Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kevin Sanderson
38 followers
38 followers
About
Kevin's posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
I don't know how I missed this, but Higham Ferrers is on the old main road from London to Leicester. Also, William Rawlins, the goldsmith Edward's brother Robert Sanderson apprenticed under, may have had a family connection to the Higham Ferrers area, also referred to as just Higham by the locals.

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
Found a Robert Saunderson was born to Robert Saunderson and "Lidia" on Ancestry.co.uk  -- baptized 26 Feb 1633   FHL Film Number:  374483  - same church in London as their daughter Lydia - that puts their marriage back to 1632. now.

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
One of the cautions advised to aspiring  genealogists is, "There may be more than one person in the records with the same name."  That could also say "similar name" in our ongoing discussion. I believe it applies very much to Edward Sanderson vs. Edward Sanders/Saunders. The biggest two things to me lately from my research indicating Edward Sanderson was not the criminal Edward Sanders/Saunders (and I've posted this elsewhere on your blogs with links to sources) are that 1) Edward Rawson, who for 36 years was the Secretary of the Massachusetts Colony and Secretary of the General Court, and knew Robert Sanderson since Rawson was on the mint committee and deposed and swore in Robert, wrote down Edward Saunders in his entries of the records of the trial. And 2) John Saunders, a member of the church in Watertown, had his daughter Ann baptized at the First Church in Boston the day after Edward Saunders was convicted but spared hanging. That shows there was at least two Sanders/Saunders families in Watertown. We know there was not a John Sanderson in Watertown with a family. John Saunders more than likely had his daughter baptized as a way of thanking God for his relative Edward Saunders not being executed.

Robert and Edward Sanderson are the only recorded Sanderson family members you can find records of in early Massachusetts, and later William Sanderson, and their offspring. Meanwhile, there are dozens of Sanders/Saunders in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine.

Rawson would not have a problem hearing "son" on the end of a name (a problem we Sanderson family members sometimes have when meeting people - it's happened to me for many decades) since he, too, had a name ending in "son." He surely would have recognized Edward Saunders being a brother of Robert if he had been, but obviously there was no connection. With the name being close and the families being from Watertown, I'm sure it would have crossed Rawson's mind. He by all accounts was very good and sharp. He was not just some raggedy part-time clerk, he was from a well to do family in London, a politician for several years, and big land owner. https://archive.org/stream/ancestryofedward00cran#page/n3/mode/2up

We also know from the Court testimony from young Ruth Parsons, the abuse happened on King's Common, in Edward Sanders/Saunders lean to on the Common and her father's house on the north end of the Common. Her neighbor old Grace Wetherill and her neighbors to her immediate south, Joseph and Hester Morse, heard what Sanders/Saunders and his wife said about the incident. That's a mile away from where Robert's properties were and the land Edward Sanderson sold to William Shattuck, Sr. by Fresh Pond (part of the old John Livermore land east of Robert's land - not found in Livermore's will - and south of the land William Shattuck originally bought from John Clough in 1654). A mile was not a short distance in that period of time and would take time to walk - I walk for exercise and a mile walk takes time, and besides, there was no mention of distance mentioned in the testimony. Everything seemed to happen almost next door and in her father's house. Ruth named her abuser as Edward Sanders and no other. She obviously knew who he was, so that indicates he was a neighbor, not someone who lived a mile away.

There were many commoners who were not proprietors who lived on the Common or the edge of town. I know that is where Edward Sanders/Saunders (no relation to Edward Sanderson) and his family lived from the court testimony. His relative John Saunders, probably lived there as well or nearby. There were around 160 families in Watertown by 1651 according to Dr. Thompson and he says that was a very conservative projection given the increase of the population, and the lack of documentation of the people who were not landowners. Your argument saying there could not both be an Edward Sanderson and a Edward Sanders in a small area is proven false in Northamptonshire, England where similar named men of both families lived. Sanderson families and Sanders families are mainly not related according to the family histories.

