn L. Ricker, Editor, Families of Early Guilford, Connecticut, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore, 1984, pg 25 - the definitive work on early Guilford, Connecticut families. Talcott’s information is consistent with the info in the Barbour Collection data. Also see William L. Stone II, The Family of John Stone one of the First Settlers of Guilford, Conn., Joel Munsell's Sons, Albany, 1888, pg 3.

The Barbour Collection also shows the marriage of a Mary Bartlett of Kenilsworth (sic) (i.e. Killingworth, CT was originally named after Kenilworth, Warwickshire, England. The name gradually morphed into its present spelling) to John Doude of Guilford in Jan 1687, however. (The surname is alternately rendered as Dowd/Doud/Doude in various sources. To simplify things, I am rendering it as Dowd hereafter in this narrative). Talcott indicates on pg 287, that John Dowd married 1) Sarah Fallman (some sources say Tallman), and 2) Mary Bartlett of Killingworth.

These two conflicting marriage records have generated an enormous amount of confusion. For instance - Mary Bartlett born to George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett in 1655 - has 2 Find-A-Grave memorials - # 72398001 under Mary (Bartlett) Stone, and # 163368854 under Mary (Bartlett) Dowd. One is obviously incorrect, but which one? And the question arises as to whether we are in actual fact dealing with two separate Mary Bartletts here who were contemporaries - one from Guilford and one from Killingworth.

It is fitting to add that the Barbour Collection also shows Joseph Stone born to Nathaniel & Mary in Guilford on 17 Jun 1674, an event which fits in perfectly with the marriage of Nathaniel & Mary (Bartlett) Stone in July of 1673. This fact would be difficult to explain away if Mary Bartlett – daughter of George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett – did not marry till 1687 at age 32, to John Dowd. It is likewise difficult to believe that Mary Bartlett - daughter of George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett – did not marry till age 32, given the scarcity of females of marriageable age in the early years of the settlement.

Now – the hypothetical scenario arises that Mary Bartlett - daughter of George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett – married (1) Nathaniel Stone in 1673 who died in 1686 or before – then married (2) John Dowd in 1687. Unfortunately, this does not work, as Nathaniel Stone lived till 1709 and he and Mary had children after 1687. This scenario would not work for another reason, being that her married name – Mary Stone – would have appeared on the marriage record to John Dowd – not her maiden name, Mary Bartlett.

Personally, I’m inclined to believe that Mary Bartlett - daughter of George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett – was the wife of Nathaniel Stone - not John Dowd - for these reasons:

1) The 1673 marriage record in the Barbour Collection for Nathaniel Stone and Mary Bartlett– when the daughter of George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett was – presumably - the only Mary Bartlett in Guilford.

2) The 1687 marriage record in the Barbour Collection for John Dowd and Mary Bartlett indicates that she was from Killingworth – not Guilford (though admittedly, we do not know who raised the orphaned Bartlett children after George & Mary both died untimely deaths in 1669. Presumably they were raised by Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett’s siblings, who lived in Guilford and outlived her). Some researchers show a birth date for Mary (Bartlett) Dowd of 11 Sep 1669, in error. The 11 Sep date is in fact the burial date for Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett (1632-1669). The original record in the Barbour Collection in the Connecticut State Historical Archives shows "bd" buried - not "b" born. The source reference cited was misread.

3) Per the work by Patricia E. Kane, Furniture of the New Haven Colony: The Seventeenth-Century Style, The New Haven Colony Historical Society, 1973, pg 85, Nathaniel Stone was a joiner by trade. Connecting the dots, Nathaniel Stone (1648-1709) who married Mary Bartlett (1655-1724), was presumably apprenticed to the master craftsman who posthumously become his father-in-law, as George Bartlett was the only known joiner in Guilford in the early years of the settlement.

4) If Mary Bartlett, daughter of George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett married John Dowd in 1687, it begs the question as to who Nathaniel Stone married in 1673.

5) My thought is that since it would appear from the Barbour collection that the Mary Bartlett who married John Dowd was not from Guilford, she was probably not George & Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett’s daughter Mary, but the question then becomes, whose daughter was she? (Though remote, the possibility exists that the clerk who recorded the 1687 marriage of John & Mary Dowd, may have confused another surname with Bartlett).

Nevertheless – the above having been said – there is definitely a mystery here which needs to be investigated and explained. If anyone has information in clarification of the above uncertainties, please offer a detailed response with a thorough explanation. Thank you.