William Throope (1637-1704) Research Notes

Surname/tag: Throope

This page contains the Research Notes for William Throope (bef.1637-1704).

Contents 1 Research Notes 1.1 Connection between Nottinghamshire and New England 1.2 Conflated? 1.3 Disputed Family Tradition 1.4 Across Throup's Bridge 1.5 Response to Across Throup's Bridge #1 1.6 Response to Across Throup's Bridge #2 1.7 Land 2 Sources

Research Notes

Connection between Nottinghamshire and New England

It is possible to argue that William Throope of New England is not the same person as William Throope of Nottinghamshire by comparing birthdates (See below). As shown above the will of the New England William would give a birthdate of between 5 December 1637 and 12 June 1638. We know that the Nottinghamshire William was baptised on 19 March 1637 which would be nine months too early. However, we know from his father's will that Nottinghamshire William was not in England at the time of writing, but his location was not given. An error of a less than a year is hardly unknown in records of that time.

The evidence that they are the same can be summarised as follows:

1. They have the exact unusual name. Throope is not a common name
2. The age of baptism in England corresponds to age given in America to the same year
3. William Throope the Younger disappeared from English records at time of his appearance in America
4. His father's will mentions his emigration and that he is not expected back
5. William Throope the Younger names one of his sons William. Puritans do not generally use non-biblical names and this is the only such name among the children.

Conflated?

William is described as settling in Barnstable (now in MA), and then removing to Bristol (now in RI) by Sep 1681. Additional records have been found and added to the biography for a William Troop in Barnstable in 1684 and 1686. Are two William Throop(e)s/Troops being conflated?

Disputed Family Tradition

For many years there was a family tradition that William Throope (abt.1637-1704) who married Mary Chapman), was the son of Colonel Adrian Scrope, the regicide, and Mary Waller.^[1].

• Louise Walsh Throop (Mayflower genealogist, Throop author, Throop DNA project leader) wrote an article for The American Genealogist entitled "Proposed Etiology of the Throope-Scroope Tradition"^[2] in which she says:

"Though it is certain that an Adrian Scroope was briefly in Hartford soon after the Restoration and there is a distinct possibility that he may have been son the regicide of that name, no evidence has been found to connect him with the Bristol William Throope."

• But then again, the famous astronomer Carl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

• Note that descriptions of the "supposed deathbed confession" of William Throope and discussion of the disputed family tradition in some cases refer to William as taking the name of Colonel Adrian Scrope (bef.1601-1660), and in other cases of being Adrian Scrope (abt.1638-abt.1704), son of Colonel Adrian Scrope (bef.1601-1660). Spratlin-29 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• This allegation comes from Across Throup's Bridge, which uses an unattributed direct quotation from William Throope. When and where was this statement made by William? Who recorded it? Why would he have used a statement in the third person, "He had just changed his name from Colonel Adrian Scroope." A thorough search of Google has been conducted, which found no source other than this one. This allegation does not meet the standards for Wikitree sources.

Across Throup's Bridge

—Most of this section contributed by Anonymous Todd
—Comments in brackets contributed by C. Brooman

In 1986, researchers Malcolm Throup and Margaret Throup Lancaster authored Across Throup’s Bridge, a definitive history of the Throup family in England.^[3] They reported a very interesting story about William Throope, the son of William Throope and Isabell Redshaw:

"William Jnr, baptised 19th March 1636 (old calendar 1637 commenced 25th March) was a mysterious and deceptive fellow. He married Elizabeth Cooke, aged 22 of Lound, in 1664. His father, on his death in 1669 stated in his Will: ‘If my son William Throope do return into his native country he shall enjoy an equal portion with the rest of my children.’

"All very normal as though expecting him to return, though nothing is heard of William in England again. It is recorded that Elizabeth, wife of William Throupe Jnr., was buried at Lound the 26th July 1669.

"What follows is an extremely interesting and curious story, wide open to speculation and theory.

"A ‘William Throope of England’ married Mary Chapman at Barnstaple [sic], Mass., New England on the 4th [sic] May 1666. Mary was the daughter of Ralph Chapman who came from Southwark [sic], London in 1635 aged 20 as ships Carpenter on the ‘Elizabeth’.

