A Puritan gathering, from “New England, old and new; a brief review of some historical and industrial incidents in the Puritan “New English Canaan,” still the Land of promise.” via Wikimedia; public domain.
Since we have been time-traveling to the 1600s in New England, sharing some court records that were published in the Salem, Massachusetts genealogy and history magazine called Essex Antiquarian might help give us a better sense of how a community operated, proscribed behavior, and punished those who did not follow the rules (and were caught).
These records are a circa 1900 transcription of records published from the Salem [Essex County, Massachusetts] Quarterly Court Records and Files, Court, 27:10:1642 [maybe 27 December 1642?, since the first month of the year was March in Old Style (O.S.) dating, so the 10th month would be December. Need to research this to make sure the month was not changed by the transcriber to the New Style (N.S.) dating we still use, in which the 10th month is October.] We have also included some records from the second court session, 28:12:1642. These records are available on the New England Historic Genealogical Society’s website, AmericanAncestors.org, which does require a paid membership to access most of their records. (Worth it!) These records were in the Essex Antiquarian, Volume 4, pages 123-5.
Research has shown that our earliest Burnell ancestor yet found, Robert Burnell, was born in Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts in 1669, married there to Sarah Chilson, and died in Lynn in 1737. Their son John Burnell was born there in 1696 too, but this family has not yet been thoroughly researched in this time and place. (So many ancestors, so little research time.) It is very highly likely that Robert’s parents lived in Lynn, for at least a short period of time since he was born there. Robert’s parents (names unknown) or their parents may been in the courtroom for one of the following cases!
These court cases are not written exactly as published, in order for them to be more clear to the modern reader. If I have corrected all the spell-check corrections, they will have retained some of the charming spelling and phrases of the 1600s. Sections in quotation marks are directly from the records transcribed.
Will of Samuel Smith of Enon proved. J[onathan or John] Thorndyke deposed [stated] that Samuel “had his senses” when the will was written. George Emory deposed that “The vapors in his stomake caused paine in his head,” etc.
Alcoholic beverages were used for hydration instead of water to prevent water-borne illnesses like dysentery, parasites, etc. Even children drank spirits, such as cider or “small” beer which was watered down. Excessive use of alcohol by some was a problem in the 1600s as it has been for centuries. Here are a few cases that indicate such:
“Joseph Dalebar testified that Singleton was distempered with liquor and reeled out of Kieney’s house.” There was another witness as well.
“Thomas Gary of Marblehead, whipped for drunkeness.”
Thomas Tuck of Salem was “fined for drunkeness and tippling.” Tippling is drinking small amounts of alcohol continuously, or larger amounts excessively, but apparently Thomas finally got enough to make him drunk. One Roger Scott was taken to court for “idle speeches and excessive drinking.”
Wonder if there was some alcohol involved in this case:
John Peach Sr. was “fined for giving Trustrum Doliver opprobrious provoking words urging to a breach of ye peace.” ‘Opprobrious’ is derived from the Latin for “to reproach or taunt.” Hopefully there was only the urge to break the peace after these words, rather than a real fight.
All sorts of cases passed through the court: A Mr. Johnson was cited for ” breach of town order, felling trees.” [No noisy chainsaws in those days, though.]
A servant named Henry Bullflower visited and entered the houses of two residents “in time of public meeting on Lord’s day, and there taking and eating provisions.” He was severely whipped for breaking and entering and eating.
Twelve men were taken to court for keeping their cattle “in ye common corn fields, and 11 were fined. One man was not fined, “his cattle being “diseased.” [? maybe not right in the head so they wandered?] Another man was only levied half of the fine, as the cattle were his brother’s “a poor man Gone for England & his wife here” per the court record. (This does show how families migrated together so they could work together to survive in the New World.)
Frances Perry went to court for “putting his oxen in to South field before harvest.” The towns had even more regulations for farming than there are today, but following them was important. The community had common fields and assigned each family a proscribed lot. These oxen may have trampled and eaten part of the neighboring crop; even if they didn’t, Goodman Perry was breaking the rules and must be punished for that.
