George Bartlett (abt.1620-1669) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree

Deacon George Bartlett

Born about 1620 in England

[uncertain]

Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]

[sibling(s) unknown]

Husband of Mary (Crittenden) Bartlett — married 14 Sep 1650 in Connecticut Colony

Descendants

Father of Elizabeth (Bartlett) Fowler, John Bartlett, Mary (Bartlett) Stone, Hannah (Bartlett) Bishop, Daniel Bartlett I, Abraham Bartlett and Deborah Bartlett

Died 3 Aug 1669 at about age 49 in New Haven, Connecticut Colony

Problems/Questions Profile manager: Valerie Bailey

[send private message]

Profile last modified 17 Apr 2024 | Created 4 Apr 2011

This page has been accessed 2,557 times.

1 Merging Notice
2 Biography
3 Death
4 Inventory
5 DNA Testing
6 Sources

Merging Notice

Parents removed from this profile. Please see the changes section for details. Parents had been alleged, dubiously and apparently without documentation, to have been Robert Bartlett, early Plymouth Colony settler, and Mary (Warren) Bartlett.

Biography

This profile is part of the Bartlett Name Study.

The parentage of George remains unknown. The earliest record of George Bartlett was in the first court record from Guilford Plantation (now Guilford, Connecticut), dated 14 Aug 1645, wherein he was listed as a witness in the court proceedings. For George Bartlett’s testimony to be admissible in court, he should have reached the age of majority, 21 years old under English Common Law. This suggests a birth year of 1624 or earlier. Note that 1630 as a year of birth has at times been mentioned as an estimate. However, his court appearance would seem to argue for an earlier year of birth.

George married Mary Cruttenden (baptized 29 Apr 1632 St. Laurence Parish, Hawkhurst, Kent, England - 11 Sep 1669). She was a daughter of Abraham Cruttenden [Sr.] (c 1584 England - ) and his first wife, Elizabeth (Usborne) Cruttenden (baptized 13 Jan 1597/1598 Staplehurst, Kent, 8 miles north of Hawkhurst, England – c 1660 New Haven County, Connecticut).

Summary biography from: A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England: Showing Three Generations of Those Who Came Before May, 1792, On the Basis of Farmer's Register, by James Savage, John Farmer:

BARTLETT: GEORGE, [Living in] Guilford,1641, of Branford 1649, m. 14 Sept. 1650, Mary, d. of Abraham Cruttenden, had Eliz. b. Mar. 1652; Mary, 1 Feb. 1654; John, 9 Nov. 1656, wh. d. under 3 yrs.; Hannah, 5 Nov. 1658 ; Daniel, 14 Dec. 1665; Abraham, 19 Feb. 1667 ; and Deborah, 1668. He was lieut. rep. 1665, deac. and d. 3 Aug. 1669 ; and his wid. d. next mo. Eliz. m. 29 Aug. 1677, Abraham Fowler; Mary in. 10 July 1673, Nathaniel Stone; and Deborah m. 16 Mar. 1687, John Spinning. ^[1] Guilford mentioned here is Guilford, New Haven, Connecticut.

From another source, in addition to his being a witness in the first court record at Guilford (see above), he is also mentioned later at a court of Oct. 9, 1645, where he was appointed with three others "to make and finish ye pound with ye time of 3 weeks under ye fine of 20 shillings." At a General Court on May 22, 1648 he was given the "Freeman's Charge," and was also awarded a homelot at the South-west corner of the Green. On May 22, 1649 he was chosen overseer of highways, and also in 1649 he and John Hoadley were appointed by the town of Guilford to build a cart bridge over East River, receiving 3 pounds in English commodities. A year previously he had been one of three men appointed to build a fence to keep the young cattle from the "herd's walk." He succeeded Gov. William Leete as Secretary of the Plantation on June 5, 1662. He was chosen on April 23, 1665, with John Fowler, to be a representative sent by Guilford to the General Assembly of Connecticut. The author of the article concludes by saying that Deacon Bartlett was married by Mr. Samuel Desborough (the author's 10th great grand-uncle) to Mary, daughter of Abraham Cruttenden (his 10th great-grandfather) on Sept. 14, 1650. Bartlett died Aug. 2, 1669 and was buried the next day. His wife did not long survive but died on Sept. 10, 1669.^[2]

