PerdueCommen As expected, several people commented on the Perdue letter. Again, I want to thank Suzanne Johnston for locating the letter among Dr. Lorand Johnson's papers and sending a copy to Rhoda Fone, who passed it on to Kelsey Williams (I'm sure with insight based on her research) who then wrote the report circulated among you last week. Not mentioned in Kelsey's report, but I feel it is important, -- the letter is a typewritten transcription of the original, rather than a photocopy of the original. This is a minor point, but we would always prefer a copy of the original letter. So, if anyone stumbles across the original someday, please keep us all in mind. Greg McReynolds comments about Burke's Peerage not being a valid documentation was a surprise to me. Mary Stewart agrees: "Here is a hearty second to Gregory's caution about Burkes. Far better sources than Burkes are the Complete Peerage and the Scots Peerage. Both are multi-volume works usually found in large research libraries. Definitely worth the effort for the voluminous references to original records." The following is from Doug Tucker, who begins with a little background on Lord Shaftsbury before offering his opinions of Perdue's letter. There is on- going research on the two JOHNSON brothers/cousins. Some members of the group agree with Dr. Lorand, while others believe the records 'suggest' otherwise. With everyone searching, surely the definitive answer will show up one of these days. At least I keep hoping. Meanwhile, comments about the letter (pro and con, more data, just another way of looking at the letter) are encouraged. Doug ...: As you know, I have spent much research time on the early Johnsons and think what I have presented on the origins of John and William Johnson is both accurate and supportable by readily available documentation, especially land patent information and Parish records relating to processioning, etc. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, of course, is a heavily documented individual who anyone can check out at a major public or university library. I have read several biographies of Lord Shaftesbury and have reviewed his personal papers published by the Harlequin Society. He not only was a player in the Johnson family story but also was an important figure in the Candler story as well. Following are my observations concerning the Gershom Perdue letter: (1) Regarding the confusion between the Cooper and Ashley surnames, Sir Anthony Ashley-Cooper was the son of Sir John Cooper of Rockbourne, Haunts and Anne Ashley, daughter and heir of Sir Anthony Ashley of Wimbourne St. Giles, Dorset. As a condition of John Cooper's marriage to Anne Ashley, Sir Anthony Ashley required that John Cooper's heir (but only the heir) use the surname Ashley-Cooper. Furthermore, he required that if an Ashley-Cooper male was ever raised to the peerage, the title should carry the name of Ashley. Thus, Anthony Cooper, oldest son and heir of John Cooper, became Anthony Ashley-Cooper upon the death of his father in 1631. All of his siblings remained Coopers. (Thomas Cooper Jr., son of Anthony's younger brother, Thomas, settled at Philadelphia in the late 1600's.) Anthony Ashley-Cooper was raised to the peerage in 1661 and took the dual titles of Baron Cooper of Pawlett and Baron Ashley of Wimbourne St. Giles, with the latter title held senior. In 1672 Anthony Ashley-Cooper was also named the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. So, prior to 1631, he was Anthony Cooper. Between 1631 and 1661, he was referred to as Sir Anthony Ashley-Cooper. After 1661, he was commonly referred to as Lord Ashley. Finally, from 1672 until his death in 1683, he was referred to as Lord Shaftesbury or just "Shaftesbury". (As for Benjamin Ashley mentioned by Gershom Perdue, he was probably referring to Benedict Ashley, grandfather of Sir Anthony Ashley, who was the first of the Ashley line to be raised to the peerage.) (2) Anthony Ashley-Cooper had three wives. He married first, Margaret was the daughter of Lord Coventry, when he was just 18. Margaret died in 1649 and Anthony married Frances Cecil, daughter of of David Cecil and a sister of the Earl of Exeter. Frances died in 1654 and Ashley-Cooper married Margaret Spencer, daughter of the Earl of Southampton. Anthony Ashley-Cooper's heir, Anthony Jr., was the son of second wife, Frances Cecil. It is true that Burke's states that Ashley-Cooper had only one child, son and heir Anthony Jr. However, Ashley-Cooper's published papers make it clear that he had several daughters as do at least two of his biographies. It is also documented that he had at least one illegitimate son, born during his first marriage. I haven't the faintest idea if one of Ashley-Cooper's daughters (I have seen both Penelope and Lucretia suggested as her name, although I think it was more likely Penelope) was the mother of Lucretia and Sarah Massie as family legend contends. However, I would point out that Margaret Spencer's mother was named Penelope (Wriothesley ) and that Penelope had a sister named Lucretia who married a Cecil. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it adds to my willingness to accept the essence of the family legend claim of the Ashley-Cooper bloodline. (3) Charles II rewarded Anthony Ashley-Cooper for his services to the Crown by making him one of the seven so-called "Proprietors" of the Carolinas land grant, which included what later became North and South Carolina. The seven divided the Carolinas grant with Ashley Cooper acquiring responsibility for a slice of the southern part of the grant -- in what would become South Carolina. In 1670, he organized a colonizing effort (based from Barbados where Ashley-Cooper also held property) and sent nearly 200 "mostly" Quakers to establish a new colony on the Carolina coast. There, they founded the Charleston colony on a peninsula between two rivers which were named the Ashley River and the Cooper River -- names they carry to this day (as a detailed map of the area will confirm). The rumor that a son (illegitimate) of Anthony Ashley-Cooper was among the Charleston colonists appears unfounded. No one named Charles Ashley was listed among the Charleston colonists and the surname wouldn't have been Ashley in any case. Nor was there anyone named Charles Cooper among the colonists, who left extensive records. Furthermore, any Ashley-Cooper offspring would have necessarily taken a lead role in the colony and colony records establish that that was not the case. (Records of the Charleston Colony are included in the Official History of South Carolina.) (4) My understanding of the Massie and Johnson family legends differs from that presented by Gershom Perdue, as follows: Penelope, one of Ashley-Cooper's daughters, became pregnant out-of-wedlock and was dispatched to the American colonies. There she married Peter Massie (who may have been her illicit lover) and bore twin daughters, Lucretia and Sarah Massie. Later, the twin Massies married men named Johnson who some think were brothers while others, Perdue included, think were unrelated. Some of this can be documented. For instance, Peter Massies received a land patent in New Kent Co. on 4 Nov 1670 and in April, 1677 he was one of 87 signers of a 1677 petition to the Crown relating to grievances that led to Bacon's Rebellion. He was the only Massie mentioned in New Kent records through 1689. The 1704 Quit Rent ledger shows a Peter Massie and Thomas Massie together controlled 782 acres of adjacent property in St. Peter's Parish. The St. Peter's Parish registry establishes that Peter Massie's had daughters named Lucretia and Sarah, although they were not twins as stated in the family legend. I thought that the Registry also identified Penelope as the name of Peter's wife but my registry notes do not show her name. Gershom Perdue apparently thought that two of Anthony Ashley-Cooper's daughters, Penelope and Lucretia, came to Virginia where both married Massies and each gave birth to a daughter. These Massie cousins later both married men named Johnson. Frankly, the Perdue version seems confused and rather unrealistic -- two sisters, both illegitimate, sent to Virginia where they married two brothers and had daughters who married two brothers -- or maybe not brothers. (5) Perdue also was confused about the location and time-frame of the early Massie/Johnson connections. The Massies and Johnsons both lived in the upper parish (St. Peter's Parish) of New Kent Co. In fact, land records (patents listed in Nugent and Parish processioning lists) establish that Peter Massie and Edward Johnson were immediate neighbors and that after 1700 William Johnson lived close by near the headwaters of Black Creek and the ridge that divided Black Creek from Chickahominy Swamp. Their land was close to the Black Creek Meetinghouse of the local Qiaker community -- located on an upper branch of Black Creek. Neither the Massie or Johnson families had any connection to the Green Springs area until after 1727 when the Green Springs area first opened to settlement. (6) Gershom Perdue wrote that the John Johnson who married Lucretia Massie was a descendant of William the Conqueror. I sincerely doubt that claim but can only prove that John Johnson was the son of James Johnson of New Kent Co., VA who acquired a land grant (dated 25 Oct 1701, including 110 acres at Pamunkey Neck on branches of Nickatewance Creek ... 