Blood_Name_Study_American-Colonial.png

Blood Name Study: American Colonial Bloods - The First Five

Privacy Level: Open (White)
Date: [unknown] [unknown]
Location: [unknown]
Surnames/tags: Blood Bloud Blud
Profile manager: Garry Blood private message [send private message]
This page has been accessed 265 times.

>>>>>Click here to return to the Blood Name Study Main Page<<<<<


Contents

The Relationship Between Richard, Robert, John, and James Blood

Author: Garry Michael Blood, 2 Feb 2022, updated 12 Dec 2024

Purpose

To establish as best as the evidence and our analysis will allow, the nature of the relationship between original Blood emigrants to the Massachusetts Bay Colony James Blood, Sr., Richard Blood, John Blood, and Robert Blood.

Starting Point

Two independent lines of primary evidence prove that Robert and John Blood were brothers, so this is not in question.[1][2] We also know beyond any doubt that James Blood, Jr. was the only son of James Blood, Sr.[3] The great unknown has long been the relationship between Robert and John on the one hand and Richard Blood on the other, as well as the relationship between those three collectively and James Blood, Sr.

Overview

On this page I will lay out the case that Richard Blood of Lynn and Groton was, beyond a reasonable doubt, the older brother of Robert and John Blood. This case must be established based on the weight of the circumstantial evidence; if primary evidence that established the nature of their relationship still existed, then this research would not have been necessary. Having done that, I will then address the confounding issue of James Blood, Sr. and his relationship to the other three Bloods. As we know without any doubt that James, Jr. was the only son of James, Sr., his relationship to the others depends entirely on his father's.

Items of Evidence & Major Inferences

Ages

Richard was born in 1617[4] and Robert in 1625[5] or 1626.[6] John never stated his age and no parish records survive from Ruddington prior to 1632, but the general belief at least as far back as Richard Deane Harris' 1960 research in The Story of the Bloods[7] has been that John was a few years older than Robert. There are some subtle hints in the surviving records that this is the case,[8] and so I have assigned a tentative year of birth of 1623 to him. Birth years of 1617, 1623 (est.), and 1625/1626 would be a reasonable spacing for siblings. While this is evidence of nothing, at least their years of birth do no eliminate siblings as a viable possibility.

Date of Emigration

Robert (and we must assume John as well) was in the Massachusetts Bay Colony not later than 1642 according to his own testimony as well as the testimony of others.[9][10] It is important to point out that in 1642, Robert was at most 16 years of age and therefore legally a minor (below 21) under English law of the 17th century. John was almost certainly still a minor in 1642 as well. Given that there are no known or even suspected parents for them to have emigrated with, then as minor children Robert and John must have emigrated with some other adult -- unaccompanied children would have no more been permitted to take ship across the Atlantic then than they would be now, except in rare cases.[11] Information gathered during the writing of this analysis of passenger ship departures from London to the English New World in 1635 uncovered a very small number of cases of children travelling alone, but always enroute to join a parent already in the American colonies. So, the absence of any known parents to make the journey to the Americas with John and Robert, or for them to join after the fact, limits us to the only two adult male Bloods in the colony in the late 1630s/early1640s: Richard and James, Sr.
  • It is widely assumed, based on the fact James was made a freeman of the colony in Jun 1641,[12] that he had been in the colony since the summer of 1639, as the process to attain freeman status took a minimum of two years for most men. Independent analyses of the founding and early development of Concord always place James and family among the colonists who settled there in 1639.[13]
  • Richard Blood and Isabell Wilkinson, both from Ruddington in far-away Nottinghamshire, were married at St Saviour's Church directly adjacent to the Pool of London on 15 Apr 1639, at the very beginning of the prime trans-Atlantic sailing season.[14] I have no other explanation for this other than the obvious: they emigrated to New England in the summer of 1639, the same time James, Sr. and his family appear to have emigrated there.
If Robert was in the colony not later than 1642 (and by implication, John as well), and we know from well-attested English history that new migration all but ceased after Dec 1640,[15] then he must have come over with either James and his family or with Richard and Isabell. There is no third choice. This means Robert and his brother John were close kin to one or both of those men.

