|
| ||
31 July 2024 • Michael Cooley, BA, MA "...And the Child Now in My Wife's Womb"The genealogy for Richard Bennett (1608-1676), the first commonwealth governor of Virginia during the English Civil Wars, began gelling in the 1930s. Scholarly writers such as Archibald Bennett, John Bennett Boddie, and others began pulling together newly discovered data from the British National Archives. During a return trip to London in 1657, Bennett testified in a court proceeding that he was born about 1608 at Wiveliscombe, a small village in the heart of Somerset, England. This fact led to the discovery of his baptismal record (1609), originally kept at St Andrews Church in that village. From that, researchers learned that his father was Thomas (1570-1616) — his mother's name, however, wasn't recorded, nor was it for any of his siblings. The church records further inform us that Richard's grandfather was Robert Bennett (-1603), a successful tanner who left behind a detailed will in 1603.1 Boddie was an expert genealogist, historian, and writer. During the 1930s, he carefully presented his case in numerous writings for historical magazines and in at least two books including Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight County, Virginia (1938). The vast majority of his work still stands a century later. But, like many genealogists, he enjoyed speculation and, unfortunately, often built further musings upon it. However, these published thoughts resulted in numerous misunderstandings among future readers.2 Nevertheless, he was clear that what he postulated were not known facts. (Where I might use the word "possibly" he often used "probably" or "probable.") A Margery Bennett was buried in Wiveliscombe on 3 December 1564. The burial record states that she was the wife of John Bennett, a tanner. Boddie suggests that John and Margery could have been Robert Bennett's parents — same surname, same place, same profession — why not?3 Of course, it might have been true but all we know about the couple is that which we find in that record. There are no recorded baptisms for her or her husband, no marriage record for the couple, and no burial recorded for John, at least one that has survived. Furthermore, there are no records for any children that might have been born to them. In other words, all we know is that John and Margaret were married adults in 1564 and that John was a tanner. We have no idea about their ages at Margery's death (young or old?) and no records exist to educate us about any other aspect of their lives. There is simply insufficient data by which to hazard a guess. Although baptisms, marriages, and burials had long been recorded for much of the aristocracy and other elites, both at church and in historical works, such luxuries were typically not available to ordinary citizens. However, the government of Henry VIII took a revolutionary step toward better civic record keeping and, in 1538, made it mandatory for churches to take on the task. Many churches, however, waited to set the new policy in practice. St Andrew's Church at Wiveliscombe, for example, didn't start until 1558 — twenty years later. And upon examination, it's clear that a great deal is missing. As a result, no evidence is found indicating just when these Bennetts came to Wiveliscombe, whether they originated elsewhere in Somerset, from outside the county, or whether the family had been present for decades or more. Another John Bennett was recorded at St Andrew's more than a decade after Margery's death. Three baptisms are attributed to him as father: Elizabeth was baptized 7 December 1578, Johan on 7 January 1580, and Robert on 10 May 1582. And a John Bennett was buried on 17 October 1601. He isn't positively identified but that date fits him when considering the three earlier births. Boddie, always up to speculating, suggests he was Robert's brother. Could be. But the problem isn't whether there was one or two John Bennetts in Wiveliscombe during the 16th century or whether a John Bennett was the father of Robert, a man probably born 20 to 30 years before his 1558 marriage. This graphic represents the present problem.4  The idea that John Bennett was granted a coat of arms may have started with Boddie's quote of a sentence from a 1666 letter written by Virginia Secretary of State, Thomas Ludlow, to Henry Bennett, the Earl of Arlington. He [Ludlow] believed that [former] Governor Richard Bennett was, "of your Lordship's family as he has the same arms." It is now evident [Boddie writes] that the Honorable Secretary of State for Virginia was guessing as all the descendants of Thomas Bennett of Clapcot [Berkshire], founder of this family, were traced without any connection being found with Governor Bennett's family.5 Would-be family historians latched onto the first sentence but wholly ignored the second. Yet, it's entirely possible that the former governor, a Major General in 1666 and counsel to Governor Sir William Berkeley, did display Arms during the last decade of his life. There certainly is no earlier mention