88 acres of which had been Indian land. Note: Grant was originally made to Francis Nicholson who transferred the grant to James Johnson. Johnson subsequently assigned the property to William Glover for 10,000 lbs of tobacco, but reacquired the property when Glover died.) for the property that he, or son John, named Old Town because it included the site of an abandoned town once occupied by the Pamunkey Indians. There are numerous records that establish that James Johnson was the original owner of Old Town and that John Johnson resided at Old Town and he was still living there as late as 1728. The property was sold at public auction by Ammon Johnson ( Capt. James3, John2, James1) in 1825 after the death of his mother, Lucy Ammon Johnson. The provenance (ownership history) of the property was presented, going back to the original 110 acre grant in 1701. There remains, however, some uncertainty as to the parentage of James Johnson. Lorand Johnson concluded that he was the son of Thomas Johnston and Mary Irvine of Castle Criag, Dyce, Aberdeenshire, Scotland. If so, he was married to second wife, Faith Leith, when he settled in VA. ( James Johnson's first wife had been Margaret Alexander which appears correct as they named a son Alexander Johnson who, St. Peter's Parish records and Quaker records show, married Anne Walker in 1715. If Lorand Johnson was correct, this would make this branch of the Johnson family direct descendants of the Johnston family of Caskieben, Scotland and not a descendant of William the Conqueror. (The fact that a third generation descendant of James Johnson -- Ashley Johnson, son of John Johnson Jr. and Elizabeth Ellyson -- named his Virginia property "Castle Craig" certainly implies that Lorand Johnson was right about the ancestry of James Johnson.) (7) Gershom Perdue stated that William "Johnston" was a Scotchman but claimed he was not a brother of John Johnson. I know of no proof that John and William were brothers, but the circumstantial evidence certainly suggests that they were brothers or at least close cousins. They were close in age, lived very near to one another, married Massie sisters and were practicing Quakers. Quite a package of coincidences! Doug Tucker dougtucker@erols.com ------ Doug, Your Massie/Johnson article was extremely informative but in 2 details your source was transcribed in haste. The Harleian Society is named for a member of the Harley family. The Spencers were earls of Sunderland (not Southampton) since 1643. The Wriothesleys were earls of Southampton 1547-1667. The title was revived for (Barbara?) Villiers, countess of Southampton 1670-1674. Her descendants (by Charles II?) were dukes of Southampton 1674-1774 with the surname Fitzroy. My reference, "A Directory of British Peerages" by Francis Leeson pub. 1986 by GPC, just gives surnames, so the last paragraph is somewhat conjectural, except for surnames and dates. Peter Wilson ------------ Peter: Thanks for the corrections and, yes, I sometimes get a bit sloppy in scribbling down notes and/or later trying to decipher them. Linda probably won't like my picking up on the Villiers connection (she avoids Candler family discussions like the plague) but I have long been convinced that Barbara Villiers Palmer, a favorite mistress of Charles II, was responsible for the award of a royal estate at Callan, Ireland to William Candler in 1669/70. Barbara Villiers was the only daughter of Edward Villiers, 2nd Viscount Grandison of Limerick (Ireland), who was a nephew of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham and a confidant of both James I and his son, Charles I. "Buckingham" was assasinated in France in 1628. (His assasination later became part of the plot of Devoe's "The Three Musketeers".) Edward Villiers was killed fighting for the Royalist side during the Civil War. His wife and daughter, accompanied young prince Charles Stuart and other high- ranking Royalist sympathizers into exile in Holland in 1647. While there, Barbara Villiers became a friend/confidant of another young exile, Anne Clarke. Barbara also married Roger Palmer and became mistress to Charles Stuart, the future Charles II. She remained his favorite throughout the first decade of the Restoration. Barbara Villiers Palmer bore Charles II several illegitimate children and their sons were granted the royal surname Fitzroy in 1670. I thought, however, that Barbara Villiers Palmer was made Dutchess of Cleveland and that her eldest son was made Duke of Southampton. Barbara's friend from Holland, young Anne Clarke, later married John Villiers, 3rd Viscount Grandison, who had succeeded to the title on the death of his older brother. After Villiers' death in 1660, Anne married widower William Candler who had settled in Ireland after the end of the 1649 Irish Rebellion. William Candler, as many know, was the father of Mary Candler, wfe of Zachariah Moorman. William Candler also is alleged to have been the grandfather of immigrant Daniel Candler of Bedford Co. (Yes, I agree this royalty rubbish is unseemly for a bunch of republicans, but it does help explain some of the historical quirks which helped dump our ancestors on England's colonial frontiers.) Doug Tucker ----------- [Greg McReynolds GMcRey@aol.com] The dialog on the "Royals" is interesting but I continue to have a real problem with the idea that illegitimate children of privilege went from the lap of luxury to godforsaken Virginia (which was punishment enough) but then to become Quakers? Unless these folk's