Early Residence in the Colony

Robert and John Blood definitely resided in Lynn prior to moving to Concord in about 1649; one indirect item of evidence[16] and one direct item of evidence[17] confirm this. Richard almost certainly resided in Lynn from the time of his arrival in the Massachusetts Bay Colony until his eventual move to Groton in 1660; numerous items of evidence tie him to Lynn from his earliest appearance in the colonial records. James Sr., the only other adult male emigrant Blood, settled in Concord with wife Ellen and son James Jr. not later than 1639.[18] As minor children, Robert and John (about 13 years old and an estimated 16 years old in 1639) had to be living with a family, and we know that family had to be in Lynn. Who else could that have been other than Richard and his wife Isabell? There is simply no other realistic possibility.

Robert & John’s Ruddington Properties

The property Robert and John jointly owned in Ruddington, and which they sold in May 1649, consisted of a one-half share of a tenement, half an oxgang of plowland, and a one-quarter share of a cottage and its associated house plot.[19] This really sounds like an inheritance that has been divided up, with these two brothers jointly owning a bit less than half of the total interest. Otherwise, it’s hard to explain how two children (which Robert was until 1646 or 1647) owned land in England. I speculate that Richard inherited the other half as was typical for the eldest son and, being he was an adult prior to emigrating in 1639, had already disposed of his shares before leaving England. This would explain how he had the means to fund the journey to the New World. It would also explain how he would have been able to support Robert and John, who almost without doubt resided with him and his wife Isabell both in England and in New England.

The Lakin Connection

Richard, Robert, and John had a lifelong association with William and John Lakin of nearby Reading, Massachusetts and formerly of Ruddington in Nottinghamshire, the same town Richard, Robert, and John were from. These five men were co-founders of Groton together; Robert called on the Lakins to testify on his behalf in a court case late in his life; and William Lakin was appointed to carry out the probate inventory for Richard’s estate in 1683. Richard was almost without doubt a first cousin of William and John, and if John and Robert were his siblings then they were as well. This would explain the close association of the three Bloods and two Lakins (along with the Lakins’ stepfather William Martin) in the establishment of Groton -- it was a Blood-Lakin family enterprise. It’s worth noting the only two adult male Bloods in the colony not brought in on the Groton deal were James Blood, Sr. and James Blood, Jr. of Concord. Those two are often the outliers with respect to Richard, Robert, and John.

Signatures on the 1655 Petition to Establish Groton[20]

On this petition ten men, to include Richard, Robert, and John Blood, William and John Lakin, and the Lakins’ stepfather William Martin, are all represented by what may or may not be authentic autograph signatures – in fact it’s probably a mix of authentic signatures and proxy signatures. A careful examination of John’s signature shows it’s in his own hand as he used a very ornate and distinctive capital-J that is replicated exactly in a signature of his from a 1682 court case.[21] Richard’s signature on the petition, however, does not even remotely match later examples known to be by him. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that someone signed the petition on Richard's behalf. With the exception of the capital-B, which is somewhat different, the letter forms used to write ‘Blood’ in Richard's proxy signature on the 1655 petition match exactly with the letter forms in Blood in John’s autograph signature on the same document. The -lood- element matches letter-for-letter; both use a distinctive capital-L in Blood, as well as identical letter-d’s containing odd double loops. And neither are anywhere close to the form of Blood in Robert’s signature on the same document. It very much appears that John signed for Richard on the 1655 petition, another item of evidence showing that there was some close relationship between them.

Ruddington, Again

As stated, Robert and John owned property in Ruddington and were almost certainly from there; Richard’s probable first cousins John and William Lakin were definitely from Ruddington;[22] and Richard’s wife Isabell Wilkinson was also definitely from Ruddington.[23] It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that Richard was also from Ruddington. In fact, it would be quite unreasonable to infer otherwise given the current evidence. This leads to the conclusion that Richard, Robert, and John were not just Nottinghamshire Bloods, they were specifically Ruddington Bloods. Ruddington, while referred to as a town in some contemporary records, was more of a middling-sized village, having a population of less than 300 in 1585 and about 320 by 1603[24] It's unlikely a village of that size would have hosted unrelated Blood families. While records from the period are scant, what survives from Ruddington and the surrounding area so far shows that Ruddington Bloods are always closely related -- where it is possible to trace specific relationships, I have yet to find any two 17th century Ruddington Bloods who were more distant than first cousins. In other words, it appears this was a single extended family. Therefore, it is most probable that three Bloods from the same rural village would have also been closely related.

