SUSNRBTL Further Comments on Dr. Lorand Johnson's Research and the JOHNSON clan in VA by Susan Stewart July 1996 [I received copies of two "papers" Susan sent Dick Baldauf in July; I plan to send excerpts from both to everyone on the group. I know that most of you aren't "all that" interested in the JOHNSONs, but we're learning fast, "the more we find out about one of these New Kent Co. neighbors, the more we learn about the others." Edward Johnson below is the father of Penelope (Johnson) b. 1684, wife of Capt. Xpher Clark. First, Susan does not want to get into a debate over the value of Dr. Johnson's research with anyone. She is merely offer- ing a differring view of some points previously presented by Doug Tucker in APRDOUG.ASC file, in which he responded to my EDWJOHNS.ASC file. In Susan's words: "my basic position is that his (Lorand Johnson) work is valuable and should not be dis carded. However, it should not be accepted as the definitive work on the Caskieben Johnstons. Even the great Jacobus has been shown in recent years to have made errors." As in other things, the thoughts are Susan's; typos are mine--especially if I left off or added the "t" in Johnston/ Johnson. Also, my comments will be initialed within brackets. LSS] ANTHONY / ARTHUR JOHNSON Doug and I hold different views on whether Anthony/Arthur are the same man with his parents being Edward Johnson and Elizabeth Walker. I believe they are two separate men and question the parentage of at least one of them. The key argument Doug presents is the possibility a transcriber read the record wrong: "However, if the name was taken from a handwritten record, consider how very close the let ters of a scrawled Anthony and Arthur would look. Tall-short tall-tall-short-short." Obviously, the name HAD to have been transcribed from a hand- written record because the baptisms of two children are shown in the St. Peter's Parish Record for Anthony and Sarah Johnson: Thomas, baptized 9 Dec. 1694 and Anne, baptized 16 April 1699. Counter-arguments that Anthony/Arthur are the same person: 1. Anthony has seven letters; Arthur has six letters. The description of "tall-short-tall-tall-short-short" counts for only six letters, not seven. 2. All of the letters in both names of Anthony and Arthur are very easy to misread with ONE exception. Let's take the ones that COULD easily be misread, taking into account how each individual handwriting sample is distinc tive. The letters "r" easily could also be an "n" depending on how the letter is formed at the top. The letter "o" easily can be a "u" if the writer does not close the loop for the "o". On this, Doug and I completely agree. But the one distinctive characteristic of these two names is that Anthony has a DESCENDING character with the "y" for a total of seven letters. Arthur has no such descending character for a total of six letters. Thus, an accurate description for Arthur is: "tall-short-tall-tall-short-short." A more accurate descrip tion for Anthony is: "tall-short-tall-tall-short-short-LONG." 3. In addition, there are two separate baptismal entries for An thony Johnson in the St. Peter's Parish Records: 1694 and 1699. These are five years apart. This means the transcriber had a number of other entries to record for a variety of other people before he or she reached the next entry of 1699. In other words, there were two opportunities to study the handwriting. Most important of all, none of us know a critical piece of information. Are these two entries even in the SAME handwriting? 4. Another problem is the name of the wife. The St. Peter's bap- tism records shows the mother as SARAH. Yet, the charts I have show the wife of Arthur as MARGARET Phares. It appears none of us have marriage records for either An thony and Sarah (?) or Arthur and Margaret Phares. Perhaps there is some proof that an Arthur Johnson married a Margaret Phares available that will add weight these are separate men. The next debate: Is Anthony the son of Edward Johnson and Elizabeth Walker? A marriage date of 1677 has been given for this couple but Linda has correctly pointed out that no record exists to support it. 1. My hunch is the date was calculated from the letter written by Elizabeth Johnson Keith before the 1676 Quaker meeting in Lon don in which she referred to "my cousin Edward Johnston" who was to accompany Ann Keith to Virginia. [LSS here--has anyone seen this letter? Did she actually say "cousin Edward JOHNSTON" or just "cousin Edward"? Does anyone more expert on the net than me want to undertake a search for this letter?] In other words, Dr. Johnson could not get Edward married un til after he got to Virginia and he had to get Anthony born no later than 1678 in order to qualify Anthony as a father in 1694 when his first child is shown. As you will see, this qualifica tion still is quite a stretch. It would be helpful to have an exact date (month and day) of this Elizabeth Johnston Keith letter to see where it falls in the Old Style Calendar Year. I would assume that Dr. Lorand Johnson gave the full date since he quoted extensively from it so it should be readily available from his books. 