Death

George died 3 Aug 1669, possibly in Branford, New Haven County (formed 1666), Connecticut Colony. Some appear to assume that he died in Guilford, but this may or may not have been the case. George was said to have "removed from Guilford to Branford and died there August 3, 1669, and his widow died there the next month." (source?) Note that in early maps, what became Branford was called Brentford.^[3]

Inventory

Inventory of George's estate was taken 9 Feb 1669 (1669/1670?), by Wm. Stone, Sr., John Scranton, and Thomas Cook, Jr., and was valued at £419: 12: 09.^[4]^[5] It has been said, apparently by someone who has seen it, that the Inventory appears to indicate that George was a joiner (a woodworker) who made furniture, among other things. Note of 11/23/2021: I Olson-7587 am a member of American Ancestors and have looked at this article. It contains only what is already written here, as the whole article is a collection of abstracts, not entire inventories. I was not able to find this inventory in Ancestry files. However, I found another article in NEHGR vol. 56, 1902, that does indicate he was a carpenter. I have added information from this article above.

DNA Testing

According to the Bartlett Project at Family Tree DNA (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/bartlettdna/about/background), there are about 25 different Bartlett families that have been shown, by Y-DNA testing, to be unrelated to each other. A descendant of George Bartlett has done a Y-DNA test, but has not as yet registered it in WikiTree. The test was done with Family Tree DNA, test kit 894131. The haplogroup result was R-M269. The FTDNA Bartlett Project placed him under the category: U UK - no match.^[6]

It seems that some family searchers have suspected or alleged a familial relationship between George and various other Bartlett-surnamed individuals. Based on Y-DNA testing, thus far such theories do not appear to have been borne out. While one or more other Bartletts may have the same haplogroup R-M269, haplogroup alone is insufficient to indicate the relationships suggested. R-M269 is the most common European haplogroup. Thus, a comparison of the STR markers of the tests is needed.^[7] How many markers are different beiween two indivuals indicates their Genetic Distance (GD).^[8] It seems that Robert Bartlett and John Bartlett (below) have been suggested at some time or another to have been brothers of George. Y-DNA testing would appear to indicate that there were no such relationships between George and Robert or John. William Bartlett (abt. 1671 - 1741) of Guilford may have been related with common ancestry in England(?) but as yet, no descendant has been identified as having been Y-DNA tested.

A generic or simplified assessment of when genetic distance indicates that there is no relationship is as follows: 6 GDs at 37 markers; 7 or more GDs at 67 markers; or 10 or more markers at 111 markers would indicate no Y-chromosome genetic relationship within the past 15 generations.^[9]

Robert Bartlett (abt. 1603 - 1676) of Plymouth Colony, who married Mary Warren https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-297

Robert Bartlet descendants' information appears at the FTDNA Bartlett Project under the category: RF Plymouth, MA & TN. Descendants of Robert Bartlett of Plymouth Colony, who married Mary Warren, also appear to have the Y-DNA haplogroup R-M269. However, R-M269 is the most common European haplogroup. When comparing markers of the tests, George and Robert's descendants appear to mis-match on some 12 markers for a Y-37 test, which decidedly would negate any likelihood of a relationship between the two individuals.

John Bartlett (abt. 1606 - 1670) of Windsor, Hartford County, Connecticut, who married Martha (Unknown). https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-178

As yet, no descendant has registered their Y-DNA test in WikiTree, but John Bartlett descendants' information appears at the FTDNA Bartlett Project under the category: RW Windsor, CT. The haplogroup(s) appears to be R-M269 or R-L48. Someone can run a report on their ancestor (or perform a manual count using a John Bartlett descendant's test information) to find how many Genetic Distances apart they may be from George Bartlett's Family Tree DNA, test kit 894131. Whatever the GD, it was not close enough for the FTDNA Bartlett Project manager to group them under the same category.

