Contents
|
This is the profile for William Orcutt of Bridgewater who married Martha/Mary Land in Hingham in December 1663 and died in Bridgewater in September 1693.
The origin of William Orcutt of Bridgewater (and hence his parentage, last name at birth, date of birth and place of birth) is uncertain. Theories of his origin have generally started with the assumption that he originated in Warwickshire, England.
Nahum Mitchell's 1840 "History of the Early Settlement of Bridgewater" states (without providing any sources or explanation) that the wife of Samuel Edson was named Susanna Orcutt.[1] Perhaps in reliance on Mitchell, subsequent secondary sources and Orcutt family genealoigists have also stated that Samuel's wife was named Susanna Orcutt and assumed that she was the sister or otherwise related to William Orcutt.[2][3]
Research by Jarvis Bonesteel Edson around 1900 led to the well-supported conclusion that Samuel Edson originated in Fillongley, Warwickshire.[4] Jarvis found no record of Susanna Orcutt or her parents in Warwickshire, but he asserted that the "Alcott, Orcutt, Aucott, and Howcote" family had been long seated in Warwickshire.[5] Although Jarvis apparently also found no evidence of the date or place of Samuel and Susanna's marriage, he provided a fictional account that speculated that Samuel became determined to emigrate to New England after hearing of the wonders of New England from a returning colonist and married Susanna Orcutt shortly before emigrating in 1639.[5]
The combination of (1) the well-supported conclusion that Samuel Edson originated in Fillongley, Warwickshire, together with (2) the assumption that Samuel's wife was the sister of or otherwise related to William Orcutt and (3) the assumption that Samuel had met and married his wife in Warwickshire, led subsequent Orcutt researchers to assume that William Orcutt similarly originated in Fillongley or one of the surrounding parishes.
Orcutt researchers have searched to no avail for any records of persons with the surname Orcutt, Orcutte, Orcut, Orcot, Orcott or Orcotte in England or Scotland that might relate to William Orcutt of Bridgewater. A search on familysearch.org in August 2018 found no records for anyone with any of those surnames in England or Scotland before 1666. (There is a record of the birth in Barking, Essex, England of a Moyses Orcott in 1666 and then records of a few of Orcotts and Orcutts in London in the 1690s.) It thus appears highly probable that William's surname "Orcutt" was a spelling created only after he settled in New England and that his family name in England or Scotland was spelled differently but sounded similar.
In the 1965, in search of William's origins in Fillongley, Helen G. Judson wrote to the Diocesan Archivist of Warwickshire and received the following response by letter:
Judson also stated (presumably based on information provided by the Diocesan Archivist) that the register was not indexed but that, at brief glance, did not reveal any other children of this William Orchar.[3]
Judson proposed that the 1618 baptismal record was for William Orcutt of Bridgewater. This proposition has been adopted by many subsequent Orcutt genealogists[3] and is reflected in many Orcutt families trees. The baptismal record reported by Judson is now readily available online and states, in Latin, under a heading for 1618, "Gulielmus filius Gulielmi Orchar -- bapt fuit vi'th die Debris ao pd." From the context, it is clear that "Debris" is short for "Decembris" and that "ao pd" means the year above (ie, 1618).[6] As indexed by familysearch.org[6] and as noted by Judy Orcutt Holy,[3] the date in the original record of the baptism appears to be December 6 not December 18 as originally reported by Judson and adopted by many others.
There are several problems with the proposition that the 1618 Orchar baptism relates to William Orcutt of Bridgewater.
With the benefit of modern online digital databases, in 2000, Joel Thomas Orcutt discovered a more plausible baptismal record for William Orcutt of Bridgewater: the record for the baptism of a William Alcocke in Mancetter, Warwickshire on October 20, 1639.[9][10] An abstract of that baptismal record is also readily available for free online.[11] The original is available on the pay site findmypast.com.[12] A copy is posted as an image on this profile and reads, under the heading for October 1639, "William Alcocke sonne of William Alcocke and Margerit his wife bap the twentieth."
At first blush, the 1639 baptismal record for a William Alcocke may not appear very promising as the baptismal record for William Orcutt of Bridgewater. However, deeper analysis shows that the Alcocke record is much more plausible than the 1618 baptismal record for William Orchar.
All-in-all, the evidence suggests that it is reasonable plausible, if not likely, that William Alcocke of Mancetter was the same person as William Orcutt of Bridgewater. A comparison of YDNA tests results for descendants of William Orcutt of Bridgewater and descendants to John Alcock of York, Maine would be useful to help prove or disprove this theory.