2. In an earlier letter, Linda expressed her serious reserva tions that this Edward would have married so quickly, settled and also signed the 2 April 1677 New Kent Complaints. I agree that it is very unlikely. Edward Johnson of the Caskieben clan reportedly arrived in Virginia the latter part of 1676 or EARLY 1677. Once we know the exact date of Elizabeth Johnson Keith's letter and once we know the sailing date of the voyage (which should be recorded in the published Rev. Edmundson diaries), Linda's opinion will have a documented foundation. In the meantime, Linda already has a valid argument. This Edward arrived in the latter part of 1676 or early 1677. How later? How early? The Old Style Calendar Year began on March 25. If this Edward arrived in early 1677, this gives him less than eight days to travel to New Kent and to sign the 2 April 1677 New Kent Complaints in his new homeland. Even if Edward ar rived in the latter part of 1676, the most logical first stop would be Accomac County to visit and stay with his half-brother George Johnston, for a period of time. 3. Since the marriage date has been established through supposi tion, the same applies to the birth year of 1678 for Anthony Johnson. There doesn't seem to be such an existing record of another document in which Anthony stated his age. We also face an added dilemma in accepting Anthony as a son of Edward Johnston of Caskieben and his wife Elizabeth Walker. Anthony's first child of record--Thomas--was baptized 9 Dec. 1694. Thomas would have been conceived in late March, 1693 or 1694, or April, 1694. Anthony, if born in 1678, would have been but 16-years-old when Thomas was born and probably 15 when Thomas was conceived. This would be a shotgun marriage to Sarah (?) and it would be much fairer to assume it was not. To add to the pile of woes, it is not certain if Thomas even WAS the firstborn since no marriage record exists for Anthony and Sarah. A more logical birth year for Anthony would be circa late 1660s or early 1670s, which predates the arrival of Edward Johnson in Virginia. Dr. Arthur Johnston There certainly is a lot of conflicting data on his life. "The Scottish Nation..." by Anderson: (1.) Seven brothers (2.) Two wives (3.) 16 children (4.) Returned to Scotland in 1632. Dr. Lorand Johnson: (1.) Two wives (2.) 11 children. "The Family of Johnston of that Ilk and of Caskieben", by Alexander Johnston Jr.: (1.) Five brothers. "Scotland's Men of Letters" published by the St. Andrew Society of Marischal College, Aberdeen, Scotland: (1.) Five brothers (2.) Three wives (3.) 13 children (4.) Returned to Scotland 1625. Of these sources, I trust the St. Andrew Society of Marischal Col- lege the most. The Society's reputation is impeccable and it had the biggest stake in being accurate: Dr. Johnston practiced medicine and taught at Marischal College. In addition, it would have an excellent repository of rare documents. It is interesting to note that these three sources have such dif ferences in regard to the number of brothers Dr. Arthur had, the number of his wives and the number of his children. These would be the critical elements concerning Dr. Arthur's nephew, Sir George Johnston in his documentation to support his claim for the baronet title. Of this large family, Sir George would have had a special intimate knowledge about his Uncle Arthur. That is be cause Arthur was orphaned at an early age and was raised in the household of his older brother, Sir John, who also was the father of Sir George. In fact, Arthur and George probably were near to the same age. All sources agree that Arthur was born in 1587. His eldest brother, Sir John, who raised him, was married twice and ap parently had married the second wife, Katherine Lundie, sometime before 1600. But Sir John's heir George was by his first wife, Janet, daughter of Turing of Foveran. I gleaned the before mar riage date from material [Dick Baldauf] sent some time back. Un der Sir John, No. 9, is this quote from the Index of Retours: It is the service of the lady of Johnston's (Katherine Lundie's) brother, as heir to the father: "Mali 6 1600. Joannes Lundy 'heeres,' Mageistrl Gulielmi Lundy de Eodem, patris," in the lands of Lundy etc., in the County of Fife. This kind of original record is irrefutable. And since Sir George is the son of the first marriage and the first cousin, Dr. Arthur was born in 1587, the two men must be of like age. By 1600, Dr. Arthur would have been 13 years-old. Thus, when it came time for Sir George to establish the claim to the title of his father--Sir John, older brother and 'step-father' to Arthur- George was in an enviable position of knowing a great deal about Arthur, the man he grew up with in the same household. (It is also interesting to note that Dr. Arthur did name his fourth son, George, perhaps after this first cousin.) But more likely after his father! That raises a question in my mind about how important it really was to Sir George to supply ALL the details about the family in the court proceeding to establish his right to the title. And evidentally, those court records still exist because Dr. Lorand Johnson read them. I suspect that the St. Andrew Society could have, too. If Sir George HAD documented the ENTIRE Johnston of Caskieben Clan, we would not have such an array of differing facts concerning Dr. Arthur, and we would not be debating whether or not Dr. Arthur had a son Edward. Such facts should be in the court proceeding records. [Linda's insert here from a previous file in which Dave Goodwin explained these "Visitations" where people established their in