The term “quit” is used in legal parlance to mean vacate, give up possession, or discontinue. “Suffering” means allowing. This is my favorite of today’s notices:
“William Keney of Marblehead presented for suffering disorder in his house. Quit; not being his house.”
Ahh, legal technicalities.
Notes, Sources, and References:
The Essex Antiquarian. Salem, MA: The Essex Antiquarian, 13 vols. 1897-1909. (Online database: AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2006.) Volume 4, pages 123-126.
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
“Don’t text and fly.” Unknown source but all over the internet. Very clever. Photos give us a lot of clues- for instance, the family that lives here probably has teenagers. ;D And there are just no images of Mary Bliss Parsons, but I needed something to open this post.
If you haven’t completely overdosed on sugar and chocolate from Halloween, you may remember that we have our own accused witch in the family tree.
Hopefully not in the above kind of tree.
Let’s return to our own Mary (Bliss) Parsons…
Rumors about Mary continued to ‘fly’ in Northampton and Springfield despite her winning the slander case against Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman. Life, however, seemed to go on, with townspeople trading with each other despite the fear of evil in the neighborhood. This is one of the most curious things about a ‘witch’ in the community- despite the animosity of the accusations, the accused witch and her family were generally still able to do business in town, work for others, sell their crops or other goods, etc. The interdependence of a small frontier community always had to come first.
Eighteen years passed without significant incident, but bad feelings and nasty rumors continued concerning Mary and witchcraft. Joseph and Mary had more healthy children, prospered, as had most of their adult children as well. Mary’s mother, Margaret (Hullins) Bliss, along with Mary’s brothers, had also become successful after their move to Northampton following the death of Thomas Bliss, Mary’s father.
The bad luck of Sarah and James Bridgman continued, however. James had not moved up in the community economically, socially, or politically. Their married daughter, Mary (Bridgman) Bartlett died at about age 22 in August of 1674. The young mother had been healthy and then died suddenly, with no apparent illness. James Bridgman and his son-in-law Samuel Bartlett later testified that, “she came to her end by some unlawful and unnatural means.” They thought her death had been, “by means of some evil instrument.” The men appeared in the county court and requested inquiry into the matter. Mary (Bliss) Parsons knew the gossip, so decided to appear in court of her own accord, “desiring to clear herself of such an execrable crime.” The local magistrates did listen to Mary and evidence given, but deferred any decision until their next meeting, which was to be in November. Very little of the court records survive, but the second hearing was deferred until 5 January 1675.
In January more depositions were taken, and the court called Mary “to speak for herself.” Mary asserted her own innocence and continued, saying she was clear of the crime. The court records stated that she added, “the righteous God knew her innocency- with whom she had left her cause.” For a woman of that time, standing up in court to magistrates and the community was impressive, but Mary had the courage to do so. The young widower, Samuel Bartlett, was also in court this time, and provided the magistrates with testimonies, “many and various, some of them being demonstrations of witchcraft, and others sorely reflecting upon Mary Parsons as being guilty that way.”
Winter in New York- similar to that in Massachusetts. William Rickarby Miller [No restrictions or Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsThe county court decided to invest in more inquiry, although they had determined that the case should go on to a higher court, in Boston. Because it was winter in New England, and there was quite a distance for all those involved to travel to Boston, the court ordered her person to be examined by “Soberdized, Chast women” who would “make Diligent Search upon ye body of Mary Parsons, whether any marks of witch craft might appear.” These marks could include a mole or birth mark, an anatomical deformity, or even a bruise or insect bite- it was believed that any of these types of ‘witch marks’ would prove that Mary had a ‘familar’ (a devil or spirit that could take various shapes, often as a cat) and therefore truly a witch. This report (which has not survived) along with the case documents was sent to Boston. Mary Bliss Parsons now was in the fearful position of being officially the defendant, accused of murder via her witchcraft.