William Bartlett (abt. 1671 - 1741) of Guilford, Hartford County, Connecticut, who married Hannah Evarts. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bartlett-3244

No descendant has registered their Y-DNA test in WikiTree, and as yet no living descendant Bartlett male has been identified to take a Y-DNA test. There seem to be only a handful of living male Bartlett or Bartlit descendants of immogrant William Bartlett/Bartlit. Descendants of William may plausibly be related to George since both settled in Guilford, Connecticut. However, William came to Guilford decades after George's arrival there and so far, no one has discerned a familial relationship. A Y-DNA test would settle this question.

Sources

↑ Pages 130-131. James Savage, John Farmer, Orrando Perry Dexter, A Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England: A-C. Vol 1. Little, Brown, 1860 - New England. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CZ83AQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA130
↑ "The Bartlett Families of Guilford, Conn.," compiled by Hon. R. D. Smith, NEHGR vol. 56, April 1902, pages 155-156.
↑ Guilford - Personal Sketches, in History of the Colony of New Haven... http://dunhamwilcox.net/ct/new_haven3.htm
↑ “New Haven Probate Records, Vol. 1-2, 1647-1703”, database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L92K-G9N5-T : 7 March 2021), New Haven, Connecticut, FHL microfilm 007626739, image 88. New Haven Probate Record, 1647-1687, Vol. 1, Part 1, page 149-151.
↑ "Abstracts of the Early Probate Records of New Haven, Book I, Part I, 1647-1687." New England Historical and Genealogical Register 81:122/3. Boston: NEHGS, 1927. p 121-135. http://www.americanancestors.org/databases/new-england-historical-and-genealogical-register/image/?pageName=121&volumeId=11641&rId=236639573 at AmericanAncestors. This content requires a paid membership, and thus was not viewed at this writing.
↑ https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BARTLETTDNA?iframe=ycolorized; https://www.familytreedna.com/group-project#how-to-join
↑ "Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) are sequences of identical nucleotides that repeat themselves multiple times within a continuous stretch of the Y chromosome. We call these sequences markers." https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/6019882931727-Understanding-Y-DNA-Multi-Copy-Markers
↑ "Genetic Distance (GD) refers to the number of differences in Short Tandem Repeats, or STR markers, between two people. You can read more about GD here, but in general, the higher the GD, the further back in time the two ancestors probably share a common ancestor. Each match level has its own unique match limit. This is generally proportional to the number of markers." https://help.familytreedna.com/hc/en-us/articles/6162096082831-Y-DNA-FTDNATiP-Report-Introduction#genetic-distance-0-0
↑ For additional informayion, see Demystifying DNA 2: Y-DNA tests, by Karen Cummings. 1 July 2018. https://www.professionalfamilyhistory.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Y-DNA-genetic-distances-FTDNA.png

The Magazine of American Genealogy (Institute of American Genealogy, Chicago, Ill., 1932) Issue 22-27, Page 196
Guilford - Personal Sketches, in History of the Colony of New Haven To its absorption into Connecticut, by Edward E. Atwater, with Supplementary History and Personnel of the Towns of Branford, Guilford, Milford, Stratford, Norwalk, Southold, etc., compiled by Robert Atwater Smith. assisted by Bessie E. Beach and Lucy M. Hewitt. Meriden, Conn. : The Journal Publishing Company, 1902. Transcribed by Coralynn Brown. http://dunhamwilcox.net/ct/new_haven3.htm
Memorial only (no grave site): Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 30 December 2020), memorial page for Deacon George Bartlett (1620–2 Aug 1669), Find a Grave Memorial no. 160305399, citing Village Green Cemetery, Guilford, New Haven County, Connecticut, USA ; Maintained by Mookie (contributor 47515129).

Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of George's DNA have taken a DNA test.