As far as the names go, Edward Sanderson was mostly Edward Sanderson in the records, except for one time Sandors, also Sanders and Sandurses which looks like a badly written Sanderson in the original ink splotched handwritten records I finally found and saw over at Ancestry. He was Edward Sanderson and Ed Sanderson in Shattuck's will and Edward Saunderson in Robert's will. Robert Sanderson was written one time as Sanders in the Watertown records. The other is probably Robert Sanders of Cambridge who was a documented proprietor living there since 1639 and with his associations would have been the one to make gun powder as I posted on another blog of yours. William Sanderson did have the most name abuse. If it wasn't for his wife Sary being in the records, too, we wouldn't know his children.

Bigod Eggleston has two spellings in his own will by whoever wrote it for him - Bigat Egllstone, and Begat Egleston. There are many variations of that name. I still think he and Mary fell apart, she stayed behind for some reason, love or more likely became a servant. That's probably how she came over, as a servant who was released, the same as many other people who came to the colonies. People would not have a problem with an older woman getting married to older Edward Sanderson in 1645 if they knew she had just been released from being a servant, many of whom never married in England. Bigod had been a servant. Her son Jonathan was a servant early on, and his father-in-law, Thomas Bartlett, came over as a servant. There were no grandchildren at all in Bigod's will and Mary could have been dead by the time Bigod died to counter a couple of reasons given by Robert Charles Anderson, who also has mistakes in his books, as he freely admits are possible. There was no record of Mary's death in England, a cousin named Mary died in1634, and the Eggleston women who wrote the book about Bigod could not find any record of our Mary's death in England.

I've presented many documents and sources leading to my reasoning at my website: http://ksanderson.com/edward_sanderson_of_watertown_ma.html

You should really provide any documents you have rather than just a very short list of books, and provide much more detailed reasonings. After talking to people who work with the Historical Society at the Watertown Free Public Library, and Massachusetts Archives, and learning from them, I have even less confidence in what Dr. Bond found (since he didn't gather the information, he paid others to do it - and he includes a big disclaimer about that information, considering some of it as not reliable), and am even more wary of some of the new books. The people in Massachusetts all say, get the original documentation whenever possible. There are just too many mistakes and bad assumptions running around.

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
You did not include the complete line from the Watertown Records page 38 from 1654... "the Company ordered that Robert Sanders should have 2 pounds of pouder for to make fire works at the generall Training at Cambridg..."(sic).

You think a Robert Sanders in Cambridge, Massachusetts was Robert Sanderson. Nope. There was a documented Robert Sanders in Cambridge who is a completely different person than silversmith Robert Sanderson, who lived in different areas of the Colony, including Boston, but Robert Sanders did not die in Boston, and was poor when he passed. Robert Sanderson did die in Boston a wealthy man.

>From early researcher Charles Henry Pope's Pioneers of Massachusetts:
--

SANDERS, SAUNDERS, SANDEN, SANDIN, SANDYN,
ROBERT, Cambridge, propr. 1639; town officer; freeman. May
23, 1639. In partnership with H. Usher 10 (10) 1645. [A.]
Will dated 1 March, prob. 3 May, 1683, beq. to Christian
Pelton for the care of him in his old age, and to his sons
John, Hopestill and Samuel."<<

And Judge Savage on Robert Sanders:
"ROBERT, Cambridge 1636, ar. co. 1638, freem. 23 May 1639, rem. it is thot. to Boston soon, and aft. to Dorchester, where, in 1680, he was a poor man."