Interestingly, most likely at the same proceeding, there had been testimony that Mary’s 24 year old unmarried son John Parsons had a part in his mother’s witchcraft, or that he was a witch himself- the specifics are just not available. Few men were prosecuted as witches, and the court decided there was not, “any such weight whereby he should be prosecuted on suspicion of witchcraft.”
Mary was taken to Boston on 2 March 1675, stood before a Grand Jury, and was indicted on charges of witchcraft. Additionally, she was to be imprisoned in Boston for ten weeks while awaiting trial. Mary’s incarceration, being well-to-do, would not have been quite as miserable as for the lower classes in jail, but it surely was a horrible two and a half months after her comparative life of luxury. In those days, a family had to bring in or pay for meals, clothing, bedding,- even water for the prisoner. Mary’s family could easily afford her meals and warm clothes for a still-cold March and April in Boston, and probably paid for a larger cell that she could have to herself. Joseph owned warehouses in Boston so he had a place to stay and could conduct business, and visit his wife regularly. Still, being jailed and with a trial for witchcraft looming, it must have been a terrible and frightening experience.
“Marched from jail for the last time,” fictional character Dulcibel Burton, illustration, Dulcibel : A tale of old Salem, by Henry Peterson, Philadelphia : John C. Winston, 1907, painting by Howard Pyle (1853-1911) via Wikimedia Commons; public domain. Hopefully it was not this dramatic for Mary as she was taken to the courtroom, but she likely was thinking it could end up this way if she was found guilty of witchcraft.
The official charge was read at Mary’s trial on 13 May 1675: “Mary Parsons, the wife of Joseph Parsons, …being instigated by the Devil, hath entered into familiarity with the Devil, and committed several acts of witchcraft on the person or persons of one or more.” Mary was standing at the bar as she listened to the charge, raised her hand, and stated that she was not guilty. Although the court was filled with the elite of the colony including the governor, indicating Mary’s social rank and her husband’s connections, it was a jury of twelve men from the local area who decided her fate. Mary spoke on her own behalf, and part of the minimal records remaining state simply, on 13 May 1675: “The jury brought in their verdict. They found her not guilty. And so she was discharged.”
As had been the case before, although Mary (Bliss) Parsons had been legally cleared of witchcraft, the stigma of being ‘evil’ did not leave her. We will explore more about her life in upcoming posts, including more instances in which “hard thoughts and jealousies” affected her life.
Notes, Sources, and References:
Witch Hunting in Seventeenth Century New England. A Documentary History 1638–1693, edited by David D. Hall, 2nd Edition, Duke University Press Books, 2005.
“The Early Parsons Families of the Connecticut River Valley” by Gerald James Parsons. Part 1: Vol. 148, pp. 215- 238; Part 2: p335-360; Vol. 149:Part 3- pp53-72. The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1847-. (Online database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001-2013.)
A Place Called Paradise. Culture and Community in Northampton, Massachusetts 1654-2004. Edited by Kerry W. Buckley, Historic Northampton Museum & Education Center/ University of Massachusetts Press. Chapter 3 is “Hard Thoughts and Jealousies” by John Putnam Demos, from his excellent, very comprehensive book Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England, New York, 1982.
The History of Northampton, Massachusetts from its settlement in 1654,
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
Painting that many attribute as Mary Bliss Parsons, but it is not. No known images exist of her. Unknown source.
McMurray Family, Burnell Family(Click for Family Tree)
Well, sort of.
Ghoulies and ghosties are fun Halloween fantasies, and witches would be too if there had not been real women- and some men too- who were accused of witchcraft in the very early years of our country, and around the world through the centuries. Some would be convicted and executed, as in the Salem, Massachusetts witch trials of 1691-2. However, the Salem hysteria was predated by even earlier accusations and trials in Britain’s American colonies- and in places where our ancestors lived.
In fact, if you are a McMurray or Burnell,
one of our ancestors was accused, and tried, as a witch.
Really.
(Did Grandma tell this family story?? Likely, she did not even know of it.)