were also masochists! As I said in a previous email James Bellarts proved that most Quakers descend from the Yeoman class and occasionally a wealthy merchant. ---------- Hello Greg et al., It's not really that unusual to see members of the nobility heading out to Virginia. Under the laws of entail and primogeniture the eldest legitimate son got the whole landed estate leaving a fairly small stipend for the rest of the family. Any younger/illegitimate children would have been no better off than the average "rich merchant." Gov. Berkeley of Virginia (temp. 1640's-60's if I recall correctly) encouraged the younger sons of noblemen to settle in Virginia and become the new ruling class. He even printed off a flashly little brochure to be distributed in London. The way it sounds from the brochure, all you had to do was head over to Virginia, pick up some of the gold that was lying in heaps on the ground, and head back again ! Naturally, this encouraged a large number of people to come over. In "Albion's Seed", the famous study of English migrants to America prior to the Revolution, there is a list (very incomplete) of about 100-150 noble families who are documented as having immigrated to Virginia in the mid 17th Century. Regarding these fellows becoming Quakers: this is fairly unusual. Most of the landed gentry of Virginia were members of the Church of England, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened. After all, look at the Ashley-Massie- Johnson situation. Assuming that Penelope & Lucretia Ashley were the illegitimate daughters of the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury and married respectable Cheshire gentlemen (the Massies). Probably Peter Massie and his brother were lured over to VA by Gov. Berkeley and his brochures and eventually settled in New Kent Co., VA which has just been settled not long before. Their daughters had no more rank than that of the daughters of a member of the minor gentry in England. They married, by Dr. Lorand's account, the sons of a Merchant from Scotland. Certainly, he was a merchant with some noble blood in him, but a merchant nonetheless. It quite conceivable that the younger sons of a merchant might become Quakers. After all,that's what James Bellart has alledgedly proved! Kelsey J. Williams --------- I am just now writing you to say that Doug Tucker meant Dumas rather than Defoe as the author of The Three Musketeers. This book is just about my favorite of all, as was the movie with Gene Kelly. I think Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo is my absolute favorite. Kay Baganoff ---------------------- I agree with Ed that Callan, Ireland was not part of the early versions of the Moorman Family Legend as there is little likelihood that the early Moormans knew about the Callan grant which was made in 1670 after Zachariah Moorman had arrived in VA. That said, I find no problem with the later addition of "William Candler, of Callan, Ireland" to the Moorman legend. The legend has always included the fact that Zachariah Moorman and Mary Candler were married in Ireland. We can prove (document) that Zachariah Moorman was unmarried and serving in the English Army in Ireland from 1649 until after the end of 1656 and, further, that it was unlikely that he could have returned to England before 1660. Similarly, can prove that William Candler was serving in the same Army in Ireland during the same period, that he retired with the rank of Lt. Col. and took up residence at a confiscated Irish estate in Kings County. We can prove through the Petty Census (1657) that William Candler was the ONLY adult male Candler resident in Ireland in the time frame of the Moorman/Candler marriage. We can also prove that, in 1657, the Candler household at Balliknocan, Kings Co. contained one male and three female "English persons", none of which was William Candler's wife. We likewise can document that William Candler, Esq. was granted a royal estate at Callan, County Kilkenny in 1670 and that he subsequently built a manor house which he named "Callan Castle". Ergo, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Mary Candler who married Zachariah Moorman in Ireland was likely the daughter of William Candler, Esq. of Callan, Ireland -- the only Candler in Ireland.. I see nothing wrong or sinister with adding the "daughter of William Candler of Callan" tag as a descriptor for Mary Candler Moorman. Does Ed suggest that we ignore the rather significant evidence of Mary's probable parentage? Tying Ed's ancestor, Daniel Candler, to William Candler of Callan, is a different can of worms but one that has little to do with the origins of Mary Candler Moorman. Ed clearly believes that Daniel's pedigree was "manufactured" at a later date, but I fail to see what bearing that has on the Moorman story. Doug Tucker dougtucker@erols.com ----------------- Don't know if I want to jump into this discussion as I feel woefully unprepared, but two things have stuck out at