That is the Robert Sanders who may have still lived in Cambridge at the time (Watertown and Cambridge shared things then as they do now), and not Robert Sanderson who had already moved to Boston from Watertown in 1653 and was already working full-time with John Hull at the mint since it was established September 1, 1652. It is thought by researchers of the history of the mint that Robert Sanderson ran the daily operations. Between the mint and being a Deacon, he probably didn't have time for most activities in a neighboring town, even though he was tied to later production of some gun powder in Boston (lots of people made gun powder then, it wasn't that specialized a skill). The H. Usher mentioned by Charles Henry Pope as partner of Robert Sanders is Hezekiah Usher who was a merchant and bookseller in Cambridge later becoming a publisher moving to Boston and dying a wealthy man. Usher was a member of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts, probably the connection for Robert Sanders and the powder for fire works for the general training at Cambridge. Saunders is noted as a neighbor of Hezekiah Usher in a land listing. There is no known business connection that I can find between Hezekiah Usher and Robert Sanderson, though they may have known each other through church connections and both being wealthy citizens of Boston. Robert Saunders is listed as a proprietor in 1639 in Cambridge, with many land holdings, while Robert Sanderson is documented living and owning land up in New Hampshire at the same time, and wouldn't move to Watertown for another three years. See "The register book of the lands and houses in the "New Towne" and the town of Cambridge, with the records of the proprietors of the common lands, being the records generally called "the proprietors' records" [1634-1829]." https://archive.org/details/registerbooklan01propgoog  Robert Saunders (not Robert Sanderson) is mentioned on several pages.

You really do have to remember and follow the cautionary advice from real genealogists that there is a good  possibility of more than one person with the same or similar name! There were also a lot of Sanders in the colonies then, with very common first names, some had arrived back in 1622. There were not many Sanderson family members at all. Sanders are not related to Sanderson family members.

Sanderson lines come from Alexander de Bedick. http://memory.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2008/20080313001sa/20080313001sa.pdf

Sanders lines are said to come from Robert, Lord of Insprunk in Germany. https://archive.org/stream/foundersmassach01smitgoog#page/n20/mode/2up

As always, be sure to check out all my updated information and reasoning, and links on my page about the Sanderson family: http://ksanderson.com/edward_sanderson_of_watertown_ma.html

You may have to hit refresh to get the latest as I have updated it many times in the past few months as I come across new information.

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
According to his court deposition in 1695 regarding swamp land in Cambridge, Jonathan Sanderson said he lived on Justinian Holden's farm for 4 or 5 years (at the northeast end of Fresh Pond) and then moved to the adjoining Hassells Farm (where he and Abiah lived after they were married late in 1669 and raised their family for 21 years before moving to western Watertown). Just for the record, Job Lane and Malden are not mentioned as places of employment in the deposition. The deposition from 1695 is on pages 8 - 10 of the Sanderson Homes at Piety Corner by Benjamin Worcester, found here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE1108700

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
You don't want to believe it, but it's quite obvious from what I have found that there were two men... Edward Sanderson and Edward Saunders (the Mormons, great genealogists they are, caution that you should always consider the possibility of two or more people with a same or similar name). You say there were less than 100 men named as head of households in your latest revision (your earlier blog from 2012 is posted over at Ancestry and unfortunately shared by several family trees). In Dr. Thompson's "Divided We Stand" on page 117 he figures conservatively there were 160 families in 1651, bringing the population to at least 720. This does not count the unrecorded people living on the fringes. Thompson says the estimate of the town population in 1680 was probably closer to 1,700 instead of his lower projection of about 800 based on the growth elsewhere in the colony, and that means his other listings, including 1651, were "a good deal greater than the listings convey."  More than enough room for Edward Sanderson and Edward Sanders/Saunders in 1654. We know there were many more Sanders/Saunders than Sanderson families in the colony then and Edward was a common first name. Sanderson families in England and Ireland are descended from Alexander de Bedick, a Norman, and Sanders/Saunders are supposed to go way back to Robert, Lord of Insprunk in Germany.

Looking at the records that Rushden Research provides in Northamptonshire, England, there were plenty of similarly named Sanders/Saunders and Sanderson/Saunderson family members, born to different parents within a few years of each other in the Higham Ferrers area. A few for example...there was a Mary Sanders and a Mary Saunderson, a Susan Sanders and a Susan Saundersonne, a William Sanders and a William Saunderson... all with different parents in the same small area. And of course, Edward Saundersonne born in 1611 and his father, and an Edward Saunders born in 1615.