Richard Blood, Sr. of Ruddington

In 1633, Richard Blood Sr. of Ruddington witnessed the will of William Lakin of Ruddington. William was the father of the same William and John Lakin with whom Richard, Robert, and John would later establish Groton. In his will, William stipulated that should his two sons die prior to inheriting at the age of 23, his property and wealth would revert to “all the children of Richard Blood, Senior” once they turned 23. While the explanation is far too lengthy to go into here, this stipulation is why I and others have concluded that Richard, Robert, and John were first cousins of John and William Lakin. A close reading of the text of the will leads to the conclusions that “all the children of Richard Blood, Senior” probably referred to Richard, Robert, and John. I have a separate paper dedicated to this subject, and further explanation can be found at Richard, Sr.'s profile.

Temperament & Personality

Richard, John, and Robert Blood had what can only be described as a casual regard for the law and colonial authority:
  • Robert and John’s first appearance in the colonial record was their arrest and prosecution for assault and battery in Lynn.
  • John had an arrest warrant issued against him for refusing to take the Oath of Fidelity to the colony.[25]
  • Robert was in court for some reason (not rarely involving violence or the threat of violence) most of his life. He assaulted a constable, threatened to kill another colonist, and burned haystacks on land he claimed was his, among other things. One colonist requested Robert and John be bonded to the peace because he “went in bodily fear of them.”[26]
  • Richard was repeatedly hauled into court for selling liquor to the local native people, and in one case for trying to hide the fact his daughter Hannah was pregnant out of wedlock. He was sued for theft of public funds in Lynn and was accused of using physical force to prevent a constable of Lynn from carrying out his duties.
  • The Reverend Increase Mather once described Richard Blood of Groton as "a troublesome man in that place."[27]
Of the three, only Robert was ever made a freeman of the colony, and only then very late in his life. Richard and John either had no interest or were not accepted. Likewise, Robert and John never held any town offices despite being prominent members of the community. Richard did, but primarily in Groton which, as we’ve seen, he may have very well regarded as “his town.” So, Richard, Robert, and John were not the quiet church-going Puritans of our history books. But they were all three very much like each other, which could point to an upbringing in the same household by the same likeminded father.
Compare this to James Sr., who was never in trouble with the law in any way, held several town offices in Concord and Chelmsford, and was made a freeman very early on. His son, James, Jr., was made a deacon of the Congregationalist church. Again, James is the odd one out compared to Richard, Robert, and John.

Education

In the early 17th century, education was always private and relatively expensive. Few families below the yeomanry had the means or the need to procure it for their children. Since writing was always taught as a separate skill after the child had first learned to read, historians consider a demonstrated ability to write one’s name as evidence of full literacy. I have collected a considerable number of autograph signatures by Richard, Robert, and John. In all cases they were able to sign their names in steady, practiced hands, indicating they were used to writing and were perfectly comfortable doing it. In fact, Robert and Richard used remarkably similar letter forms in their signatures. This consistency in education, like the consistency in their temperaments and personalities, is something we could reasonably expect from brothers. Like their years of birth, it proves nothing but also fails to disprove anything, which is sometimes nearly as useful.

Family Oral Tradition

My grandfather Walter Richard Blood told me a story that had been passed down to him from his grandfather Richard Blood via his father about the original migration of Bloods to New England. While I now realise the story had been badly muddled over time with anachronistic elements added in, the essential core is that “five brothers” originally arrived in the English colonies together, eventually splitting up and going their separate ways. We know beyond doubt the initial wave of English Bloods to arrive in the MBC did in fact consist of five males, but they were certainly not all brothers (e.g., James Sr. and Jr. were father and son; James Sr. was very unlikely to have been a brother of the other three). Nonetheless, the core element of the story – that five males arrived together and then split up – matches the evidence we currently have. It certainly appears these five arrived either all together or within a very short interval of each other in the summer of 1639, with James Sr. and Jr. going directly to Concord and Richard, Robert and John settling for a time in Lynn. Robert and John would eventually leave Lynn to establish the Bloods’ Farms north of Concord (1650) and Richard would relocate permanently to Groton (1660). This is all consistent with the story’s assertion that the five “split up” at some point after arriving. But the fact that the emigration was remembered in my family as a single group of related individuals points strongly to it being exactly that – a kinship group of Ruddington Bloods moving to the New World. In other words, if this story is even somewhat accurate then we should expect that these were all closely related people. I would conjecture that had this been multiple migrations by distantly related or unrelated Nottinghamshire Bloods then the descendants of James Sr. and Jr. would have remembered two men arriving, the descendants of Robert would have remembered one or perhaps two, and the descendants of Richard would have known only him as the founder of their line.

