The Mysterious James NEWBERRY

[alunno-a]

Forgive me Sue,

but surely if you "take" a child to be baptised somewhere, that somewhere IS your parish. Unless the Clerk notes that you are from a differant Parish and that the child was born in a differant Parish then the Parish you are in is "yours". Parish records are/were legal documents that establish a a right of charge on that parish- and no incumbent would have registered a "stray" without noting the fact. Maybe the book was referring to non conformist baptism records, rather than Parish Records, which are not the same thing!!
sorry to be pedantic!

[Newberrychaser]

Surely, you were not trying to be pedantic at all, so you are forgiven. 

I will find the reference that states this fact, and get back to you all. I was as surprised and disturbed by this as you apparently were. It's not as if we need this new complication added to research - right?

Puritanism of the time seemed to have some odd practices. This information came out of a book that I borrowed from the library about three months ago, but I have the reference written down.

Were there non-conformist Baptists in the 1630's in England?

Sue

[bedfordshire boy]

The IGI is about the best research aid going, but only when you look at entries extracted from parish registers or bishops' transcripts. It's been debased by members adding the type of entry to which you refer.

I can't see any Newberry baptisms in Worcester on the IGI. I can see a load of births, all member submissions which are at best unreliable. Some entries have these children of Thomas Newberry and Jane Dabitoff as all being born in Worcester, other entries show them as being born in Yarcombe Devon, others again as being born in Marshwood Dorset, and others as some of them born in Conn. In other words, and excuse me for being cynical, no-one has a clue where they were from. When there are three separate theories coming out of America as to where they were from in England then I'm pretty sure there's no conclusive evidence, and folks are clutching at straws.

Yarcombe parish register has been extracted onto the IGI - plenty of Newberrys but no children of Thomas baptised at the right time

There is no parish of Marshwood or Marshwood Vale in Dorset, although it seems to be a few miles from Bridport, as was Symondsbury, whose parish register isn't on the IGI. Has this parish register been checked for any Newberry baptisms? But IF the family was from Marshwood Vale (does William Whiteway's Diary give Thomas' home parish?) presumably there were other nearby parishes the children could have been baptised at.

There's more than one parish in Worcester so I've no idea which one the children were allegedly baptised at, although again, they don't appear on the IGI as extracted entries. Some entries show birth dates in Worcester going up to 1642, which, if they're correct, says to me that this can't be the Thomas who emigrated in 1634. And once one entry is demonstrably wrong then the rest tumble down like a house of cards. Why did you place any credence on these Worcester entries which show five children born in Worcester after Thomas had emigrated? I don't buy the story that children were born in Dorset and they then traipsed 130 miles each way to Worcester to get baptised.

Siblings of my 16xg grandfather went to New England on the Mayflower. They and their children were all baptised in the established church, notwithstanding their puritanism.

David

All Baptists were non-conformist! I think they were anabaptists at that time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan

[Newberrychaser]

Hi David et al.

I agree that the IGI has been polluted and therefore, I have great reservations about using it at all. It has become unreliable, and yes, some are definitely clutching at straws. However, I am not one of them. The PR's for this family don’t seem to have survived in that area of Dorset. I wondered at the veracity of the Worcester entries, which is why I mentioned it, as it has turned up elsewhere in other authors' writings.

Actually, there IS evidence provided by William Whiteway’s Diary that a Mr. Newberry of Marshwood Vale was on the ship headed to New England in April of 1634. Savage thinks that he was also there in 1630, but no ship logs prove it. There are wills that prove that the Dabinott family had a 99 year lease on property there, and that lease was willed to the grandsons of Christopher Dabinott (aka Thomas Newberry’s sons, Benjamin, Joseph and John).  Actually in ancient times, the area belonged at one time to the Newburghs.

Joseph Newberry went back home from New England in 1647 and took up the running of the farm at Marshwood.  There was a big to do and a suit by Morgan Haine, who also had been in New England, regarding the inheritance of that lease.  It seems his wife Rawlin was involved in the contestation of Christopher Dabinott’s will.  Robert Newberry (uncle of Joseph) stepped in and settled it.  So there is plenty to show that the family was there, but the extant records do not give us the full picture.

Surrounding parishes have been searched, but it appears the ones that are needed to prove these children are no longer extant. They DEFINITELY were not born in New England, as their father died in 1635, just one year after they landed in Dorchester, MA.  Their mother remarried to Rev. Warham.

