Francis West marries Margery Reeves in early 1639 in Duxbury. She is said to be from England, the Isle of Wright specifically. But there's no proof. Early writings about her say she may have come over as a servant of some family, as an unattached woman in the Colony would be unheard of. Additionally, in one writing, Carlton Prince West goes on to say, "no Reeves family, including the possible variants of Reaves and Rives, has been found in the area of southeastern Massachusetts." So she cannot be placed.
But I'm confused. It's clear there is another Reaves family (different spelling) living very close by to our Francis and Margery. Not only that, but this other Reaves family has a daughter named Mary Margaret Reaves that marries James Skiffe in 1637 in Sandwich, Plymouth Colony. Though I guess this is suspect too, as Sandwich doesn't appear to be settled until 1639. But what's a few years in early American history?
So this James Skiffe (1610-1687) and Mary Margaret Reaves (1617-1673) have a number of children, two (2) of which are my 8th great grandparents. Stephen Skiffe (1641-1710) marries Lydia Snow (1645-1713), and Sarah Skiffe (1656-1742) marries Edmund Freeman III (1655 – 1720). And then their middle brother Nathaniel Skiffe (1645 – 1723) marries Ruth West (1651 – 1741), the daughter of Francis and Margery. So how do these two Reeves/Reaves women not know each other as mother-in-law's? Are they sisters? Was Margery the servant to this family and took a version of their name?
I've tried to make the connection of Margery Reeves with Mary Margaret Reaves for awhile now, but no luck so far. I do know that Mary Margaret Reaves is the daughter of Thomas Reaves and Ellen Reeve, both born in England and dying in Massachusetts. How did Carlton Prince West not know this?
Anyway, information comes in slowly, but I'm on the trail. Thoughts?
But I'm confused. It's clear there is another Reaves family (different spelling) living very close by to our Francis and Margery. Not only that, but this other Reaves family has a daughter named Mary Margaret Reaves that marries James Skiffe in 1637 in Sandwich, Plymouth Colony. Though I guess this is suspect too, as Sandwich doesn't appear to be settled until 1639. But what's a few years in early American history?
So this James Skiffe (1610-1687) and Mary Margaret Reaves (1617-1673) have a number of children, two (2) of which are my 8th great grandparents. Stephen Skiffe (1641-1710) marries Lydia Snow (1645-1713), and Sarah Skiffe (1656-1742) marries Edmund Freeman III (1655 – 1720). And then their middle brother Nathaniel Skiffe (1645 – 1723) marries Ruth West (1651 – 1741), the daughter of Francis and Margery. So how do these two Reeves/Reaves women not know each other as mother-in-law's? Are they sisters? Was Margery the servant to this family and took a version of their name?
I've tried to make the connection of Margery Reeves with Mary Margaret Reaves for awhile now, but no luck so far. I do know that Mary Margaret Reaves is the daughter of Thomas Reaves and Ellen Reeve, both born in England and dying in Massachusetts. How did Carlton Prince West not know this?
Anyway, information comes in slowly, but I'm on the trail. Thoughts?
Yes, Kevin, the sudden and relatively undocumented appearance of our ancestors Francis and Margery poses many conundrums. I find your information regarding the Reaves family of Sandwich interesting... but at present the lack of further documentation inhibits follow up. Perhaps our Margery was a cousin or niece of these folks, who came over with them, but whose femininity kept her off the documentary radar until her marriage to Francis on 27 February 1639/40?
ReplyDeleteInstead, I'm going to take a stab at "How did Carlton Prince West not know this?"
Carlton Prince West (1905-1991) lived in a very different world than we do in terms of the tools available to him as a researcher. His career at Wake Forest University spanned the years 1946 to 1975. Advanced technology for him was the electronic typewriter, the xerox machine, and the facsimile machine in his department office. None of the electronic resources available to us (PCs, the internet, ebooks, digital cameras, cell phones) existed in his world. For CPW, research meant a lot of travel (from North Carolina to New England), using card catalogues to locate published materials in libraries, personally visiting town and county archives, taking notes by hand on 3x5 cards, telephone conversations with other researchers and librarians, and having known materials copied and shipped via the U.S. parcel post or interlibrary loan. As an academic scholar, CPWs personal research was limited by the university calendar which determined available vacation time. The pace of everything was incredibly and painfully slow by our standards.
When I was working on my own MA thesis (History, CSU Sacramento) in the 1990s, email and the internet were fairly new things and largely undeveloped as a means of archival access. Many large academic libraries were just beginning the process of converting their cataloguing systems from cards to electronic databases. Almost none of the actual documents could be viewed electronically. Even at this writing (Jan. 2015) many of the town records of early New England remain unindexed and unpublished, or partially published. Without definite leads, where would one begin to sift the haystack looking for our particular needles? Given the limitations CPW faced, I'm very favorably impressed with what he was able to accomplish.
I'm also grateful to folks like you who have been able to dig a little deeper.
Best wishes,
Daniel D. West, Woodland, CA,...10th generation descendant.
Thank you Daniel. I in no way meant to disparage Carlton West and his work. I'm with you, trying to do genealogical work any time before 2000 say, was incredibly hard. I have family records of people doing family searches as far back as 1900, and they're asking for things like census records. Stuff we take granted, and even expect now. What I was mostly referring to was Carlton's note about there not being any Reeves family surname people living in that area at the time of Margery. That statement is so exact, to make one believe that research backs it up, as though he must have looked at the records, which I assume he did. Also, his comment makes it seem as though he looked for people of that name. And sure, the records were much harder to siff through, but he still makes that call. I was just surprised when I found so many, that's all. I still believe (Apr. 2015) that Margery is related to the Mary Margaret Reaves family, possible her older sister.
DeleteI promise to reply faster next time.
And by the way, how do you descend from dear Francis and Margery?