Conclusion Concerning the Relationship Between Richard, Robert, and John Blood

I believe the most reasonable explanation for the various streams of circumstantial evidence we have at present is that Richard, Robert, and John were all brothers, the sons of Richard Blood, Sr. of Ruddington. There are some indications in the historical record that Richard, Sr. may have had two wives, and so it’s possible Richard was a son by his first wife and Robert and John were sons by the second wife. But whether full or half-brothers, I conclude it is highly likely they were all siblings.

Contradictory Evidence

What I have presented to this point is an evaluation of the evidence supporting the hypothesis that Richard, Robert, and John were brothers. But I would be remiss if I did not point out and consider the evidence that contradicts or undermines this hypothesis. Some of this contradictory evidence is easily dismissed, but some is not so easily ignored. All of it begs an explanation if this hypothesis is correct.

  • In the 1694 court case of Robert Blood vs. Josiah Blood, Robert was described as “the only brother of John" (emphasis added).[28] This would appear to be a deathblow to my hypothesis that all three were brothers, except for a few of points:
  • In 1694 both Richard and John were dead. Therefore “only brother” could be interpreted as “only brother [still living],” and according to an expert in 17th century legal documents that I’ve consulted, this phraseology was in fact used in cases like this.
  • The word ‘only’ was added using an insertion arrow (^), indicating it was added as an afterthought as an attempt to clarify Robert’s status relative to John (again, possibly that he was the only brother still living).
  • I have seen other contemporary court documents in which a person was referred to as “the only [relationship]” of someone else when they were demonstrably not the only one, living or otherwise.
  • While there was definitely interaction between Robert and John on one hand and Richard on the other (namely their cohabitation in Lynn and their joint founding of Groton), I would have expected more. Robert and John were closely associated in business dealings all their lives in Middlesex County, yet I can find no direct dealings between those two and Richard after the establishment of Groton in 1655. Perhaps there was a falling out between the two sides, perhaps records have gone missing, or perhaps they weren’t as closely related as I have come to believe.
  • Robert named sons John and James, probably to honour his brother John and James Blood, Sr. Why then did he never name a son Richard, especially if it was not only his eldest brother’s name but also his father’s name? He didn't lack for sons. Likewise, Richard picked Joseph, Nathaniel, and James as names but never named a son for Robert or John. This is outside the cultural norm for early 17th century English families and in my view is a significant item of contradictory evidence. It could be evidence of a falling out between the two men as possibly implied by their lack of business dealings after 1655, but it could also be evidence they were much more distant relations than I currently believe (although James, Sr. was clearly also a more distant relation yet both Robert and Richard appear to have named sons for him).

The Enigma of James Blood, Senior

To be completely honest, I have very little idea where or how James Blood, Sr. fits in with the other three Bloods. No surviving document either from Nottinghamshire or New England identify James’ relationship to any of the other colonial Bloods. He is an enigma. Let’s start by summarizing what we know or can infer about him, some of which has been mentioned already:

