no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

John Holbrook (abt. 1587)

John Holbrook
Born about in Glastonbury, Somerset, Englandmap
Husband of — married 1617 in Englandmap
Descendants descendants
Died [date unknown] [location unknown]
Profile last modified | Created 22 Sep 2010
This page has been accessed 3,115 times.
The Birth Date is a rough estimate. See the text for details.
{{{image-caption}}}
John Holbrook is currently protected by the Puritan Great Migration Project for reasons described in the narrative.
Join: Puritan Great Migration Project
Discuss: PGM

Biography

Cross of St George
John Holbrook was born in England.

John Holbrook was the brother of Thomas Holbrook According to Andersen in the Great Migration Series, Thomas Holbrook did have a brother John "whose fate is unknown in 1625 [when his father's will referred to him as "John, if living"]. [Joseph Neal Anc 128] The absurd claim has been made that he was already in New England by 1626, and was the father of every stray Holbrook male who later appeared in New England. [M&JCH 17:89]. There was no John Holbrook in Dorchester in 1635 and this entire proposed family did not exist."[1]

Research Notes

According to The Holbrook Family of Derby, Connecticut, John Holbrook was born about 1587, calculated. He had sons, Thomas, John, Daniel, Samuel, Nathaniel, Richard and daughter Mary.[2]

It looks like some of the facts that have been applied to John, probably relate to John Holbrook (abt.1618-1699), son of Thomas: lived in Weymouth, married Sarah, son Samuel, made free in 1640.

Notes on reported children: Three of the supposed children, Richard, Thomas and Margaret, may have some connection, and their existence is supported by actual records.

The remaining children were possibly confused with children of Thomas's son John, but there is no actual record of them in New England could be found.

Sources

  1. Robert Charles Anderson. The Great Migration, Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, Volume III, G-H;; Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2003. p 353. Ancestors (subscription)
  2. The Holbrook Family of Derby, Connecticut
  • Holbrook, Mary Louise. The Holbrook Family of Derby, Connecticut. New Haven, CT: The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Company, 1932.[1]
Note: Information from Holbrook Genealogy in "Search for the Passengers of the Mary and John 1630" Vol. 17.




Is John your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message private message private message private message a profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with John by comparing test results with other carriers of his Y-chromosome or his mother's mitochondrial DNA. Y-chromosome DNA test-takers in his direct paternal line on WikiTree:

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



Comments: 22

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Hello profile managers, in reference to the Holbrook family of Derby, Connecticut source - https://archive.org/details/holbrookfamilyof00holb/page/n11/mode/2up?view=theater, please could the biography be updated to clarify if that source is accepted, or not. If so, the son Daniel Holbrook (1623-) appears to be on WikiTree, but currently disconnected. Thanks so much!
posted by Gillian Thomas
Thank you Gillian. Unfortunately, that reference lists no primary sources (that I see) for the information that Daniel was this John's son. If I have missed something, please let me know.
posted by S (Hill) Willson
Sure, that’s fine. But in that case should the bio be updated, as at the moment, it names Daniel as one of his children based on that source?
posted by Gillian Thomas
Yes, it appears that profile was intended to represent the Daniel identified as John's son in that source and also Lord, Holbrook & Allied Families -- I've cleaned up the profile for Daniel and attached him while this gets sorted out. If anyone is aware of a reason to dispute those two sources, we might need to detach all of the children since those seem to be the only sources for any of them.
posted by Scott McClain
I will propose disconnecting all the children, unless there is any evidence showing that John had any children. It looks like his lack of record allowed him to be used as a connecting the various Holbrook families in New England. These relationships do not appear to be based on evidence.
posted by M Cole
While we're at it, it would be helpful to reconcile the ca. 1595 YOB (data field) with the 1587 offered in the narrative; not sure where that 1595 came from. We show (presumed) brother Thomas b. about 1589, which is sourced in a deposition and seems reasonable; that would make the 1587 YOB for John seem at least a bit more consistent within the family than does 1595, unless I'm missing some sourced basis for the latter date.
posted by Christopher Childs
The source mentioned in Sources Vinton, John. Vinton Memorial, Comprising a Genealogy of the Descendants of John Vinton of Lynn, 1648 (S. K. Whipple and Co., Boston, 1858). Pages 331-2

https://archive.org/details/vintonmemorialco00vint/page/331/mode/1up

Starts with Thomas Holbrook and his wife Jane. Mentions son John b. about 1617. This John had 3 wives Sarah ___, Elizabeth ___ and widow Mary Loring. Names of this John's Children are JOHN who married Abigail Pierce, a DAUGHTER who m. Simon Whitmarsh, ABIEZER prob. unm., HANNAH m. Ephraim Pierce, GRACE m. Joseph Nash, SAMUEL b. perhaps abt. 1654 married twice, LOIS, twin to Samuel, prob d. young, EUNICE m. Benjamin Ludden, EXPEIENCE, b. 5-23-1661, m Joseph Edson., ICHABOD, b. May 20, 1662, m. Sarah Turner.

posted by Katherine Cappon
Hi Katherine,

Thanks for adding sources !