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.

Comments: 7

Leave a message for others who see this profile.

Gary Bartlett

Many websites and researchers show a 1630 birth year for George Bartlett who died in Guilford. CT in 1669 – despite the total lack of verifiable documentary evidence to that effect. In my opinion, a birth year of “about 1620” is much more likely. In 35 years of genealogical research, I have never found any original source citation whatsoever to substantiate the 1630 birth year claim, nor even a reasoned argument to support it for that matter - such as I make for a birth year of about 1620. What I have found is the following:

1) There is neither an original source record citation nor even a reasoned argument known for the frequently cited - and totally unverified - birth year for George Bartlett of 1630. In genealogy, it is considered poor form to pull alleged birth years out of thin air having no foundation in any facts, as many researchers have done in citing 1630 (which has spread like wildfire but is unsubstantiated). 2) The earliest known record of George on this side of the Atlantic is in the first court record from "Guilford Plantation", dated 14 August 1645, wherein he is listed as a witness in the court proceedings in a contempt of court case. (The original document is on file in the Guilford Free Library in Guilford, CT). While minors could testify in court under English Common Law, it is doubtful that this applies to George Bartlett in this particular court case, since there were three other witnesses, two of whom - Thomas Jones and Richard Guttridge - were signers of the Guilford Plantation Covenant. It is doubtful that the additional testimony of a minor would have been necessary to build the case. Assuming therefore that he had reached the age of majority – 21 years under English Common Law - by that time, it would suggest a birth year of 1624 or before. 3) Mary (Cruttenden) Bartlett’s baptism in Hawkhurst, Kent, England in 1632 is documented, as is her marriage in Guilford in 1650. My theory to explain why George Bartlett was likely much older than his wife, involves the fact that several young bachelors were known to be numbered among the Guilford founders - resulting in an imbalance of males to females of marriageable age in the early years of the settlement. Mary was 18 at the time of marriage, but George was likely much older. Such an age disparity (roughly 12 years, if my speculation is correct) would not normally be the case for a first marriage, but for reasons I just mentioned, conditions in the first decade or so of the settlement at Guilford were not normal. 4) One would presume George Bartlett to have been one of the Guilford founders, owing to the central location of his homelot. His name was tenth in the Guilford "Book of Terriers" (i.e. a survey of landed property), with a homelot of 4 ½ acres. The site was situated on the southwest corner of Guilford Green. It is logical to assume that during the first decade or so of the settlement, all those individuals having homelots in the center of the village were members of the original 1639 group, with the community expanding outward from the geographic core as later settlers arrived or children of the original settlers grew to adulthood. If the supposition is correct that George Bartlett was part of the 1639 group and he was allotted his homelot in the first division of land at Guilford Plantation, which would appear to be the case (due to its location on Guilford Green), it argues for an even earlier birth year for George than 1624. Once again, for George Bartlett to own land, he would have been required to attain the age of majority of 21 years. (Under English Common Law, minors could own land if received as an inheritance or a gift, but there were restrictions as to what they could do with it – and it is fitting to add that George Bartlett had no known relatives in Guilford from whom he could have received an inheritance). The Whitfield Congregation purchased the land for what became Guilford village from the local Native Americans in a couple of parcels, with the final transaction taking place on 02 February of 1641/2. The homelots of the settlers were presumably laid out shortly thereafter. Assuming that George Bartlett was at least 21 years old by that time, it pushes his birth year back to – maybe – 1618-1620. 5) Handwritten notes on file in the Guilford Free Library by the Hon. Ralph Dunning Smith (1804-1874), who wrote the first history of Guilford, Connecticut, estimate George Bartlett’s age at death as +/- 50 years – i.e. born about 1619 – though the process by which Smith arrived at his calculation is unknown. Working totally independently from Smith – and over a century apart – we arrived at the same conclusion – that George Bartlett died at about age 50. 6) From the specialized tools inventoried in George Bartlett's estate, we can identify his primary occupation as that of a woodwright – more specifically, a joiner - which in turn has bearing on the issue of his birth year. Such skilled tradesmen typically served a seven-year apprenticeship to a master craftsman – with the possible exception of those who grew up under the tutelage of a father who was a tradesman. If George were born in 1630, from whom would he have learned the joiner’s trade – given that he was the only known joiner in Guilford during the early years of the settlement? This reasoned argument for a birth year of about 1620 has some connection to verifiable facts, unlike other proposed birth years – 1630 for instance - which are firmly anchored in thin air. One final comment, directed at those who allege that George Bartlett was born in Guilford, CT in 1630 - my assumption is that they apparently believe that his parents were Native Americans, since Guilford was not founded by the English until 1639. I think we can be reasonably assured that George Bartlett hailed from SE England, as did most of the early Guilford settlers.