"William Throope in his own words said ‘he had just changed his name from Colonel Adrian Scroope’. [Source of direct quotation in third person?] He and Mary traveled into the New England interior by ox cart. He became Surveyor of Highways, Grand Juryman and Representative, finally dying in December 1704 aged 67 [incorrect interpretation of "year of his age"; he was 66] commencing his Will “In the name and fear of God”. A somewhat unusual wording. Three of his children were baptized (in the English Throope tradition), John, William and Thomas. This story is related in the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 1905, vol 36, a lengthy article and an interesting account of American ‘Throop’ history. The writer must not have known of the marriage of William Throope to Elizabeth Cooke, or of other Nottinghamshire Throopes. In all fairness, the article was written in the era before Parish Records were centralized and placed on microfilm. Perhaps with the aid of modern research facilities, a different conclusion might have been reached.

"The above would not be complete without some elaboration on Col. Adrian Scroope. Col. Adrian, the regicide (signatory to the Death Warrant of Charles I) was executed in 1660, aged 58 as retribution for this deed, on the restoration of the English monarchy, without ever having left England’s shores.

"Without any doubt, Col. Adrian Scroope the regicide and William Throope of New England could not possibly have been one and the same. [There is no proof or source that he ever claimed to be Colonel Adrian.] Whatever connection they had in England, if any, will never be known. [Or, more accurately, is not presently known.] Therefore, the mystery still remains as to why William assumed the name of a dead man [no proof] and why he used both signatures, examples of which still survive [They don't know what they're talking about here; they're trying to copy what others have written, but got it wrong]. From facts given we know that William’s first wife Elizabeth was still alive in 1666 [This is a bold accusation of adultery, and completely unfounded], and as eldest son he would expect a good inheritance under his father’s Will. [begin speculation] On reaching America and meeting Mary Chapman two factors must have been uppermost in his mind. In order to marry Mary he must rid himself of his real identity, but when the time arises for him to claim his inheritance he must undoubtedly be known as William Throope. So we have William Throope purporting to be Adrian Scroope who has just assumed the new identity of William Throope. A classic case of retention by deception. [end speculation]

"What is certain is that William Throope was a Puritan who gained the respect of his fellow pioneers in mastering the hardships of primitive New England, and whose descendants, we are told, have shown marked character and ability. Their achievements are too numerous to list here. To mention but a few, one descendant was Enos Thompson Throope, the 8th Governor of New York in 1829 to 1832, and Minister to the Court of Naples. His brother George became Senator and Bank President. There were countless Ministers of Religion, farmers, lawyers, doctors and high-ranking army officers. So loyal to their adoptive country had they become, that during the War of Independence they refused to take the British side.

"At the present time, there, is still functioning, the California Institute of Technology, an internationally known scientific and engineering school at Paseda [sic]. It was founded by Amos G. Throop in 1891 as the Throop Polytechnic Institute and assumed its present name in 1920.

"In addition there is a place actually called Throop, a borough in Lackawanna County. This is a coal mining district named after Dr. Benjamin Throop of Scranton, who had established iron works there, owned mines, and amassed a fortune, which he put to good use. A surgeon himself, he founded the Lackawanna Hospital, which he supported at his own expense until 1874 when the State assumed control. Thus in a different continent, but in the same way, the family continued the tradition started by their ancestors in the 15th century, or earlier, of providing for those not as fortunate as themselves, and it is gratifying to know that they played no small part in the foundation of that great country."

Response to Across Throup's Bridge #1

—Contributed by Louise Walsh Throop

The Malcom Throop book must be read with caution, and lineages in England need to be supported by Y-DNA testing. [See the Throop project housed with FamilyTreeDNA.] There is a possible connection by marriage of the Throop brothers to the Separatist preacher John Smyth, and possible connection [by a misspelling in the Netherlands] to the English printer associated with John Smyth: Gyles Thorp [see Gyles Throope married 1604 Margaret Smyth].

Response to Across Throup's Bridge #2

—Contributed by C. Brooman
—Revised by Stephen Trueblood

The book Across Throup's Bridge does not qualify as a professional family history book. It is written like a gossip piece for a supermarket tabloid, filled with equal measures unsourced material, assumptions and speculation. They even purport to know William's thoughts! The authors did not read the sources of which they speak, and made many factual errors. They used unattributed quotations, such as the one claiming a direct statement from William (in the third person, oddly) that he had changed his name from "Colonel Adrian Scroope." There are misspellings galore, which were corrected in the quotation above, making it an inaccurate quote of the original text, rather than the low quality, sloppily researched and sloppily written text that it was. I put the misspellings back in, along with commentary outlining the statements that many of his actual descendants (of which I am one) find objectionable.