As I read it, the Vinton Memorial doesn't follow this John's line through his children, and that John m Abigail Pierce etc are descendants of his supposed nephew John Holbrook, so of Thomas. With the repeated names, its easy to get confused.

Some of these books do have some good documentation. But like a lot of early genealogies, there can be a mix of good, sourced information, and some speculation or carryover from earlier unsourced publications. As you may have seen in the Research Notes, there is a question about this family, and from the comment Anderson made, I'm not even sure what kind of record there is of John and wife Sarah. (I haven't dug into it myself). But a search for vital records, deeds, wills, etc for John, his reported wives and the children would be really helpful to see which relationships can actually be documented.

Some of the Holbrooks intersect with some of my lines, so I have some interest in the accuracy, but it just hasn't made it to the top of my list to do a deep dive.

posted by M Cole
So should the source Vinton Memorial be taken out from this John Holbrook as it does not pertain to him. The source is for another John. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Holbrook books that agree with one another. Different information in each one it seems.
posted by Katherine Cappon
We have the notes here in the comments so I think you can take it off.

Yes, the books are unreliable, that's why you need to go to the original records. It looks like there may be a separate cluster of Holbrooks in Dorchester. That would be a good place to start seeing what records on Holbrooks you could find.

posted by M Cole
The source mentioned in Sources; Holbrook and allied families by Lord, Andrew Roberts, 1889- Published 1942.

https://archive.org/details/holbrookalliedfa00lord/page/8/mode/1up

Mentions Children Of John Holbrook and Sarah ____.

1. Richard b. abt. 1617.

2. William, born in England abt. 1620. Freeman 1648 Mass. Bay Colony. Dismissed from Dorchester churck and joined First Church of Milford. Died Milford Conn. June 27, 1670.

3. Daniel, b.abt.1623.

4. Thomas b. abt 1627. 3 wives. Died 1705.

5. Margaret b. abt. 1630 m. N. Rockwood.

6. Nathaniel probably died young. 'Could be Grandson?'

posted by Katherine Cappon
edited by Katherine Cappon
The source mentioned in Sources; The Holbrook Family of Derby, Connecticut - Only mention of John is https://archive.org/details/holbrookfamilyof00holb/page/n12/mode/1up "Richard Holbrook, probably the son of John, ...."

Mentions Richards siblings as Thomas, b. about 1627, John, Daniel, Samuel, Nathaniel and Mary. Then the book continues on with Richard's wife Agnes and their children.

posted by Katherine Cappon
edited by Katherine Cappon
The two wives are likely the same person because of similarity of their dates.
posted by George Fulton
Something is wrong here. The John Holbrook whose wife Sarah (___) died at Weymouth in 1643/4 (as are both the attached Sarah's) is actually john https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Holbrook-78 the son of Thomas Holbrook https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Holbrook-84 and Jany Powys.

John bp. Glastonbury, April, 1618 married Sarah by 1643, then she died and he remarried.

Thomas Holbrook: GMIII: p. 352 https://www.americanancestors.org/DB116/i/7118/352/22097181

posted by Chris Hoyt
So, should John Holbrook-69 be disconnected from William, and then merged with John Holbrook-78, and all three Sarah’ s get merged?

Am I correct to assume all the profile managers will get notified?

posted by George Fulton
edited by George Fulton
It looks like there's no evidence that John, brother of Thomas came to New England, and that the children attached are all Holbrooks without known parents. I think that this profile could remain as the English brother to Thomas, wife Sarah disconnected and merged with Sarah (Unknown) Holbrook (abt.1618-1643), and then all of the children's profiles also disconnected from the parents. But I think that means all of the children's profiles should be developed and sourced so it's clear that their origins are unknown.

Edit to add: It looks like only children Richard, Thomas, and Margaret have sources supporting their existence. Nathaniel, Mary and Samuel seem to only have dates saying they were born in Weymouth with no sources.

posted by M Cole
edited by M Cole
Have added maintenance categories to the profile -- needs relationship check and needs research.
posted by GeneJ X
Holbrook-77 and Holbrook-69 appear to represent the same person because: These have been sitting as unmerged matches for over a year (not sure why). Certainly they're duplicates, so I have removed the unmerged match & reproposed the merge.
Holbrook-69 and 77 may very well be the same person. The best thing to do first is to try to merge their fathers.
posted by J. (Pearson) Salsbery
I think profiles 77 and 69 are likely the same person. The FTM family tree compiled by my father shows the children in both profiles, except for Mary. There is an index of a parish baptismal record, Mary, child of John and Sarah Holbrook, but no date so hard to confirm.

Unfortunately dad's FTM tree is not well sourced and I hesitate to add detail to profiles until I can confirm with sources. I fear a lot of my father's sources are in 8 boxes of papers I have in the garage.

There are two marriage index records for John and Sarah (Loring) that have conflicting information: https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=7836&h=588050&indiv=try and https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=7836&h=588050&indiv=try.

posted by James Holbrook
Holbrook-77 and Holbrook-69 are not ready to be merged because: I will have to check my sources and look into this to see if I can determine that they are the same person. Please let me know if you have anything to show it.
posted by J. (Pearson) Salsbery
Holbrook-77 and Holbrook-69 appear to represent the same person because: Son Richard fits with the other of his children.
posted by Vic Watt