John Coombs (the name is spelled Coombs by Robert C. Anderson in the Great Migration series)[1]
Orthographic variations: COOMBS, COMBE, COMBES, COMBS, COOMES, COMES
Origins
The origin of John Coombs is not known with certainty. In 1960, a Genealogies in Progress note in the NEGHR suggested that his ancestry had been proven, and was scheduled to be published.[2] Unfortunately, the evidence never appeared in print. In 1968, the NEHGS Committee on Heraldry identified him as John Combes of Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, England (probably using the same source as the 1960 note).[3] Again no evidence was given.
Anderson in his 1995 Great Migration Begins biography of John Coombs, noted the above references but called his origins unknown based on the lack of evidence.[1] He made his birth date as about 1610 based solely on his marriage estimated date of by 1632. John Coombs could have been born significantly earlier than this.
In 1996, noted Pilgrim researcher Robert Wakefield published The Probable English Origin of Mr. John Coombs of Plymouth Colony in The American Genealogist.[4] Wakefield identified the New England immigrant as probably being John the son of Francis Combe and Jane Pope, baptized 13 March 1596/7 in Hemel Hempstead. The evidence being primarily that
John Coombs named a son Francis
The will of his (possible) brother Francis Combs in 1641 gave land to brothers Tobias and William, but only money to brother John. This would be an indication that his brother John was no longer living in Hemel Hempstead.
The will of his (possible) brother William Combs in 1656 named his brother John "if he then be living." This is wording commonly used when someone had moved away and had not been heard from in some time.
This evidence is suggestive, and makes it good possibility that the immigrant John Coombs was the son of Francis Combe of Hemel Hempstead. However, the identification cannot be considered proven.
Immigration
We do not know the date or ship of John Coombs' immigration. His first mention in the Plymouth record was on 12 March 1630, when "Mr. John Coombe" purchased from Ralfe Wallen a house and garden plot.[1]
John's name was included on the Plymouth list of those made free before 1 January 1632/3.[1] However on 3 September 1639, the Plymouth Court decided "Mr. John Combe for being drunken, is disfranchised of his freedom."[1] On 5 June 1644, he was once again made freeman.[1]
Marriage
John married by about 1632 to Sarah Priest, a daughter of Degory Priest and Sarah (Allerton) Priest.[1]
Francis Coombs b c. 1635; mar 1) Deborah Morton, 2) Mary (Barker) Pratt
On 15 October 1646,
William Spooner came before the Governor and undertook to save the town harmless for any charge that might befall by reason of a child that Mrs. Coombs left with him when she went for England, and which he undertook to keep & provide for.[1]
Possibly both children were left, as the court ordered on 1 August 1648,
the children of the said Mrs. Combe, now being with William Spooner, that the said Spooner keep them for the present, and not dispose of them for the future, without further order from the court.[1]
Troubles
John Coombs was always referred to as either "Mr" or Gent, but as Anderson writes, "he was constantly embroiled in situations which would have been more appropriate for someone at the opposite end of the social spectrum."[1] John was in court for matters of debt eight times, usually as a defendant, and usually the judgement was against him.[1] As mentioned earlier, he was disenfranchised for drunkeness, and his wife went back to England. She may have left the two sons with their father, although we do not know exactly when he died.
Death and Legacy
John died by 15 October 1646. On that date, the court made a decision on the custody of at least one, possibly both, of John's children, his wife having left for England.[1]
↑ The American Genealogist, vol. 71 (1996): pages 247-250.
Source list:
New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 114 no. 4 (October 1960): 310. Notes: Geneaologies in Preparation (Coombes), by The Editors. AmericanAncestors.org LINK
New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 122 no. 2 (April 1968): 94. A Roll of Arms Registered by the Committee on Heraldry Eighth Part, by NEHGS Committee on Heraldry. AmericanAncestors.org LINK
The American Genealogist, vol. 71 (1996): pages 247-250. The Probable English Origin of Mr. John Coombs of Plymouth Colony, Robert S. Wakefield, FASG. AmericanAncestors.org LINK
See also:
Wakefield, Robert S., editor, General Society of Mayflower Descendants (GSMD), Five Generations series, Vol 8
I agree Anne that the evidence isn't really that convincing which is why I said I could go either way with reattaching the parents.
I was probably overly swayed by the phrase "if he then be living" in the will of William Combe. It is an exact phrase I have seen in wills when referring to known Immigrants to New England.
As I read the exchange, like Jillaine, I thought the uncertain button, was a good choice. I read the article. I'm not convinced, but I still think the uncertain button would be okay. There are no opposing sets of parents to contend with. Thank you all.
Joe, you did a great job rewriting the origins section. Reads beautifully. I have long had ambivalent feelings about the Uncertain button since its introduction. But I think this profile may be a candidate for it.
You know that I am one that usually breaks lines, not reattaches them. I would say because:
1. Because we have a recent TAG article which can be properly referenced, rather than this being just an old un-sourced internet theory.
2. Because I have a great deal respect for the opinions of Robert Wakefield FASG, and Neil D. Thompson FASG.
3. Because the theory is more than just onomastic.
4. Because I think the theory is more likely right than wrong.
5. Because connecting the parents does not create a royal or noble ancestry with 100s of potentially false ancestors (I would have a higher proof requirement if I thought this was about creating a royal ancestry which is not generally accepted).
It should be pointed out that the TAG article was published after Anderson's Great Migration Begins, and so the evidence was not evaluated or rejected by Anderson. The origin section should not use Anderson to reject the origin theory.
The evidence is suggestive that he is the son of Francis Coombs, though not 100% proven. We have a peer reviewed published article by a highly respected genealogist to follow, and I think we should consider reattaching the parents with an appropriate discussion in the biography.
I was probably overly swayed by the phrase "if he then be living" in the will of William Combe. It is an exact phrase I have seen in wills when referring to known Immigrants to New England.
I have redone the origins section with a little better explanation.
1. Because we have a recent TAG article which can be properly referenced, rather than this being just an old un-sourced internet theory.
2. Because I have a great deal respect for the opinions of Robert Wakefield FASG, and Neil D. Thompson FASG.
3. Because the theory is more than just onomastic.
4. Because I think the theory is more likely right than wrong.
5. Because connecting the parents does not create a royal or noble ancestry with 100s of potentially false ancestors (I would have a higher proof requirement if I thought this was about creating a royal ancestry which is not generally accepted).
The evidence is suggestive that he is the son of Francis Coombs, though not 100% proven. We have a peer reviewed published article by a highly respected genealogist to follow, and I think we should consider reattaching the parents with an appropriate discussion in the biography.
TAG: 71:1996: 250 says although 'likely' son of Francis and Jane (Pope) - no firm evidence has been found. Have you found something more recent?