posted Dec 25, 2023 by Gary Bartlett

Gary Bartlett

Some genealogical works – Savage for instance - indicate that George Bartlett removed from Guilford, Connecticut to Branford, Connecticut in 1649 - with no known original source citation being offered to support this claim. Having contacted the Branford Historical Society, they have no evidence that George ever lived in Branford. Moreover, George can be placed by documentary evidence in Guilford in 1648 (Steiner, History of Guilford & Madison, Connecticut, p124), 1649 (Roberts, Genealogies of Connecticut Families, p102), and 1650 (Marriage to Mary Cruttenden 14 Sep 1650 Connecticut, U.S., Town Marriage Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection), and Steiner, History of Guilford, p124). The assertion that George Bartlett ever lived – or died – in Branford, Connecticut appears to be genealogical mythology, unsubstantiated by verifiable documentary evidence.

posted Dec 25, 2023 by Gary Bartlett

Renee Bartlett

Interesting note about the DNA Haplo Group of George Bartlett and Robert Bartlett. My Ancestor is John Bartlett of Windsor, CT (Bartlett-178). My brother tested at CR Genetics, which cannot upload here or on GED match. He also tested in the R Haplo Group. Not only am I related to John of Windsor, but I am also related to Robert of Plymouth. I am a DAR and Mayflower Society member through Robert's line. DAR applications pending through John of Windsor. I am not on Family Tree, but I would love to compare my DNA (and my brother's) with some of George's descendants. I still believe George and John were brothers or related in some way.

posted Jan 23, 2023 by Renee Bartlett

Renee Bartlett

Has anyone looked into any connections with this George and a possible brother John Bartlett who died in Windsor, CT in 1670? Bartlett-178. Brothers John and George are mentioned in the book The Bartlett's. Brother George also mention in the books "A catalogue of the names of the early Puritan settlers of the colony of Connecticut", "Phelps Family History in America, List of Passengers on The 1634 Voyage of the Mary" and "John and Genealogical Guide to the Early Settlers of America, Surnames, A-B, by Henry Whitmore 1898". I understand some of the sources are genealogy books, but their names have come up a few times together.

posted Mar 21, 2022 by Renee Bartlett

Barbara Bartlett Huff

In the Bio section as of Mar 2020, it says " Merging Notice-- Parents removed from this profile. Please see the changes section for details." However the top section has "Deacon George Bartlett Born 1630 in England Son of Robert Bartlett and Mary (Warren) Bartlett." So doesn't seem like the parents got removed after all? As I understand it, the parentage of George remains unknown.

posted Mar 19, 2020 by Barbara Bartlett Huff

Barbara Bartlett Huff

Would love for there to be sources (primary or otherwise authoritative & of course not just other people's unsourced trees) for:

year of birth place of birth parents Anybody have anything? My understanding was that George's year of birth is in dispute and may have been up to 10 or more years earlier than the 1630 (that doesn't seem to be coded as Uncertain). And that his parentage is not really known. Has a descendant of the Robert Bartlett who married Mary (Warren) Bartlett had a Y-DNA test? If so please fess up and register the test here in WikiTree! :-)

posted Dec 04, 2019 by Barbara Bartlett Huff