  • He was first recorded on 7 Feb 1631/2 in St Peter’s Parish, Nottingham where he executed an allegation & bond for his marriage to Ellen Harrison there the same day.
  • Later in life he testified twice to ages that would indicate a year of birth of either 1605 or 1606. However, despite the parish records for all three historical Nottingham parishes being generally complete for the first decade of the 17th century, no record of James’ birth or baptism is found in any of them.
  • 'James’ was not a name found among the proven Nottingham Bloods, so it does not seem to have been a favourite name of that family. In fact, the only Nottinghamshire Blood family to use the name James consistently prior to 1605 was the one in Ruddington. This leads me to the inference that James was probably not a Nottingham Blood but was likely there to apprentice as a cordwainer, the occupation he listed on his marriage bond. I strongly suspect he was a Ruddington Blood.
  • James was next recorded in St Mary’s Parish, Nottingham for his son James’ baptism on 11 Mar 1632/3.
  • The third earliest surviving records of James Blood is the birth of his daughter Mary on 12 Jul 1640 in Concord, Middlesex County, Massachusetts Bay Colony. This proves that James was in New England at least by this date and probably earlier. Given that pregnant women rarely risked the Atlantic crossing, this implies an arrival in the colony not later than October of 1639.
  • The fourth earliest surviving record of him is from Jun 1641 when, as a resident of Concord, he was made a freeman of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Given that the process of becoming a freeman took a minimum of two years, this points to an arrival in Concord in the summer of 1639. Richard Blood and Isabell Wilkinson married in Southwark, London in Apr 1639, almost certainly just prior to their departure for New England. This is unlikely to be a coincidence and leads me to the conclusion that Richard and Isabell (and by extension Robert and John) travelled to the New World with James Blood and his family.
  • James must have let Robert and John live with him and his family in Concord after they moved there from Lynn in about 1649, otherwise the colonial law banning unmarried men from living outside a family unit would have gotten the two in trouble with the town authorities and likely sent back to Lynn.
  • James had lands in Concord bordering properties owned by both Robert and John Blood; James’ main farm in northeast Concord shared a long border with John Blood’s main farm just outside the Concord line.
  • In 1663, James Blood and his son James, Jr. witnessed a contract between John Blood and another colonist, then testified on John’s behalf when the other party broke the contract.
  • James Blood's last will and testament, drafted on 18 Jun 1680, makes no mention of Richard, Robert or John, all of whom were still living at the time. The only male heir listed in the will is James' proven son James, Jr.
  • In a deed of 4 Feb 1690, James, Jr. referred to John Blood as "my uncle John Blood." This is interesting in that it indicates a close relationship, probably familial, was recognized by James, Jr. towards John Blood. As today, uncle at the time could mean many things, but of course “brother of my father or mother” was the most straightforward meaning, then as now.
  • As we’ve discussed already, James clearly had a much different temperament from the other three Bloods. He was an upstanding member of the Concord community, an elected official in both Concord and Chelmsford, a freeman of the colony from very shortly after his arrival, and never in trouble with the law in any way. Unlike the sons of Richard and Robert Blood, some of whom also had their run-ins with colonial authorities, James’ son James, Jr. became a deacon of the Concord church. This points to very different upbringings between Richard, Robert, and John on the one hand and James on the other.

Conclusion Concerning the Relationship Between The First Three and James Blood

If there is an ultimate question concerning these four Bloods, the nature of James’ relationship to the others is it. The easy answer is “there’s insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.” But the most useful answer comes from following the advice of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who said, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Here’s my assessment of the possibilities in light of his advice:

  1. They were not related: Impossible. It’s too rare a surname, they all came from within five miles of each other in England and probably from the same village, they all appear to have emigrated at the same time in 1639 if not together, and they clearly associated with each other in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (at least James, Sr. and James, Jr. with Robert and John).
  2. They were father and sons: Impossible. James was only 12 when Richard was born, so that father-son relationship is impossible. James wasn’t married until at least five years after Robert was born and as many as seven years after John was born. We might as well call that impossible as well. Such things simply did not happen in deeply religious England, and certainly not in the Puritan bastion of Nottingham. Robert and John were minor children when they arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but they didn’t go live with their “father” in Concord? Why not? They were teenagers and would have provided free labour on James’ new frontier farm. There’s no way James would have left his two teenage sons in Lynn and taken only his 6-year-old son (James, Jr.) with him to Concord. That doesn’t pass even the most basic requirement of common sense. Also, as mentioned previously James Blood's will of 1680 makes no mention of Richard, Robert or John, all of whom were older than James' known son James, Jr. Per English inheritance law, the oldest son had to be bequeathed his proper share (at least one-third) of the father's estate and the other sons would be provided something, even if only a token amount. Yet the only son James mentions is his proven son James, Jr., who inherits virtually all of James' estate.
  3. They were uncle and nephews: Impossible. We know the names of all the uncles of Richard, Robert, and John who were still alive in 1598, and there was no James among them.
  4. They were brothers: Improbable, but not impossible. We have the 1690 record of James, Jr. calling John Blood his uncle. Did he mean it in the literal sense, that John was his father’s brother? The timing of James’ birth in 1605 or 1606 isn’t a dealbreaker as we know Richard, Robert, and John’s father Richard Blood, Sr. of Ruddington was married not later than 1601. James' will would not be a problem either, as there was no legal requirement to leave anything to, or even mention, one's siblings in one's will. There are other very serious problems with this possibility, but in deference to Sir Arthur’s previous admonition, these problems only place this one in the realm of the highly improbable, not the impossible.
  5. They were first cousins: Improbable, but not impossible. While we know the names of all of Richard, Robert, and John’s uncles, we know virtually nothing about uncles Robert or [[Blood-1981|Edward]. They both would have been in the right age range to have had a son born in 1605 or 1606.
  6. They were second cousins: Impossible. We also know the names of both the great-uncles of Richard, Robert and John. Great-uncle Edmund died childless in 1592 and great-uncle James died in 1604, the year before the earliest possibility for James' year of birth. Also, great-uncle James only named a daughter in his will, meaning he had no living sons.