herited claim to the family title: he cited _Heraldry, Ancestry and Titles_ by L. G. Pine, Gramercy Pub Co: NY 1985: Visitations were tours of inspection by heralds, conducted roughly once a gen- eration and covering one county as a time. They met with everyone claiming to possess a coat of arms; these had to provide proof which the heralds could accept or reject. They began in 1529 and ended in 1686. Over the years the heralds drew "rudimentary pedigree charts" which they enlarged as the genera tions went by. LSS] Dr. Arthur and his heirs apparently were so far removed from the laws of succession that it was not necessary for Sir George to give a complete documentation for him. For example, ahead of Ar thur were at least three other brothers and their heirs: Gil bert, George and Thomas and perhaps William, if William was older than Arthur. In addition, Arthur's eldest brother who did accede to the baronetcy and who raised him--John--himself had male heirs. So in my opinion Dr. Athur's first cousin, Sir George, did not do a complete job because it was not necessary in order to receive the baronetcy. Dr. Arthur and his own heirs are too far down in the line of succession to make a legitimate challenge which would threaten Sir Goerge from having his claim to the baronetcy honored. What troubles me about Dr. Lorand Johnson is that he apparently missed one of the wives of Dr. Arthur, giving him only two when there were three. And Johnson gives him 11 children whereas the St. Andrew Society gives him 13 and there is no primary record that shows there was an Edward. If everyone agrees with this argument, can we then be absolutely sure that Sir George, son of heir Sir John, was equally meticulous about the other branches in completely documenting all the data regarding them if Dr. Lorand Johnson gathered his data directly from the court records? We know that Sir George only had to confine his succession concerns to the generation of his father since his grandfather, also Sir George who married Chris tian Forbes, was an only child. But, depending on the source, his father and the heir--John--had anywhere from five to seven brothers to document. The names of the brothers known to me were Gilbert, George, Thomas, Arthur and William which totals 5, eliminating Sir John. It is bothersome to see that the sources cannot agree on the ex act number of brothers when there is a court record showing who they are. Surely, Sir Goerge put down the names of all his uncles when he made his claim to the baronetcy. That would have been a paramount fact to present to the court, so why is there a variation among the sources about the number of uncles Sir George had? If I concentrate on just the six names that I know of--Sir John, Gilbert, George, Thomas, Arthur and William--it is staggering to realize how many sons these six could have sired by the time Sir George made his claim in court, eliminating all the possible daughters. Of these six in this generation, we seem to only know the most about Arthur and Sir John and a little bit more about William who was the father of Elizabeth Johnston Keith who wrote the 1676 letter. Elizabeth actually is the niece of Dr. Arthur. And, indeed, would be the first cousin of Edward if he is a son of Dr. Arthur. Actually, I am inclined to not oppose an Edward Johnston being born to Dr. Arthur even without definitive proof. Apparently, this is lacking in the baronetcy court records; otherwise there would be no debate. What else may be lacking in these records is a full accounting of the children of all the uncles of Sir George? It also would be very helpful to know when Sir George succeeded to the baronetcy; a date I don't have. Thus, my feeling is that the court records are not as complete as one would hope for us researchers, based on the sheer volume of possible male descendents springing from all these brothers. There also apparently is quite a span of years between their births since Arthur was orphaned young and was raised by an adult brother, Sir John. We are getting into the half-generation problem with this possibility. Some of his elder brothers, in cluding the eldest Sir John, could have had children more the age of Arthur than Arthur being the age of his brothers. After all, Arthur's father and mother not only had six sons; they also had seven daughters for a total of 13 children. This means his parents had children born over a period of 26 years, if we use a two-year span between children and bar multiple births such as twins. With this kind of span and not knowing the birth order of ALL of Arthur's siblings, it certainly is obvious that as one of the younger children some of his older brothers and sisters would have been married and started families of their own by the time Arthur's parents died. As a result, I am reluctant to sign off on the idea that there was but one Edward and that this Edward is the son of Dr. Arthur. Until a list can be found that shows as many sons as possible born to the five to seven brothers of Dr. Arthur, we can't be sure if there was not another Edward in the family. We also can't discount the idea that some of Dr. Arthur's nephews born to some of his older brothers might also have been siring children at the same time he was. An example of a half-generation problem. With three wives, Dr. Arthur was siring children into his 50s. Thus, Arthur