And to make the story even better, apparently another family line was quite involved, but not in a good way. (New England was a small place in the 1600s.)
Mary Bliss was born in England about 1628, a time when witches and Satan populated the world in Puritan minds, and those of other religious persuasions as well. Surprisingly to us today, educated and literate people felt these entities were very real, and just waiting to harm them or their crops, livestock, homes, property, and family; for illiterate people, the fantastical was even more acceptable. Just imagine the darkness of New England in the winter, being in a small home with little light from handmade candles and the fireplace, possibly a woman alone with many children to protect while her husband was out hunting for days or traveling for trade. Add the damp cold and mist, the forest nearby with animals howling and prowling, plus Native Americans rustling about, and a Halloween setting was in place- but this occurred every day of the colonists’ lives. Fear of the physical and the spiritual reigned.
Mary Bliss’ family migrated from Olde England to New England when she was about eight. She married Joseph Parsons in Hartford, Connecticut, and then they moved to Springfield for several years and had a few children. As Northampton, Massachusetts began to be settled in 1654, Joseph and Mary Bliss Parsons moved their household out into the wilderness. Joseph was quite successful in both towns, and they had one of the nicer homes and better furniture than many of their neighbors. They eventually had eleven children who survived into adulthood- thus were more successful in myriad ways as compared to many of their neighbors.
Mary Bliss Parsons was apparently something of a contentious person- not unusual for the times in men, but as a woman, her haughty and strong mannerisms and ways of dealing with people caused problems, and engendered gossip. The family’s constant rise economically, socially, and politically made Mary the envy of some of her neighbors, and enemies to others. Joseph apparently was contentious as well, and very litigious- both traits common in successful businessmen, then as now.
One of their Northampton neighbors, Sarah (Lyman) Bridgman, accused Mary of causing the death of her two-week old son through the use of witchcraft. Sarah and her husband James Bridgman had followed a similar life-path as the Parsons had with their migrations, including being born in England, then migrating to Springfield, Massachusetts, and moving to Northampton, but after the Parsons family had moved there. James had not done as well as Joseph, however, and Sarah’s children frequently died young.
A feud seemed to have developed between the families, especially after an earlier incident in Springfield in which the Bridgman’s older son had been tending their cows in the swamp, when he received a ‘great blow to the head.’ He stumbled and injured his knee. The knee had been set but was painful and did not heal properly. One day the child screamed that Mary Parsons was pulling his leg off. He said he saw her on the shelf on the wall, and then she disappeared, with a black mouse following her. This could only be caused by supernatural evil, they thought, and Sarah spread malicious gossip about Mary around Springfield in those years. Once the Bridgmans moved to Northampton, the gossip continued, and escalated. Sarah Bridgman (and others) definitely claimed that Mary Parsons was a witch. Many felt that Mary’s witchcraft was how the family did so well for themselves.
To stop the rumors, Mary’s husband Joseph Parsons filed a lawsuit against Sarah Bridgman citing slander. (Women, of course, could not file a lawsuit at that time- their husband had to do any legal work needed.) Joseph and Mary were taking a risky path with the lawsuit, as it might draw greater than normal attention by the authorities if they felt the rumors were true, and Mary could end up having to defend herself from the accusation of witchcraft.
The court was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as the higher Magistrate’s Court was required to hear such serious accusations concerning witchcraft. Thirty-three depositions were taken from friends, family, and neighbors in October of 1656, with families from both Northampton and Springfield testifying. Sarah Bridgman told her story that in May two years earlier, as she was with her newborn in her home,
“having my child in my lap, there was something that gave a great blow on the door, and at very instant as I apprehended my child changed: and I thought with myself and told my girl I was afraid my child would die.’
Sarah claimed she saw “two women pass by the door with white clothes on their heads,” but her girl had seen no one. Sarah then knew her son would die soon because there was “wickedness in the place.” Her son was dead in just two weeks.