Besides believing that the 1618 baptismal record for William Orchar related to William Orcutt of Bridgewater, Helen Judson also believed that William Orcutt's family was descended from members of the Urquhart clan who emigrated from Scotland to Warwickshire. Her argument, as further developed by Judy Orcutt Holy, was that (1) Orcutt family tradition is that their ancestors were of Scotch origin and that William Orcutt and his sons and grandsons had such a Scottish burr that clerks, registrars and army officers had difficulty spelling their name correctly in records, (2) there is evidence that some of the Urquharts moved down to England (including Carlisle and Devonshire) in the 1500s, and (3) Rev. James Keith of Bridgewater, who was is known to have emigrated from Scotland, personally hand wrote the record of 1598 marriage of son William Orcutt and spelled his last name as "Urxohart" (although indexed transcriptions record it as "Urrohart").[3]
The Scottish/Urqhart origins theory remains plausible, despite the conclusion discussed above that Judson's theory that the 1618 baptism of William Orchar of Fillongley was the baptismal record for William Orcutt of Bridgewater is not. First, Burke's "Landed Gentry" supports the (relatively noncontroversial) proposition that a number of Urquharts moved down into England during the 1500s.[15] It is thus reasonably plausible that some ended up in Warwickshire. Second, Urquhart is indeed pronounced very similarly to Awcotte and Orcutt (with the former closer to the Highlands pronunciations),[16][17] so it is reasonably plausible that, in moving down to England (and later New England), Urquart would come to be recorded phonetically as Awcotte (and later Orcutt). Third, "Urrohart" is such a bizarre spelling of Orcutt from a phonetic standpoint that if, as claimed, Rev. Keith was the person who recorded the marriage, it appears likely that "Urrohart" is an improper transcription of Rev. Keith's original record and that Rev. Keith intended a spelling closer to "Urquhart."
YDNA test results to date, however, are not supportive of the theory that the US Orcutts are related to the Urquharts. As of August 2018, the FTDNA Urquhart YDNA project had about 60 members with publicly viewable test results, including 5 members with the name Orcutt. Running the project's public results through the YDNA Family Grouping App showed that the 5 Orcutt men probably all share a common male ancestor within the genealogical time period but that probably none of them share a common male ancestor with any of the Urquhart men in the project who have publicly viewable results.
As discussed above, the most reasonably plausible origin of William Orcutt of Bridgewater that has been identified is that he was the William Alcocke who was baptized in Mancetter, Warwickshire on October 20, 1639. If so, his parents were William Awcotte/Alcock/Alcoate and his wife Margaret. Margaret's first name is set forth on William Alcocke's baptismal record. According to research reported by Joel Thomas Orcutt, there is a record of a marriage between a William Aucott of Mancetter and a Margaret Bickley in June 1635 in Whitacre, Warwickshire[18] or April 1636 in Over Whiteacre, Warwickshire[9] that probably relates to his parents, which would mean that William's mother's maiden name was Bickley. As of July 2018, however, no copy of the record of this marriage (or any other marriage in Over Whitacre parish during that time period) appears to be available online.
Assuming the 1639 baptismal record for William Alcocke is the baptismal record for William Orcutt of Bridgewater, William Orcutt of Bridgewater was probably born in Mancetter sometime shortly before October 20, 1639.
As mentioned above, Mitchell stated in his 1840 "History of the Early Settlement of Bridgewater" that Samuel Edson's wife was named Susanna Orcutt.[1] Although Mitchell did not state what the relationship was between Susanna and William Orcutt, later secondary sources stated that she was probably William's sister.[2] As discussed in the profile for Samuel Edson, however, no evidence has been found that supports the proposition that Samuel Edson married a women whose maiden name was Orcutt (or Orchar or Alcocke or Awcotte for that matter). Instead, as discussed above, a record apparently exists (but not currently available online) that shows that William's father probably married a woman named Margaret Bickley. It is therefore reasonably plausible that Samuel Edson's wife was an aunt or other relative of William Alcocke/Orcutt's mother.
William Orcutt's date of emigration to New England and location of first settlement in New England are uncertain. The first record in New England that actually mentions him is the record for the baptism of his second son, Andrew, in Scituate in March 1667. Based on either (1) the assumption (discussed below) that the December 1663 marriage record for Andrew Lane of Hingham's daughter relates to William's marriage or (2) the assumption that the mother of his eldest son (b. sometime 1664-1665) was a daughter of Andrew Lane of Hingham, William was probably in New England and in the Hingham area no later than 1663 and most likely at least a few years before that. Mitchell suggested that William's his eldest sons William and Andrew may have been born at Weymouth or elsewhere prior to William's moving to Scituate.[19] No reliable evidence, however, has been found that establishes that William ever lived in Weymouth.
The fact that William's children were baptized at the Second Church of Scituate in 1667-1683 suggests that William and his family were living in Scituate during that time period. However, there is a record of a May 1670 deed in which William Orcute of Marshfield purchased land in Bridgewater from Edward Gray.[9] This suggests that William was perhaps never a resident of Scituate and was instead a resident of north Marshfield and a parishioner of the nearby Second Church of Scituate.