So, we’re left with two improbable possibilities; they were brothers and they were first cousins. Given that there are too many unresolvable problems with brothers, but at the same time unrelated is not an option, I'm inclined toward the conclusion that James was a first cousin of Richard, John, and Robert.

UPDATE 12 Dec 2024: Based on re-examination of two documents I've had for a while but never made the connection between, I now believe it likely that James Blood of Nottingham and Concord was also this James Blood of Ruddington, the son of John Blood, who was the brother of Richard, John, and Robert's father Richard Blood. In other words, it now appears likely James was indeed a first cousin of Richard, John, and Robert as previously predicted.

Sources

  1. ↑ Case of Robert Blood vs. Abraham Shephard, 3 & 27 Apr 1677 (digital images of 57 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 79, entry 1678-79-2, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946
  2. ↑ Case of Robert Blood vs. Josiah Blood, 4 Sep 1694 (digital images of 9 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 182, entry 1694-182-3, image 561, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946
  3. ↑ "England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, Ancestry.com (https://ancestry.com : accessed 11 Apr 2021), entry: James, Male, 11 Mar 1631, St Mary, Nottingham, Nottingham[shire], England, father James Bludd, FHL Film No. 503797, Reference ID 2:1201SR6.
  4. ↑ "Ages from Court Records, 1636-1700," database with images, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/7488:49021?ssrc=pt&tid=32380612&pid=18245663855 : accessed 5 Mar 2021), image of page from Sanborn, entry for Richard Blood Middlesex County Court; database reflects information taken from Lutz, Melinde. Ages from Court Records, 1636-1700: Essex, Middlesex, and Suffolk counties, Massachusetts, Volume 1, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, United States, p.27.
  5. ↑ Petition by Robert Blood for a general settlement of the bounds between his farms and the surrounding towns, 29 May 1700 (digital image of the original document), Massachusetts Archives Collection, 1603-1799, Vol. 243, Ancient Plans and Grants, 1649-1774, Microfilm Reel A-87 (GSU 00500-002-2318835), pp.5-6, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arccol/colvol3.htm
  6. ↑ Case of Robert Blood, Jr. vs. Thomas Brown, 16 Jun 1684 (digital images of 6 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 107, entry 1684-107-2b, image 901, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946
  7. ↑ Harris, Roger Deane. The Story of the Bloods, G.K. Hall & Co., Sanbornville, New Hampshire, United States: 1960, p.5. The Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/storyofbloodsinc00unse
  8. ↑ 1. In all cases in which the two brothers are listed together in official documents John is always named before Robert, which indicates John was the elder of the two. 2. In documents both signed jointly, John always signed before Robert. 3. The sale of their jointly-owned property in Ruddington in 1649 points to the brothers having to wait until Robert (born ca. 1626) had legally inherited, and not John. While the typical age of inheritance was 21, relatives of Robert and John in Ruddington had stipulated 23 years of age instead, and that may have been the case for Robert as well.
  9. ↑ Confirmation of Deeds held by Robert Blood, 3 Jun 1684 (digital image of a hand-written copy of original document entered into the county deed book), Massachusetts Land Records, 1620-1986, Middlesex County, Deeds, 1696-1716, Vol. 12, pp.110-111, Massachusetts State Archives, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
  10. ↑ Petition by Robert Blood for a general settlement of the bounds between his farms and the surrounding towns, 29 May 1700 (digital image of the original document), Massachusetts Archives Collection, 1603-1799, Vol. 243, Ancient Plans and Grants, 1649-1774, Microfilm Reel A-87 (GSU 00500-002-2318835), pp.5-6, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arccol/colvol3.htm
  11. ↑ The only exception that appears to have existed during the Puritan Great Migration was a child crossing the Atlantic in order to joing a parent already in New England.
  12. ↑ Andrews, H.F. (arranged by). List of Freemen of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, From 1630 to 1691, Exira Printing Company, Exira, Iowa, United States: 1906. The Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/cu31924028814304 (image 12).
  13. ↑ Gerrity, Robert M., Concord's First Settlers, 1636-1643 (https://yankeeancestry.tripod.com/firstsettlers.html : accessed 20 Feb 2023).