Others stated that the rumors were ‘truth,’ not slander, and returned to past ill words and unpleasant interactions with Mary. One neighbor related that Mary complained to her that the yarn she had spun for Mary had knots, as did the second batch she sent to replace it; the spinner related that other persons did not have the same problem with the yarn she had spun for them, so Mary’s witchcraft had likely caused the knots. Mary had asked this same neighbor to let their daughter work for her, but the rumors of witchcraft had already taken hold, and they refused; the daughter became ill shortly thereafter- again, the neighbor testified, evidence of witchcraft as retaliation. After an argument with Mary about missing yarn, the husband of the spinner found his cow “ready to die” and it did, within two weeks- of course that too would have been caused by Mary’s witchcraft, as revenge for the “discontented words passed” between them. “Hard thoughts and jealousies” abounded concerning Mary Parsons (with ‘jealousies’ at that time meaning accusations, not envy).
Incidents in Springfield from years before were also brought before the court, such as Mary in a ‘fit’ moving through water but not getting wet, Mary walking about at night, sometimes with an unknown woman (thought to be a spirit), or Mary being able to find the key her husband hid from her when he locked her in their house or cellar. (He also beat her in front of others, and their child. They had a stormy relationship.)
Other witnesses, more favorable to Mary, testified that Sarah Bridgman’s baby had been sickly since birth and that the cow died of “water in the belly” rather than some unnatural cause.
Numerous witnesses then recanted their testimony, stating that they had been induced by the Bridgmans to lie or that whatever incident they had related may have had natural causes. Mary was not above reproach in such evidence tampering matters either- she and her husband had influential friends who tried to suppress or alter testimony.
As proving Sarah’s slander was actually the point of the lawsuit, Mary’s mother, Margaret (Hullins) Bliss told the court that she had been told by Sarah Bridgman that “her daughter Parsons was suspected to be a witch.”
Thirty-seven persons in two communities were involved in the trial, with 15 families who lived in Northampton, and 7 from Springfield. It had taken an entire summer to gather all the evidence- it was quite a big event in the two little frontier towns on the edge of wilderness.
That fall the court ruled that Sarah Bridgman had indeed committed slander. Repentance was important to a Puritan community, and Sarah Bridgman was given the choice of a public apology to be done in both Northampton and Springfield, or pay a fine that they really could not afford. The Bridgmans decided to pay the fine instead of backing down, probably to avoid the humiliation.
The trial was over, but suspicions and the troubles of Mary Parsons were not.
To be continued…
Notes, Sources, and References:
We have the ‘Lyman’ and ‘Bartlett’ accuser’s surnames in the family as well, but this author is just beginning to research those relationships.
There is quite a lot of information online about Mary Bliss Parsons- with 11 children surviving to adulthood, she has a LOT of descendants. Not all is fully accurate, so reading more scholarly journals and genealogical and other books concerning Mary will be the best sources. Following are just a few of the very many sources consulted for this blog post and those upcoming about Mary.
A Place Called Paradise. Culture and Community in Northampton, Massachusetts 1654-2004. Edited by Kerry W. Buckley, Historic Northampton Museum & Education Center/ University of Massachusetts Press. Chapter 3 is “Hard Thoughts and Jealousies” by John Putnam Demos, from his excellent, very comprehensive book Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England, New York, 1982.
The History of Northampton, Massachusetts from its settlement in 1654,
Parsons Family. Descendants of Cornet Joseph Parsons Springfield 1636- Northampton 1655, by Henry Parsons, New Haven, 1912.
(Journals will be added with Part 2.)
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
1857 Medical Electrician advertisement, appendix- no page, in “Smiths Brooklyn Directory for year ending May 1 1857,” via InternetArchive. (Click to enlarge.)
I hate today’s cooky cutter medical care and insurance desk jockeys telling a doctor what they can prescribe, operate on, etc., but we really have it good today despite all that. So many terrible diseases have been eradicated (though some are coming back, distressingly) and with all the wonderful tests and medications available, especially antibiotics, our lives and longer and more comfortable than those of our ancestors.
