| Richard Thayer Jr. migrated to New England during the Puritan Great Migration (1621-1640). Join: Puritan Great Migration Project Discuss: pgm |
Contents |
Richard Thayer was born at Thornbury, Gloucestershire in 1601.[1][2]
Richard settled in Braintree, Massachusetts, by 1641. He was probably the "Taiere" who, about September 1645, sold an acre of land in Braintree to the merchant adventurers who were setting up the iron works in that town.[3]
Before his emigration to America, Richard married first, on 5 April 1624, at Thornbury, Gloucestershire, Dorothy Mortimore.[4][5][6]
Richard married second, soon after 15 July 1646, Jane/Joan, the widow of John Parker. [Note there are conflicting theories whether this was Jane (Kember) Parker[7] or Joan (Hellyer) Parker.[8]
By 1660, Richard was married to his third wife, Catherine or Katherine (___), who survived him.[9][10]
"On 5 September 1648, 'Rich[ard] Thaire of Boston' deeded to 'Rich[ard] Thaire of Braintry son of the said Richard of Boston' several parcels of land, including two acres & a half of land lying between the land of Daniell Lovet & James Farce [Farr?], in the field at Monoticott, bought of the said Richard Thaire the elder of John Niles together with the lot upon which he built his house.'"[11][12]
On May 26, 1658 a General Court of Election, held at Boston, confirmed the reduction in the fine imposed on Richard Thayer for "selling strong licquors contrary to lawe" from 19 pounds to 5 pounds. [Note: This record probably relates to Richard's son.][13]
By 1660, Richard and several members of his family were living in the Colony of Barbados. On 12 March 1660, he wrote a letter from "Barbadoes" to his sons Zecharias and Richard, who were still in Massachusetts. Richard's wife, his son Nathaniel, and his daughter Katherine were in Barbados when the letter was written.[9]
Richard Tayer died in Barbados and was buried on 8 October 1664 at St. Michael, Barbados.[2][14][15]
Richard Thawyer of Barbados made his will on 6 October 1664. He named his wife "Catherin Thawyer" executrix and also referred to his "children" but apparently did not identify any by name. This will was proved in Barbados on 12 October 1664.[10]
"There has been much confusion as to the dates of death of the various Richard Thayers. Richard1 the emigrant was dead before 20th 2d month 1668, as shown in a deed (Suffolk Co. Deeds, V, 446) of his son Richard2., who died 27 August 1695."[16] As noted in the biography above, this Richard died in Barbados and his will was probated there in October 1664.
The Richard Thayer who died in 1695, was age 71 per his gravestone. That means he was born in 1624 and therefore was NOT the immigrant who was born in 1600.
Clifford Stott published in 1998 a serious and critical review of past research done on the Thayer family, and pointed out MANY errors of previous transcriptions. He re-analyzed the original parish records of Thornsbury, and published a new, corrected transcription of them. He also transcribes early probate records.[17]
No support has yet been found for Richard having been made a freeman in either Boston or Braintree in 1640-1. The Massachusetts Bay Colony Records do not show his name among freeman, with any possible spelling of his name, up through 1641.[18]
Richard's son, Richard Thayer, in 1682 "laid claim to all the territory in the town of Braintree, by virtue of a surreptitious Indian deed. He petitioned the King, and obtained a hearing." The town of Braintree asserted that Richard Thayer's complaint was false. In the "Remonstrance of the inhabitants of Braintree against the complaint of Richard Thayer", filed in 1683, among other statements, the town said "...his very poor father with 8 poor children, of which this Richard was one, came into New England two and forty years ago, in the year forty one..."[19] There is much more information than this about the claim and response from the town, and another source has even further information.[20]
In Richard Thayer [Jr.]'s petition to the King, which was sent in 1682, said that he "about 40 years ago went over to New England, and purchased a large Tract of Land of Wampatuck Josias, a great Indian Sachem...".[21]
See also:
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
Featured National Park champion connections: Richard is 12 degrees from Theodore Roosevelt, 20 degrees from Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, 12 degrees from George Catlin, 13 degrees from Marjory Douglas, 23 degrees from Sueko Embrey, 12 degrees from George Grinnell, 23 degrees from Anton Kröller, 12 degrees from Stephen Mather, 20 degrees from Kara McKean, 13 degrees from John Muir, 16 degrees from Victoria Hanover and 25 degrees from Charles Young on our single family tree. Login to find your connection.