Although William purchased land in Bridgewater in May 1670, it is unclear when he moved there. His children continued to be baptized at the Second Church of Scituate up through October 1683. William was one of the 56 proprietors of Bridgewater who drew a lot in Bridgewater on December 24, 1683.[20] His estate papers refer to him as having been "of Bridgewater," so it is clear that he had been residing there at the time of his death.[9][3]
Helen Judson believed that William was a seaman,[3] but no reliable evidence has been found that supports that proposition and it seems unlikely, assuming that William originated in land-locked Warwickshire. The books of account of John Cushing, a Scituate merchant, refer to William as a yarn spinner.[9]
At the time of his death, William was married to a woman named Martha. She is referenced by her first name in the December 1693 distribution agreement with respect to his estate.[21][9][3] There is some uncertainty as to whether she was his only wife or a second wife. The July 1675 probate agreement regarding the estate of Andrew Lane of Hingham refers to William Orcutt as his son-in-law, which establishes that William had married one of Andrew Lane's daughters.[22][9][3] There is no record, however, of Andrew Lane having had a daughter named Martha, but there is a record of him having a daughter named Mary who was baptized in Hingham in 1646.[23][9] Since Martha is not known to have been a common nickname for Mary (or vice versa), this has led some genealogists to speculate that William married, first, Mary Lane, who may have given birth to some or all of his children, and then married, second, a woman named Martha, who may have given birth to some or none of his children. The consensus among the most knowledgeable Orcutt genealogists (including Helen Judson in the 1960s and Christopher Child in 2015), however, is that it is likely that Martha was William's one and only wife. The evidence given for that position is that (1) the 1693 administration papers refer to William's children as Martha's children[21][9][3] and (2) in the July 1675 probate agreement regarding Andrew Lane's estate, William Orcutt appears to be signing on behalf of a living daughter of Andrew Lane and there is evidence that the Lane daughter he had married was deceased.[9][3] Further evidence that Martha was William Orcutt's only wife is provided by the fact that his first-born daughter was named Martha. It is plausible that (1) the 1646 baptismal record for Mary relates to a Mary Lane who died young (and thus not accounted for in her father's July 16756 probate agreement) and the baptismal record for Martha has not been found, (2) the 1646 baptismal record relates to Martha Lane but her name was incorrectly recorded or transcribed as Mary, or (3) Mary was an alternative name used for Martha Lane, at least when she was an infant.
The Hobart Journal of Hingham contains an entry under the heading for December 1663 which states that " 24 Andrew Lanes Daughter Maryed," thus indicating that the marriage occurred on December 24, 1663.[24][25] This marriage record has reasonably been construed to be a record of William Orcutt's marriage to Andrew Lane's daughter Martha/Mary.[9][3][25] The date is consistent with the fact that William's oldest child was probably born sometime in 1664-5. "Lane Genealogies,"[26] "History of Hingham"[27] and some sources[9][3] state that William and Martha/Mary were married on January 23, 1663/4; however, this appears to be a misreading of the Hobart Journal, perhaps due to the fact that the "December" heading is on the bottom of the prior page.[24][25]
William and, presumably, Martha had the following children:
William died in Bridgewater on September 14, 1693.[32][9][3] The inventory of his estate was taken on October 11, 1693 by John Field and John Leonard and was valued at 119 pounds.[32][9][3] William apparently died intestate.[33] An agreement with respect to the distribution of his estate was made on October 13, 1693 by widow Martha Orcutt and her sons and daughters. The agreement makes distributions to widow Martha, sons William, John, Andrew, Joseph, Thomas and Benjamin, and daughters Martha, Mary and Susanna.[21][9][3][34]
In 1699, when his son Thomas comes of age, the heirs, Thomas Orcutt, Benjamin Orcutt, Edward Mitchell (Benjamin's guardian), Martha Orcutt, and William Orcutt, sign or make their mark on an agreement on the division of land.[35]
[27] [26] [22] [24] [23] [21] [32] [9] [28] [12] [7] [8] [4] [36] [37] [5] [16] [17] [18] [15] [2] [10] [3] [25] [29] [38] [20] [19] [31] [30] [1] [14] [11] [39] [6]
See generally:
Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
William is 23 degrees from Herbert Adair, 20 degrees from Richard Adams, 15 degrees from Mel Blanc, 22 degrees from Dick Bruna, 17 degrees from Bunny DeBarge, 31 degrees from Peter Dinklage, 16 degrees from Sam Edwards, 17 degrees from Ginnifer Goodwin, 21 degrees from Marty Krofft, 13 degrees from Junius Matthews, 12 degrees from Rachel Mellon and 19 degrees from Harold Warstler on our single family tree. Login to find your connection.