The above ad was found in an 1857 Brooklyn, New York City Directory, when I was searching for our Springsteen family. They were not there, as expected, since they had moved to Indianapolis about 1853, but there were interesting ads that I have been sharing. I don’t know if this therapy was available when they were in Brooklyn, or if it was available in Indianapolis, but I hope they did not partake of this cure!
A few notes to help understand the ad:
N. B. stands for “nota bene,” Latin for ‘note well.’ It was used to point out very important aspects. (Still used today in some circles. The medieval form was a hand with finger pointing, and we have that today in emojis!)
Electricity in various forms was a new ‘toy’ in 1857 and they weren’t sure how to use it. Many a diabolical-liking apparatus was used to shock people into sanity, reduce ‘nervous’ diseases, etc.
“Sulfur baths” at “Sulfur Springs” were used to cure diseases for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years. Having an “Electro-Medicated and Sulfur Vapor Bath” (were they combined, or two separate treatments?) available prevented sick persons from having to travel, often far, to partake of the natural cure.
“Dropsy” is a swelling we call ‘edema’ today, especially that caused by congestive heart failure. A big shock to the heart could definitely make it beat differently.
1857 Medications for sale, page 241, in “Smiths Brooklyn Directory for year ending May 1 1857,” via InternetArchive. (Click to enlarge.)
If one was afraid of the Medical Electrician, one could always go to the local druggist or apothecary to get something to cure whatever ailment was a problem. Drugs, of course, were made from plant extracts (before Big Pharma), and pharmacy textbooks even into the 1950s taught how to gather and process plants to make effective medicines, and compounding them was a part of a druggist’s training. Homeopathic medicines today still use some remedies such as these- cloves in a toothache medicine is one example- but thankfully our drug ads cannot guarantee a complete cure as these did in 1857.
Can you imagine what Jeff and Ann Connor Springsteen would think of our tv ads for Cialis today??
Notes, Sources, and References:
See citations with images.
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
Since we have been climbing the family tree of Cynthia Maria Pomeroy, the grandmother of Lynette Payne McMurray, we have added to the trees on the McMurray-Payne-Horn Family Page.
Here is C. Maria Pomeroy’s family tree is above; her great grandfather’s tree is below.
Family tree of Josiah Pomeroy (1703-1789). Click to enlarge.
Unfortunately we lost easy access to those pages with drop-down menus when WordPress upgraded and we had to change themes to be compatible. One of these days I will get that fixed/figured out, but for now, I am deep in the 17th and 18th centuries in New England, trying to sort out so many families that intermarried over the years.
You can always use the search box to find specific ancestors in any post in which they have been mentioned on the blog. The categories list on the left side of the page will also take you to posts that include those families.
Notes, Sources, and References:
Updates that break functionality and don’t really make things better are the bane of technological life.
Please contact us if you would like higher resolution images. Click to enlarge images.
We would love to read your thoughts and comments about this post (see form below), and thank you for your time! All comments are moderated, however, due to the high intelligence and persistence of spammers/hackers who really should be putting their smarts to use for the public good instead of spamming our little blog.
Original content copyright 2013-2015 by Heritage Ramblings Blog and pmm.
Family history is meant to be shared, but the original content of this site may NOT be used for any commercial purposes unless explicit written permission is received from both the blog owner and author. Blogs or websites with ads and/or any income-generating components are included under “commercial purposes,” as are the large genealogy database websites. Sites that republish original HeritageRamblings.net content as their own are in violation of copyright as well, and use of full content is not permitted.Descendants and researchers MAY download images and posts to share with their families, and use the information on their family trees or in family history books with a small number of reprints. Please make sure to credit and cite the information properly.Please contact us if you have any questions about copyright of our blog material.
![Winter in New York- similar to that in Massachusetts. William Rickarby Miller [No restrictions or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons](https://i0.wp.com/heritageramblings.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/443px-Brooklyn_Museum_-_Winter_Scene_Pleasant_Valley_New_York_-_William_Rickarby_Miller_wikimedia_public-domain.jpg)