The authors got in over their heads, having absolutely no idea how to read the materials from the pre-1700 time period. They then judged Deacon William Throope as a "mysterious and deceptive fellow" based on their own erroneous misinterpretations of the facts and set out to destroy him. From this point forward, they put on blinders and examined only what they wanted to see, discarding, or telling us to ignore what they did not want us to see. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Nottingham Claim Based on Erroneous Calculation

The entire basis for the claim that William Throope of Nottingham and William Throope of Bristol were one and the same person was based on the authors' misinterpretation of the pre-1700 phrase "in ye 67th yeare of his age," found in William's Will and in the epitaph on his well-preserved, slate gravestone amongst the oldest stones in Bristol's East Burial Ground.

They made the assumption that the phrase was equivalent to "aged 67" (note same in the quote from the book) and subtracted 67 from 1704 to get 1637. They then proclaimed the two men to be one and the same person, based on nothing more than this supposed (but erroneous) coincidence of year of birth. (They have no source tying the man in Nottingham to the man in Bristol, which would be considered requisite standard of proof by organizations such as the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and the Daughters of the American Revolution.)

But they erred in making an assumption that "in ye 67th yeare of his age" was equivalent in meaning to "aged 67." In fact, the two phrases are not equivalent. The "yeare of his age" phrase originates well before 1700, although it was used in old burying grounds up until around the time of the American Revolution.

The people of that time period considered birth to age one to be the first year. The day after a child had his first birthday, he was said to be "in" his second year, though his second birthday was still 364 days away. (This was similar to the way in which we count centuries. We are "in" the 21st century, but the year 2100 is still 78 years away.)

William was 66 years old, not 67. They were off by a year on the estimation of his age!

First Corroboration

The further back one goes in time, the more frequently the "year of his age" phrase is encountered on gravestones, especially those in the oldest burying grounds in Colonial New England, which has some of the oldest and best-preserved stones in the United States, dating to the 17th century. And when the year of birth and year of death were precisely known, it was found that the actual age at death was always one year less than the stated "year of his age." This requires an intact, legible gravestone (extant stones from this time period are getting harder to find, as many are prone to spalling), and accurate town records (which New England has in spades).

An exchange of email with a Yale historian and author, who studies old burying grounds, provided one corroboration. This man has taken hundreds of photographs of old gravestones, and confirmed that "nth year of his age" was indeed equivalent to an actual age of "n minus one."

Calculation of American William Throope's Birth Date Range

William stated that he was "in the sixty seventh year of my age" when he wrote his will on June 12, 1704. He was still "in ye 67th yeare of his age" when he died on December 4, 1704. His age did not change between June 13th and December 4th, so these dates can be excluded from possible birthdays. (June 12th is not excluded, because it is unknown whether his age on that date had changed from the previous day.)

The range of possible birth dates depends on when he might have turned 67. The earliest date on which he could have had a birthday was the day after he died, on December 5, 1704, and the latest was on June 12, 1705, if his birthday had been on the day he wrote his will. Subtracting 67 from each of these endpoints gives a range of birthdates from (earliest possible) December 5, 1637, to (latest possible) June 12, 1638.

But in terms of probability, the chances of him (or anyone) having a birthday in the last 27 days of 1704, a leap year, are 27/366 x 100 = a very low 7.4 percent. Or, stated another way, the odds that he had already had his birthday earlier in the year were 339/366 x 100 = a very high 92.6 percent.

In summary, the entire range of birth dates for William Throope runs from December 5, 1637, through June 12, 1638, but the odds are higher that his birthday fell between Jan 1st and June 12th, 1638. Or, simply "ca. 1638."

Second Confirmation

In 1917, Mabel Thatcher Rosemary Washburn, the genealogical editor of The Journal of American History wrote an article titled "Was Adrian Scrope, the Regicide, the Ancestor of the American Throop Family?"^[4]

Ms. Washburn wrote the following in paragraph three:

"William Throop, or Throope, was born about 1638, as we learn from his will, made on June 12, 1704, which begins, 'In the name and Fear of God, Amen. I, William Throope, in Ye County of Bristol, yeoman, in the sixty-seventh year of my age and being under some indisposition of body.' "

From this sentence in William's will, and only this, she calculated that he was born "about 1638." The only way she could have arrived at this birth year was: 1704 - 66 = 1638.

