no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Rachel (Unknown) Messenger (bef. 1621 - 1688)

Rachel Messenger formerly [surname unknown]
Born before [location unknown]
Daughter of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Wife of — married 1641 in Jamaica, Long Island, New Yorkmap
Descendants descendants
Died after age 67 in Long Island, Queens, New Yorkmap
Profile last modified | Created 10 Apr 2013
This page has been accessed 715 times.
The Puritan Great Migration.
Rachel (Unknown) Messenger migrated to New England during the Puritan Great Migration (1621-1640).
Join: Puritan Great Migration Project
Discuss: pgm
The Birth Date is a rough estimate. See the text for details.

Contents

Biography

While Rachel Messenger is commonly shown with a maiden name of Manning or Seely, The Great Migration debunks this myth. Please see the Research Notes section for details.

Andrew Messenger married Rachel (_____) about 1641.[1] [2]

12 April 1681, Widdow Messenger had 5 acres of meadow with privilege, a small lot of meadow, and 36 acres upland.[3]

Rachel died probably at Jamaica after 1688, when "Widow Messenger" was listed as remembering no marriages, christenings or burials in her family during the last seven years."[2][4]

Children

Children of Andrew and Rachel (Unknown) Messenger, order uncertain.:[2][5]
  • Samuel[5]
  • Abigail Messenger b. say 1644; m. (1) Richard Darling of New Haven; they were divorced 7 Jul 1674; m. (2) Zachariah Mills.
  • Mary, b. say 1646; d. in or after 1699; m. 1665/6 Thomas Benedict[6]
  • Sarah Messenger b. say 1648; m. (1) c 1668 Ephraim Palmer of Greenwich (d. 1684); m. (2) _____ Gregory
  • Andrew Messenger b. say 1651; d. Norwalk Oct 1730; m. (1) Rebecca (Pickett) St. John; m. (2) Rachel Hayes.


Research Notes

Birth date estimated based on estimated marriage date.
"Wright and Adams asserted unequivocally that Rachel's maiden name was Manning or Seeley. This idea came probably from a deed of 15 July 1669: Mary Seely, widow, of the City of New York, and Captain John Manning, of the City of New York, aforesaid, executor in trust to the aforesaid widow,” sold to Andrew Messenger of Jamaica, Long Island, yeoman all our right, title and interest in an accommodation or allotment situate and lying in Huntington upon Long Island ... formerly in the tenure or occupation of Captain Robart Seely deceased and since confirmed unto me Mary Seely widow, late wife of the said Captain Seely deceased, and to my trusty and well beloved brother Captain John Manning." Giving no evidence, Winthrop Messenger claims that Andrew was a close friend of Robert Seeley of Watertown, Mass., New Haven, Conn, and Hempstead, Long Island. The two were surely acquainted, both having signed the New Haven agreement in 1639. Thus they were together around the time of Andrew's marriage and perhaps at Hempstead in the early 1650s, though Anderson writes of Seeley being in Huntington rather than Hempstead. Mary H. Chase in her book on The Seeleys presents copious detail on Robert Seeley's life from Watertown in 1630 to Wethersfield in 1635, New Haven from 1638 to at least 1649 if not 1665, with associations in Saybrook, Conn., Huntington, Long Island and Elizabeth, N.J. While many men are named, there is no mention of Andrew Messenger. As shown above, Robert 56616/8 second wife's brother was Capt. John Manning who lived on an island in the East River, not far from Jamaica where Andrew ended his days.
"William H. Manning discusses two Capt. John Mannings whom he feels were actually the same person. The first "was owner and captain, as early as 1653, Nov., of a vessel in which he made trading voyages along the coast of Conn., N.Y. and Va. ..." He was fined and his vessel confiscated by New Haven for trading with the Dutchj and apparently he was the man of the same name in New York in the 1660s.'28' Since his sister, Mary (Manning) Walker, did not marry Robert Seeley until 1666, it seems even less likely that Rachel (_____) Messenger was a Manning. The fact that Mary Seely and John Manning sold land to Andrew Messenger in 1669 is hardly grounds for assuming a marital connection some 37 years earlier."[1][2]

Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 Anderson, Robert Charles. The Great Migration Begins: Immigrants to New England, 1620-1633, Volume 3. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1995. Page 1648.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 152. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1998. Page 358-360.
  3. Josephine C Frost, and Long Island Historical Society. Records of the Town of Jamaica, Long Island, New York, 1656-1751. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Long Island Historical Society, 1914. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc2.ark:/13960/t7qn7zz31;view=2up;seq=16 pp 119-120 12 Apr 1681 Widdow Messenger had meadow 5 acres with priveledge & a small lot of meadow, upland 36 acres.
  4. O'Callaghan, E. B. (ed.) Documentary history of the state of New-York. Vol 3. (Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co., Public Printers 1850) ]https://archive.org/details/documentaryhisto00ocal_1/page/122Vol 3:123]
  5. 5.0 5.1 John Hopkins of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1634 and some of his Descendants. Stanford University Press, 1932. Page 44.
  6. Selleck, Charles Melbourne. Norwalk. Norwalk, CT: The author, 1896. Page 365.




Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA
No known carriers of Rachel'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: 10

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
"Original records provide information about events in a person’s life. This includes birth, marriage, immigration, military service, land purchases, and death. Most also document relationships. These records were usually created near the time such an event took place. "

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Identify_a_Category_of_Sources

If we're unclear as to whether WikiTree Standards are referring to original records or also includes genealogical writings (compiled records) in this category, we should ask for clarification on that point. My understanding from all of the discussions I've seen is that WikiTree name categories are intended for names found on original records.

Also, please note that "Manning" and "Seely" are not just unproven as last names for Rachel Messenger. Per "The Great Migration", they are disproven.

I hear you about the duplicate profile problem. I'm an Arborist. The number of duplicate profiles on WikiTree never ceases to astound me.

However, when I end up in charge of one of these profiles (and this isn't my only one), my priority is to make sure that the official profile is accurate, the sources are authoritative, the correct information is clear, and the profile is PPPed.

If we're going to remain a public platform, we're going to have to accept that common inaccuracies and popular fabrications will continually be re-imported and re-added to the global family tree. Perhaps at some point we should think about restricting Pre-1700 profiles the way we currently restrict Pre-1500 ones.

I get it; I just really really really get tired of merging duplicates. In the past, I've added

"(unproven)" after the OLN names that are unproven. I was told we couldn't do that anymore. A previous version of this profile used "Unproven" as an OLN itself. IF we're going to break the rules (and I'm not advocating that we do), then "Unproven" needs to be in parentheses behind the names.

EDIT: And, while I agree with you on what records are (or should be), the Help page as currently written does not make that distinction.

posted by Jillaine Smith
Records generally refer to actual records (birth, death, marriage, wills), not later genealogical writings that have been disproven. In "The Great Migration", Robert Charles Anderson states that after extensive research he was unable to find any records tying Rachel Messenger to either of these names.

We are well aware that profiles with these incorrect last names are continually being created. That is why this profile was PPPed. If the system is working correctly, her husband's duplicate profiles will be caught, and we will find her duplicate profiles when Andrew Messenger's duplicate profiles are merged.

Placing disproven last names in the Other Last Names field gives the incorrect impression that these are legitimate names, when they are not.

And here is the Help page text for reference. Note that it does not specify what records it means by "as [the name] appears in the records".

The drawback of excluding these disproven names from the OLN is that someone will come along and create a new profile-- say for Rachel Seely-- and the system won't find this profile if those names aren't in OLN. Duplicate gets created, etc etc

posted by Jillaine Smith
As Joe states, anyone using a search engine like Google will find Rachel based on these false names being mentioned at the top of her Biography. Within WikiTree, profiles imported with the incorrect maiden names will be found based on merges of her husband's profile.

This profile was PPPed specifically to avoid these false last names being added to her profile. Let's not reintroduce them.

I have updated the intro to make it clear that "The Great Migration" has debunked Manning and Seely as maiden names and removed them from the Other Names field.

I agree with Jo. I don't like this use of the "Other Last Name" field. It implies we are accepting these names. A google search will still find the profile if it is just in the biography.
posted by Joe Cochoit
Why have we entered last names that we know are incorrect as "other last names"? Isn't this a violation of WikiTree standards?
Manning or seele-1 and Unknown-408414 appear to represent the same person because: Merge into Unknown-408414 as Manning and Seele/Seeley have been disproved as LNAB.
Manning-3289 and Manning-1757 appear to represent the same person because: same/similar dates, same husband and child
posted by Robin Lee

[Do you know Rachel's family name?]  |  M  >  Messenger  >  Rachel (Unknown) Messenger

Categories: Puritan Great Migration | Estimated Birth Date