There is no record of John Saunders in Watertown, but he is recorded in the baptism of his daughter Ann in Boston, the day after Edward Saunders was convicted but spared hanging, as being a member of the church in Watertown. I would guess he was related to Edward Saunders as there is no John Sanderson in the area who had children in 1654.

Edward Sanderson is many times recorded as Sanderson, and a couple times as Sandors. The one I could make out that is supposed to be Sandurses looks like a very poorly written Sanderson in the original town records. The spelling for Edward Sanders/Saunders are usually lower case, the entries for Edward Sanderson are generally normal. When Edward Sanderson needed help in 1669, it was not from the usual deacons who attended to the poor (in the earlier listings for edward sanders - sic), but from neighbors of his such as Thomas Hastings, John Coolidge and William Bond. Much more information at http://ksanderson.com/edward_sanderson_of_watertown_ma.html

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
Hey Jeanie, found this last night, an old book that says William was Robert and Lydia's son born about 1641. It's in a genealogy of Walter Whitney Sanderson, on page 668, Volume IV, Western Massachusetts: a history: 1635 - 1925, by Rev. John H. Lockwood and others. So that makes William the third child from Robert's first marriage: Lydia, Mary, then William. https://archive.org/stream/westernmassachus04lock#page/668/mode/2up

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
I found another genuine Saunders in Watertown (not a Sanderson). While tracking down Dr. Bond's assumption that Ann Sanders was Edward Sanderson's daughter baptized at the First Church in Boston I found the record in The Records of the First Church in Boston 1630 - 1668 Vol. 1, page 329 (original page 266) at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/etas/62/ It clearly states, "Ann Saunders Daughter of John Saunders a member of the church of Watertowne was bapt. the 29th day of the 8th moneth 1654." - which places it in October in the old Julian calendar. Bond was wrong again. That is the same week of Edward Sanders/Saunders trial, so perhaps John Saunders was in Boston because of the trial. The General Court reached its decision on October 28, 1654 - MA: Vol. 38b page 190. Also, no confusion at the First Church in Boston as they had Deacon Robert Sanderson and Deacon Richard Sanders at that time.

There were some people who lived on King's Common (the records talk about the commoners who lived in the field near Rev. Sherman on King's Common and a fencing problem on page 11 &12, originally 34, 67 & 69) and elsewhere who obviously were never correctly documented.
https://archive.org/stream/watertownrecords01wate#page/n27/mode/2up

Post has attachment
Kevin Sanderson commented on a post on Blogger.
I just noticed you updated this blog again. I haven't believed Robert gave Edward and Mary the Linton house since I saw his will where he obviously still owned it. I do believe it is very likely from the timing that Robert bought it so they would have a place to stay until Edward could get a place of his own which he did after he took the oath in 1653. The land he sold to William Shattuck, Sr. was part of John Livermore's land to the east of Robert's lands. William Shattuck, Jr. sold part of it back to two of the Livermore women. The earlier deeds were not recorded and there was a reported problem with deed recording when Rev. Sherman took over as town clerk for a second time, complaining about the backlog left by bis predecessor, and the editors of the Watertown Records books complained about the clerk(s), too.

Since Robert could give the Ardell's a house and land in Boston, I see no reason why he wouldn't help his brother who probably came over to help farm his land since Robert was not a farmer. Jonathan Sanderson had his children living on his lands, and Richard Linton gave his daughter and her husband 15 acres after he moved, several years before he died. John Livermore had a son living on the Cowper Farm, one of his properties, and he gave that land eventually to him. So the land was not held as tightly as you suggest by everyone, especially when family was involved. Lots of properties changed hands as people moved on or took advantage of newcomers. Robert also had money from being a silversmith, not to forget his first homestall was through Mary Cross and her late husband John who had the original grant. Robert sold his holdings in New Hampshire, so he could easily afford to buy new properties. I don't think the General Court would be taking on a poor person to run their mint.

Edward Sanderson did not live on King's Common. Edward Saunders, the poor criminal, did live on King's Common with the other poor people like the Parsons and the Philpot family.
Wait while more posts are being loaded