I know this notion of baptism outside of one’s home parish flies in the face of all research paradigms; and, at this point, I am unable to offer direct quotations, but I believe the information I cited came from - 

Sharpe, Pamela, Population and Society in an East Devon Parish, Reproducing Colyton, 1540-1840. University of Exeter Press 2002.

I have the information in my research notes, but would probably have to request the book again from inter-library loan to show you the passage and page numbers.

Sorry to have taken the thread off topic.  Carry on. . .

[bedfordshire boy]

Hi Sue

As I'm sure you're aware, there are numerous online trees for Thomas Newberry, being one of the earlier emigrants to America. The quality of research varies enormously. One of those which seem well researched shows two of his children being baptised at Whitchurch Canonicorum in Marshwood Vale - Mary on 22 Oct 1626 (coincidentally this is the same date as given on the IGI for the birth in Worcester!) and John on 19 Feb 1628/9. The parish register for Whitchurch Canonicorum  is held at Dorset History Centre - it doesn't appear to have been filmed by the LDS for this period nor is a transcription for baptisms available prior to 1730. This is where I would start. If these can be confirmed it tends blow Worcester out of the water.

I know this notion of baptism outside of one’s home parish flies in the face of all research paradigms;

It wasn't unusual. Children could be baptised wherever their parents wanted. So long as the child wasn't illegitimate the parish where it was born or baptised didn't affect it's parish of settlement - that was automatically the father's parish of legal settlement. It's just that I don't believe that they travelled 130 miles for each child to be baptised. But in any case the IGI shows them as being births at Worcester, not baptisms. And as the last five are wrong, (as Thomas had already died in America before four of his children were allegedly born in Worcester) I see no reason why the other entries should be any more accurate, particularly if you can verify the Whitchurch baptisms.

Odd that according to some sources he married two Jane Dabinotts yet neither marriage has been found.

David

Looking at Ancestral Roots 7 I see that Thomas Newberry was a descendant of my 20xg grandfather, Eudo la Zouche. So we must be very distant cousins!

[Newberrychaser]

Hi David:

The only other idea I have on this is that some of the children could have been baptized all at the same time, as we have found baptisms of adults in our work.  But as you have said, the IGI looks fishy all the way down the line on this one. One would think that in this time frame children would be baptized directly after birth, but later or adult baptisms don't seem to be outside the realm of possiblity either. 

I wonder why Whitchurch was not filmed?  A person that I have worked with in England, apparently didn't find the Whitchurch registers in the Dorset History Center. . . Hmmm. . .

There is a book about the Newberry family written by Joseph Gardner Bartlett, "The Newberry Genealogy," which seems to be the Bible by which most people have done their research and posted online. Most of what is online is not totally correct, especially if they are using Bartlett.  There is a little known fact that Bartlett was contacted by the College of Arms in 1925 and his work was called into question, especially on the Thomas Newberry line. They went back and forth debating specific points, and finally Bartlett came to the conclusion that he needed to ammend his earlier findings.  One specific thing that he says at the end of his work regarding the Dorset family was that there were people in Dalwood and Stockland who were not related.  As it turns out, he began trying to ferret through old wills to find the right connections.  Unfortunately, he did not finish before he died.  It is here, where I have picked up his work and continue to search for  connections that seem to be severed from the family line.  The College has a line which they claim to be correct, but we are still analyzing.

I am working with another researcher in England and we are translating as many Newburgh/Newberry wills/documents as we can lay our hands on.  Hopefully one day with all the PRs and other extant information in hand, we will be able to put this line to rights.  Interpreting the information correctly is always chancy which is why we end up with problems such as are seen in the IGI.  Therefore, collateral connections are also being examined.  It is arduous to say the least.

Your comment about the Dabinott women is an old conundrum.  Supposedly, Thomas was first married to Joan Dabinott and then his second wife was either a sister or a cousin.  No one seems to know for sure.  Even that seems to not be on solid ground, because the marriage records are missing.  At least five of the children were produced by his first wife.

[bedfordshire boy]

See http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=18679

Quite clearly states that Whitchurch Canonicorum baptisms 1558 onwards are held at Dorset History Centre. I would use their research service - http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=386630

David

[Newberrychaser]

Great information David.  I haven't seen this site.  Thank you!   I have spent a lot of time ordering films, so some of the information online is new.

[Linda63]

Well, I'm lost for words!  I'm quite a newbie really, and thought I was doing very well with my family tree, getting as far back as 1700s.

So, as you can imagine I'm finding all this information on the Newberry's quite overwhealming.

I'm probably going to show my ignorance now, but I have to ask... are these Newberry's who went off to America in the 1600s and the la Zouche's connected with my Newberry's?  Or is that a different line?