Ms. Washburn derived an age of 66 solely from the "sixty seventh year of my age" phrase, due to its being equivalent to an actual age of "n minus one," or 66. More significantly, she provided no explanation about the meaning of the phrase. Just over 100 years ago, Ms. Washburn must have felt there was a solid understanding of this phrase among the readers of The Journal of American History magazine, such that no explanation was necessary.

In other words, it appears that this phrase has only in recent decades dropped out of the vocabulary of modern genealogists. One has to be familiar with pre-1700 terminology and American history to know that "in ye 67th yeare of his age" is not equivalent to "age 67," "aged 67," or age in years, months and days.

Two Different People

We now know that Deacon William Throope of Bristol, Colonial Massachusetts, was not yet living at the time William Throope of Sutton cum Lound, Nottinghamshire, was baptised.

Therefore, these two men were two different people.

Missing Link between Nottinghamshire and New England

The gap in ages is between a carefully recorded baptismal record and William's own statement about his age. He stated in his Will "...being under some indisposition of Body (but Retayning my Memory & understanding Praised be God)," so he was in full possession of his memory and reasoning abilities when he wrote, "...in the sixty seventh year of my age...," an older term meaning partway into the 67th year (age 66 plus). It's hard to argue in favor of a discrepancy here. If William had been born in the late winter of 1636/37, he would have had his 67th birthday in early 1704, and would have been some months "into" his 68th year, so would have written in his Will, "...in the sixty eighth year of my age..."

Additionally, when applying for membership in the General Society of Mayflower Descendants, there are stringent standards that must be followed for conclusively linking each "line carrier" to his or her parents.

Therefore, this writer's successful Mayflower application (Howland) had to show not only that 3rd great grandfather, in the age before birth and death certificates, was the son of the fourth great grandfather (will, deed), but also that the man who died in another location was that very same son (cemetery record). Merely a coicidence of names is not considered to be proof.

We have no such link proving that the William Throope who appeared in Barnstable, Plymouth County, Colony of Massachusetts, was the very same person as the man who was baptized in Sutton cum Lound. Therefore, the link between William Throope of Barnstable/Bristol and William Throope and Isabell Redshaw of Nottinghamshire has not been conclusively proved by standards that would be acceptable to the GSMD.

William Snr. of Nottingham states in his Will, "If my son William Throope do return into his native country...," but does not indicate where his son has gone. The authors then add, "All very normal as though expecting him to return, though nothing is heard of William in England again." Saying that William has gone to America is speculative at best. With his father expecting his imminent return, it's not likely he went as far as America, so Europe was more likely. Perhaps he did come back from abroad, after all, and went to London, then died in the plague in 1665, or in the Great Fire in 1666. There are any number of tragedies that could have befallen a man in 17th-Century England, the most tumultous century in England's history.

Land

Possible mention in list of the lands of Robert Parker, Barnstable, Plymouth Colony.^[5]

Sources

1. ↑ Evelyn Fish Knudson, William Throope and Adrian Scrope: The Family Tradition; History of the Scrope Family and the Barony of Bolton; Bolton Castle; Proceedings at the Trial of Adrian Scrope; The Regicides and the Ancestral Chart of Adrian Scrope (East St. Louis, Illinois: Privately Printed, 1943); image copy, Archive.org (https://archive.org/details/williamthroopead00knud/page/n8/mode/1up).
2. ↑ Louise Walsh Throop, "Proposed Etiology of the Throope-Scroope Tradition," The American Genealogist (New Haven, CT: D. L. Jacobus, 1981), Vol. 57, pp110-112; image copy, AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society (https://www.americanancestors.org/DB283/i/12607/110/0). [discusses the etiology of the Throope-Scroope claim]
3. ↑ Malcolm Throup and Margaret Throup Lancaster, Across Throup’s Bridge (Gillroyd Mills, Wide Lane, Morley LS27 8PY: The Moxon Press Ltd, 1986) pp39-42; image copy, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/148208-across-throup-s-bridge-a-family-history-through-six-centuries?offset=).
4. ↑ Washburn, Mabel Thatcher Rosemary, genealogical editor; "Was Adrian Scrope, the Regicide, the Ancestor of the American Throop Family?"; The Journal of American History; Volume XI, First Quarter, Number 1, 1917; pp. 103-107; published by the National Historical Society; Greenfield, Indiana., Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLQTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103).
5. ↑ Town Clerk, Barnstable, Massachusetts, Town records, 1640-ca.1855 [Barnstable, Massachusetts], Town records, vol. 1-2, 1640-1774, p33; database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-9979-49WY-M?i=100&cc=2061550), image 101. [date requires further research]