T > Thayer > Richard Thayer Jr.
Categories: Thornbury, Gloucestershire | Braintree, Massachusetts | Puritan Great Migration Other Head of Household | Puritan Great Migration
https://saintmichaelscathedral.bb/church-leadership/ Good luck!
Does anyone have any information to support his arrival by 1640, thus keeping him in the PGM project?
This marriage is noted in the narrative Biography above; is there a reason why we do not show Jane as his second wife, between Dorothy (d. by 1641) and Joan (m. abt. 1656)??
I do grasp the logic, and lean to the conclusion, of that piece, which contends that the "Jane Parker" who -- in Boston on 15 July 1646 -- made a gift of "land and personal property" to her several children was actually _Joan_... and that John Parker, Jr., had only the one marriage, to Joan Hellyer in 1627. The argument hinges on Jane/Joan's naming the daughter of John Parker, Jr. -- Margaret Parker, one of the recipients of the gift of land -- as her own child; Margaret was born in 1627 and therefore is a child of Joan (Hellyer) Parker... ergo, since Jane/Joan treats Margaret as her own child, the "Jane" in Boston in 1646 must really be _Joan_ (Hellyer) Parker. And Jane Kember must indeed have married the senior John Parker.
I do have one remaining question: Are there then no instances of stepmothers treating stepchildren, when it came to distributions of land or other property, as if these children were their own?? I suspect that Thompson may be correct in his analysis, but I wish he had dealt with this issue more carefully. As it stands, the argument feels a bit facile. I cannot point to any specific instance, but I feel as if I had seen one or two cases in which step-parents in fact did treat stepchildren equally with their own biological offspring.
We show John Parker, Sr., as born "before 1570", at Marlborough. We show Jane Kember as born "about 1605" at Thornbury. I have nothing against May-December marriages, but wow -- that's an age difference of more than 35 years. If we believe that Thompson is right, I'd suggest that an estimated birth year of 1605 for Jane needs a long, hard look.
Just to stir the pot a little: FreeReg UK shows a "Joane KI[NM]BER" christened at Cam -- about 10 mi. NE of Thornbury -- on 24 Jan. 1579/80. NEHGS has an index listing only for one bp. in 1576 at Trowbridge, Wiltshire, some 20 mi. WSW of Marlborough, where the 1628 marriage of John Parker & Jane Kember took place. Even better (if you're a Thompson believer), there's a "Joane Kember" christened at Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire, on 16 Jan. 1576/7 (see https://www.freereg.org.uk/search_queries/6101e42e33045b65a6092e2a?locale=en). Great Bedwyn is actually a village _within_ (modern-day) Marlborough, roughly 3 mi. SE of the town center....
And there are no other marriages of a "Joane Kember" shown in the area prior to 1628. Hmmm.
edited by Christopher Childs
As the Thayer lines are easily messed up, I would appreciate it if we could keep Richard on as PGM Adjunct.
So I hope that we do retain him, at a minimum, as PGM Adjunct. I'd actually just as soon keep him as "full PGM" given the unusual circumstances surrounding his departure.
Whether he remains as PGM or converted to PGM Adjunct, he will certainly retain PPP status
I also see that THIS profile is currently PGM, not PGM adjunct.
It appears that he did not arrive in New England by 1640, and being made freeman in 1640 (not sure the source of this) is almost certainly incorrect.
I'm now going to look at what the 2001 TAG article says...
https://thayerfamilies.org/cpage.php?pt=22