me. One, there is an Ashley River in SC, just to the north of present day Charleston. Drayton Hall, one of the oldest plantation homes in existence, sits overlooking the Ashley River, which flows towards to ocean near Charleston. Second, under primogeniture, most of the third and fourth sons of a gentleman or nobleman, almost had to strike out on their own and seek their fortune. The second son MIGHT have stayed home and hoped for the early demise of his elder brother, before the oldest brother had a male heir. If the older brother had a male heir, then there was no hope of the second, third or fourth sons gaining land of the father, under primogeniture, as I understand it. Many became members of the guilds, merchants if you will, who were really ruling members of societies on the local levels. Only they could vote for mayor of cities, etc. These were often of noble birth, but might be termed grocer or draper. Rarely did they see the inside of a "grocery store" or a manufacturing place. They may have owned them, but their fingernails weren't dirty in any fashion. I think if you look at many of the early land baron's in VA, you'll find they are third and fourth sons, as pointed out in the earlier letter. As for them becoming Quakers, I think that was an individual person's decision. Clearly it was more profitable to be a member of the established church. I think we see that in Christopher Clark's life, if in fact, he was a birth rite Quaker as alleged. He certainly didn't maintain that faith through his life, but was "reborn' later along the way, perhaps with the help of George Fox. I think that was not unusual in the colonies and elsewhere in Europe. Just food for thought. Karen Woods karenwood@mail.del.net --------- Note from Linda: For those who raise an eyebrow about Christopher Clark; even though he signed as witness to a Quaker marriage in 1700, he was a vestryman in the Anglican Church. As vestryman he had to SWEAR that he believed certain Anglican beliefs, including many things Quakers don't believe. Therefore we have NO DOUBT that Christopher was NOT a Quaker until he resigned his vestry position circa 1743. At those point he begins appearing in Quaker records. And this happens to coincide with the travels of Joseph Newby (think that's the correct given name) mentioned in Perdue's letter. [Christopher's gr-grandson Thomas M. Clark signed as witness to a Quaker record c1795 at the same period in time when he was swearing in court proceedings so one did not have to be a Quaker to sign as a witness. See my report on him for the citations.] --------- [This comes a bit out of sequence, so I'm reposting Greg's remarks which elicits the following comments: The dialog on the "Royals" is interesting but I continue to have a real problem with the idea that illegitimate children of privilege went from the lap of luxury to godforsaken Virginia (which was punishment enough) but then to become Quakers? Unless these folk's were also masochists! As I said in a previous email James Bellarts proved that most Quakers descend from the Yeoman class and occasionally a wealthy merchant. ] Being a Quaker had spiritual benefits which were attractive to many people, Greg. Barclay and Penn were a couple of well-to-do guys who became Friends. Young people like to go off an make their own life, which may be the motive for many emigrations to the New World. Dave ---------- Hi Dave, Yes, I am negligent in that respect! I agree Quakers did come from all levels of society (though I think that peers and nobility comprise the smallest level) and once joining the Society tended to remain with passion. You may add to your list Margaret Askew Fell Fox the wife of George Fox. Now that I've had time to reflect perhaps its less the connection to royalty than a combination of things that continues to nag at me. The lineage of the Johnson's of Caskieben, the Dr. Arthur Johnson connection, the descent from Anthony Ashley Cooper. Doesn't the sheer number of royal lines in one family seem somewhat hard to believe? These families count amongst their ancestors powerful clan chieftains, extraordinary political leaders and monarchs and yet in Virginia all these powerful genes don't produce progeny any where near that caliber. The Washington's Randolph's, and other powerful Virginia families continued their "manor born" leadership from old country to new. Why not the Johnson's of Caskieben and the children of Lord Ashley-Cooper? Now don't get me wrong I'm not bad mouthing them (I am a descendant too!) but it seems that they should be on the same social level as the Washington's, Randolph's et al. and that doesn't seem the case. I am putting my neck out here but the only famous descendants I can think of is Mary Johnson the wife of Missouri's Civil War governor John McClurg....Mark Twain? and Lady Astor. However, they were well after the colonial period. Thank you all for allowing me to express my opinions, after all that's all they are! Gregory McReynolds