also could have had a nephew, born to an older brother, who was married and siring children at the same time he was. Even his own eldest son James could have had children at the same time as his father by the 1630s since he was born in 1612. Therefore, should we take literally Elizabeth Johnston Keith's reference to her "cousin Edward" planning to come to Virginia in her 1676 letter? Can we assume she is talking about her first cousin, Edward, unproven son of Dr. Arthur? It is important to keep in mind that during this time period the word "cousin" was often used to denote various forms of kinship ties. Sometimes, for example, "cousin" meant a nephew. Some times, the blood tie could be more distant. It could even denote a marriage, not a blood tie. I am not inferring the latter is the case in this particular case because clearly it is not. What I would like to present are two ideas: I am not convinced that the "cousin Edward" in the 1676 is Dr. Arthur's son nor is he the Edward who appears 2 April 1677 New Kent records. I believe these are two separate Edwards BUT they could be related, both belonging to the Johnson Caskieben Clan. The line of de scent, though, may not be as surmised. For Linda and/or Dick, this could have some implications and it would solve some dilem mas that Linda, in particular, faces. Linda's problems are these: (1) Edward, son of Dr. Arthur, is said to have been born in 1638. (2) This Edward is said to have arrived in late 1676 or early 1677 and who almost immediately signed the 1677 Complaint. (3) This Edward is said to have immediatly married Elizabeth Walker in 1677. (4) This couple are said to have had Anthony, born in 1678 with no record showing this, and this Anthony became a father of a Thomas at age 16. (5) However, the first RECORDED child of Edward and Elizabeth was not born until three years later in 1680: Thomas. (6) Only four children can definitely be attributed to this pair: Thomas, Elizabeth, Penelope and Rachel. There is no proven son named Arthur and there is no daughter named Barbara, after the parents of this Edward. And Linda's research has shown the names of Arthur and Barbara don't occur in subsequent generaions either. A most glaring oversight considering the prominence and stature of Dr. Arthur. (7) This Edward and Elizabeth, though, appear to have had an older unrecorded son Edward (Jr.) who appears in New Kent records as having a daughter Rebecka baptized in 1698 and a Benjamin born in 1701. The reason this Edward is tentatively placed as an Ed ward Jr. is that there is a 12-year span between the Rachel born in 1686/8 and the Rebecka born in 1698. There is nothing in the St. Peter's records showing any further births for an Edward Johnson during this 12 year period. In fact, in a letter Linda also notes his absence in processioning lists. (8) If born in 1638, this Edward who married Elizabeth would have been 42-years-old when his first recorded child is shown: Thomas born in 1680. He also would have been 20 years older than his wife Elizabeth who is said to be a Walker. The possibility has been raised that this Edward could have had an earlier mar riage and perhaps some of the other early Johnsons in New Kent were by this marriage. But if Edward was a widower with little children, why doesn't Elizabeth Johnston Keith mention that he was bringing his young family with him in her letter? Many of Linda's dilemmas could be resoled with a different scenario, still tying her line to the Caskieben Clan. It also may apply to [Dick's] Michael Johnson. One scenario would be that Elizabeth Johnston Keith meant exactly what she said in her 1676 letter. The Edward who was to sail to Virginia was her fist cousin and he could have been the son of Dr. Arthur Johnston. Equally possible is that Edward is a son of another one of Elizabeth's uncles, because since the court records don't appear to be complete about Arthur, then it is likely they are not com plete about some if not all of his other brothers. This Edward could be the right father of the Arthur Johnston of Virginia who married Margaet Phares. It would be nice to have some data proving this marriage and also some birth year data for both Arthur and Margaret. The third scenario would be that Elizabeth Johnston Keith had a relative Edward whom she called "cousin" who came to Virginia. But this Edward may not even have been an adult in 1676/77 nor was he necessarily a first cousin. This Edward could have been a second cousin, instead, for example: He could be the grandson of one of her uncles and a son of one of her male first cousins. This Edward could have married Elizabeth Walker, but not in 1677. We even may have two Edwards who both married an Elizabeth. But the Edward who is the father of Linda's Penelope most logi cally was on Virginia shores before the Edward who sailed in late 1676 or early 1677. Linda's Edward could have been born in the 1650s, instead, which makes the birth years of his known children much more reasonable. It also is just as likely that his wife was Elizabeth Walker. If readers can accept the possibility that Linda's Edward is not the same man that Elizabeth Johnston Keith refers to in her 1676 letter, then it becomes much more reasonable to find Edward Johnson signing the New Kent Complaint 2 April 1677. [Hopefully Susan's next installment won't take me as along to get out. LSS]