  14. ↑ "Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812," database with images, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1624/images/48220_263021009500_3388-00280?pId=160761849 : accessed 1 Feb 2022); Information from image: "St Saviour Southwark, Aprill 15 Richard Blood & Isabell Wilkinson [married] p[er] li[centiam]."
  15. ↑ Anderson, Robert Charles. “A Note on the Changing Pace of the Great Migration,” The New England Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Sep, 1986), pp.406-407. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/365337
  16. ↑ Dow, George Francis (editor) and Tapley, Harriet S. (transcriptionist). Records and Files of the Quarterly Court of Essex County, Vol. I, 1636-1656, entry for 9:5:1647, pp.132-133. The Essex Institute, Salem, Massachusetts, United States: 1911. http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/Essex/vol1/table/index.html
  17. ↑ Case of Robert Blood vs. Josiah Blood, 4 Sep 1694 (digital images of 9 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 182, entry 1694-182-3, image 561, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946
  18. ↑ We know this because of his grant of freeman status in Concord in Jun 1641. Freeman status was tied to membership of a specific Congregationalist church during the period prior to application; if a colonist moved to a new location, they would have to start the process over with the new church. Given that two years was the minimum time to qualify for freeman status, this makes it hard to come up with any other scenario other than James must have resided in Concord from the summer of 1639.
  19. ↑ Record of Sale of Property in Ruddington, England by John and Robert Blood (digital image of copyist's entry), Massachusetts Land Records, 1620-1986, Essex County, Deeds, Vol. 1, 1639-1658, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
  20. ↑ Petition to the General Court for the Establishment of the Town of Groton, Undated but bef. 25 May 1655 (digital image of original document). Groton Historical Papers, Ms. N-1340, Box 1, Groton Town Papers, 1646-1849, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
  21. ↑ Case of Concord vs. John & Robert Blood, 27 Sep - 3 Oct 1682 (digital images of 6 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 99, entry 1682-99-2f, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946 (images 599-602).
  22. ↑ They were both listed in the 1633 will of their father William Lakin, who lived and died in Ruddington.
  23. ↑ This is proven by the 1630 will of her father, Robert Wilkinson of Ruddington.
  24. ↑ Dingle, Joan Margaret. Kinship and Mobility in Early Modern England: Case Studies from Nottinghamshire. Thesis Submission, The University of Calgary, Jun 1997, p.21. Online at https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/26988/24581Dingle.pdf;jsessionid=F8CF8C675EDB6502C2925112B23EAF75?sequence=1
  25. ↑ Case of the Colony vs. John Blood, summons to appear for refusing Oath of Fidelity, 24 Mar 1653 (digital image of original document), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 9, Section 2b, Image 188, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946
  26. ↑ Case of Samuel Hunt vs. Robert Blood, 4 Apr 1654 (digital images of 8 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 9, entry 1654-9-2b, images 188-189, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946
  27. ↑ Mather, Increase (arranged by Green, Samuel A.). Diary by Increase Mather, March, 1675 -- December, 1676, Together With Extracts From Another Diary of Him, 1674-1687. Published by John Wilson and Son, Cambridge University Press: 1900, pp. 45-46. The Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/diary00mathgoog/page/n52/mode/2up
  28. ↑ Case of Robert Blood vs. Josiah Blood, 4 Sep 1694 (digital images of 9 original documents), Middlesex County Court Folio Collection, Folio 182, entry 1694-182-3, image 561, Published by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts State Archives, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Online at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/210946




Images: 2
Ensign of New England (with King's Colours)
Ensign of New England (with King's Colours)
Comparison of Signatures of Richard & John Blood
Comparison of Signatures of Richard & John Blood
Collaboration
  • Login to edit this profile and add images.
  • Private Messages: Send a private message to the Profile Manager. (Best when privacy is an issue.)
  • Public Comments: Login to post. (Best for messages specifically directed to those editing this profile. Limit 20 per day.)


Comments

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.