of one for any family members prior to that date. Richard and his uncle, wealthy businessman and plantation owner Edward Bennett, were Puritans and dedicated enemies of the Crown during the English Civil Wars. Yet we know what the Arms looked like. An image meeting its description is embossed on the gravestone of Bennett's grandson, Richard Bennett, 3rd. But how did the family come by it? The "Visitations" is the first place to look. They were conducted by the royal heralds of the College of Arms, an official census of sorts, of the kingdom's leading families and aristocracy. Visitations were made to Somersetshire in 1531, 1573, 1591, and 1623. I've studied them and find no Bennett family listed. It's interesting to note, however, that two of Robert Bennett's sons, John and Edward, married daughters of Jasper Bourne. Jasper's ancestors are listed in the 1623 Visitations of Somerset (the Bennetts married well), but the Bournes had long lost their previous luster after the lifelong imprisonment of their most famous ancestor, Gilbert Bourne, the Bishop of Wells and Bath from 1554 to 1559.6 The final word on the subject recently came from the York Herald of the College of Arms, Peter O'Donoghue.7 30 July 2024 Mr O'Donoghue had earlier remarked that it was not uncommon for men in colonial British America to take on the Arms of another family. Although it was illegal in England to do so, the colonies were beyond the enforcement sphere of the College authorities. But why did Bennett believe he had rights to these Arms? Was he aware of an ancient cousinship to the Earl of Arlington? Perhaps, but as Boddie, O'Donoghue and McMillan have stated, there is no genealogy or verifiable history that makes that reference. The Y-DNA may one day answer the question but we're presently light years from a resolution. I've already discussed the claim that John Bennett was the progenitor of this family. It's certainly possible but having no trustworthy data prior to 1538 makes the relationship impossible to prove. And the suggestion that he was granted a coat of arms is ludicrous without documentary support. Frankly, it's my opinion that the claim is wholly fabricated. The findagrave.com profile for Robert Bennett, memorial #126312274 from which the above image was taken, is loaded with errors. All past suggestions to the maintainer, "Linda," were immediately dismissed without discussion. She, as the myth dictates, links Robert's profile to John Bennett as his father, a profile that is completely erroneous in the manner discussed above. But worse, she links this John to Thomas Bennet of Clapcot (1487-1547), the ancestor of the Earl of Arlington (one generation) and of the Earls of Tankerville. Although the latter lineage is still extant, the earldom didn't come into the Bennets until 1714, decades after the governor's death. It follows, then, that the persistent claim that our Robert Bennett was "Sir Robert Herbert Bennett, Earl of Tankerville" is equally fallacious. Further, Thomas Bennett of Clapcot did have a son named John but he born posthumously in 1547, decades after the projected birth of John Bennett of Wiveliscombe (1508) and only a decade before the Wiveliscombe marriage of Robert Bennett to Elizabeth Edney in 1558.8 The only reference to this son in Thomas Bennet's will is "...and the child now in my wife's womb." Thomas's widow, Anne (Molines) Bennett (not Agnes Topp as stated by "Linda"), also left a will a decade later and refers to their young son as John. A direct connection between the two men is impossible. Others try to make John of Wiveliscombe the grandson of the same Thomas and the son of Richard Bennet (1528-1574) by his wife, Elizabeth Tesdale. But Richard's son, Sir John Bennet of Dawley (1553-1627), was also born decades too late to fit into our lineage. He was a Minister of Parliament (MP) for various years between 1597 and 1621 and a Proctor for Oxford University, 1585-1586. A good deal has been written about him, but nothing connects him to the Wiveliscombe Bennetts.9 I suppose, however, that purported birth of John Bennett of Wiveliscombe — if such a man ever lived — could make him of the right age to have been a brother of Thomas Bennet of Clapcot. Considering the high number of genetically-unrelated Bennetts, I wouldn't count on it.10 Besides, Thomas of Clapcot's father has never been determined. Nevertheless, as stated above, the Y chromosomal record has the potential for sorting this out once and for all. For those who don't know, the Y carries the male sex gene. By definition, then, only men have it. Unlike the autosomes tested at Ancestry.com and elsewhere, there is no recombination among the various sides of the family. One hundred percent of the Y passes down from father to all sons — all the way into the future. And it's completely "retroactive-active." I have the same Y my Cooley 10th great-grandfather had (and proven by a couple dozen descended testers). This is always true, no ifs, ands, or buts. I'm the administrator of the Bennetts of Somerset, England Y-DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA.com. Its name is now a misnomer as we now accept any Bennett Y-DNA results. (Autosomal results aren't helpful to this study.) We know that Richard Bennett 3rd had no children. The Y lineage coming from the governor is thus extinct. However, all cousin lineages will carry the same Y, and that includes any male descendant of Edward Bennett, the founder of the Bennett Plantation, or any of his brothers or uncles, if we knew who the latter were. I've been on the hunt for years but some progress has been made. Two families have been discovered with known roots in Somerset, England. The "Ipswich, Massachusetts Bennetts" are of haplogroup R1b-FT105891 (you can think of it a Y type) and the "Bennett-Lottisham" group (from Lottisham, Somerset) is of haplogroup R1b-FT104893. But they're separated in the paternal lineage by at least 4,000 years. There are also two families that sometimes claim to be of the Wiveliscombe Bennetts. The "Blackwater Bennetts" are of haplogroup R1b-BY172987 and the "Dr John Bennetts" are of R1b-FTA7413. These families are also separated by about 4,000 years. One or the other could be descended from our Robert Bennett but certainly not both. Indeed, no genealogical record has been found for either group tracing them to Wiveliscombe.11 So there it is. The coat of arms is a fake to one degree or another, the lineage to Thomas Bennet of Clapcot is wholly false, and a relationship to the Earl Arlington is highly dubious. I've been doing genealogy for nearly 50 years and genetic genealogy for 18. My first degree is in history. I love this stuff. I've taught and given numerous presentations about it. Yet many of my academic friends dismiss genealogy. In fact, a district manager for one of California's county library systems once told me much of the same thing while refusing to accept a donation of several hundred well-known genealogical works. To an extent, however, this notorious reputation has been well earned. A proliferation of junk genealogies have overwhelmed the internet, even among once-respected sites such as Find-a-Grave. The problem can be approached only by devotees applying the discipline of a good historian — even that of a scientist (and genealogy is classified as a science). The Y chromosome is perfect for surname studies and has the potential for setting the record straight for virtually any family, as it has done for my Cooleys and several other personal lineages, not to mention the success other researchers have experienced.12 The Y is our friend and can lead us to a more respectful, truthful, and accurate accounting of our ancestors. 1. "Catalog D/P/WIV 2/1/1," Somerset Archives. 2. Unfortunately, too many folks will elevate such hypotheses to truths. This is precisely how this lineage has gotten out of hand. 3. John Bennett Boddie, Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight County, Virginia 1 (Chicago: Chicago Law Printing Company, 1938), 267. 4. "Robert Bennett," Find-a-Grave, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/126312274/robert_bennett. 5. Boddie, 266. 6. Frederick William Weaver, M.A., editor, The Visitations of the County of Somerset in the years 1531 and 1575, Together with Additional Pedigrees from the Visitation of 1591 (Exeter: W Pollard, 1885); ¶ Frederick Thomas Colby, D.D., editor, The Visitation of the County of Somerset in the Year 1623 (London: The Harleian Society, 1876). 7. Peter O'Donoghue, York Herald to Michael Cooley, "RE: College of Arms enquiry" (30 July 2024), College of Arms and earlier correspondence dated 7 June 2023 and 2 June 2023. 8. There's a misguided belief among genealogists that it's desirable to make up birth dates based on the number of generations removed from the subject. For example. Robert's eldest child, Margery, was baptized on 25 March 1560 in Wiveliscombe. Estimated on that date (I assume), someone long ago stated that Robert was born in 1533, no documentation cited, and that his "father," John, in 1608. I find that date viable only for sake of the argument presented here, but it could clearly be off by a decade either way and it would still work. 9. The History of Parliament. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/bennet-sir-john-1553-1627. ¶ Arthur Collins, Peerage of England 3, 3rd edition, (London, 1756), 365-369. 10. "The Bennett DNA Project," FamilyTreeDNA. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/bennett?iframe=yresults. 11. See the following for further details about the Y-DNA for the Bennetts: "Bennett of Somerset, England DNA Project," https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/bennett-of-somerset-england/about/background; https://dna.ancestraldata.com/groups/; and "The Bennett Y-DNA Research Group," https://www.facebook.com/groups/bennett.dna. Many of my research notes for this family are at https://dna.ancestraldata.com/Bennett/Reports/index.html 12. Michael Cooley, "The Cult of the Bogus Dutch Cooleys," https://bogusgenealogy.com/viewer.pl?2019-08-20-Cooley.html.
|
