A cup of tea on a Sunday morn,
Hopes for the week newly born.
With laughter and cheer,
To start the New Year,
A tradition that's now well-worn.
Grab your favorite hot beverage and get comfy because I will share what I've been working on for the past two weeks.
Last July, a distant cousin requested I look into the Baines family. She had heard that the British group originated in Scotland and were descendants of Donald III, who went to Ireland after his father was killed by Macbeth, of Shakespeare fame. He returned to Scotland, took the throne for a time but fled to Yorkshire, England where some of his children remained. The family spread to Westmorland and Lancashire (now Cumbria) over the following centuries.
I was about to travel to Great Britain and told her I'd do my best. My best was to find a Bains candy store next to my Edinburgh, Scotland hotel. I blogged earlier about meeting the owner but he had no idea of his genealogy other than his family had been in Scotland forever.
My cousin called me in October and and with voice rising exclaimed, "They all have it wrong! All of them!" She meant online family trees. I had too many other committments and promised I'd look into it. It wasn't until December 23 that I had the time to do so.
Yes, cuz was correct - there were over 13,000 online trees with the wrong info! How could that many people get it wrong? How did I know they had made a mistake?
Almost everyone cited a Burke's Family Record found on Ancestry.com that William Baynes was the son of Adam Baynes. EVERYONE missed the ending "d. an infant." d. stands for died. Adam had no second son named William. William Baynes could not have been the son of the cited Adam Baynes. Undeterred, one copying the other, a pedigree for William was recorded that never happened. Sigh.
Looking into the family opened a can of worms. This was just the beginning of one misunderstanding after another. I'm still not done but what follows is to correct information regarding William's purported grandchildren. To be honest, I'm not comfortable that the Williams I have in my tree is the right William so while I continue researching, I've disconnected that line. What I do know is that corrections need to be put forth regarding someone named William Baynes's son, Mathew.
No baptism record for Mathew Baynes was found. He was noted in The History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania published in 1905, nearly 250 years after his death, to be of Wyersdale, Lancastershire, England. Notice it did not say he was born in Wyersdale; it said he was "of" Wyersdale. Personally, people could say I was "of Florida" since I lived the majority of my life there but I wasn't born there and I don't reside there now. I think the search for Mathew's birth needs to be broadened to find the birth record.
The book and a non-conformist record was found for Mathew's marriage to Margaret, daughter of Captain William Hatton of Bradley, Lancastershire. The distance from Bradley, a burb of Nelson to Wyresdale is 28 miles. Mathew was likely baptized into either Catholicism or the Church of England but as he grew, his parents, William and Deborah last name unknown, became associated with George Fox and followed Quakerism.
Only one document places Mathew with William and Deborah, whose nickname was Dorothy. In 1660 in Lancaster, the men were arrested and jailed for attending a Quaker meeting. The women's names were also recorded.
Two years later, Mathew married in the Quaker faith at the Bradley Meeting.
The History of Bucks County and several works (Colonial Families of Philadelphia, 1911, & Duer Family of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 1954) seem to have copied Mathew's story from Ellwood Roberts Biographical Annal of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (Vol. II, 1904, pp. 534, digital image; usgwarchives.net: accessed 23 December 2024). Over time, the story changed somewhat and the interpretation with it, therefore, misinformation became part of the narrative.
Roberts' simply wrote, "William Baines, son of Matthew Maines [sic], of Lancashire, England, sailed for Pennsylvania in 1686, but he died at sea. His two children, William and Elinor, landed at Chester, and were taken charge of by Friends." Short and sweet.
This led to "In 1686 Mathew Baines, with children, Elinor and William, left England for Pennsylvania, the father dying at sea. When the children landed, they were taken charge of by Friends of Chester montly meeting. The father's dying request, as shown by a letter of Phineas Pemberton to John Walker, 1688, was that his children should be placed in care of James Harrison, but Harrison, having died bedore their arrival, his son-in-law, Pemberton, went to Chester to look after them, and finding them in good hands they were allowed to remain. As the record of the times put it: 'The boy was put with Joseph Stidman and the girl with one John Simcock, and hath 40 or 50s wates per annum, the boy to be with said Stidman, who is said to be a very honest man, until he comes to ye age of 20 years, which is ye customary way of putting forth orphans in these parts." (History of Bucks County, PA)
The next work reported "In the autumn of 1686 William and Margaret Baines, and at least two of their children, Eleanor, born October 22, 1677, and William, born July 14, 1681, embarked for America, but both parents died on the voyage, and the children on their arrival at Chester were taken in charge by Friends, of Chester County." The text goes on to include a transcription of Phineas Pemberton's letter to John Walker in England dated 1688. (Colonial Families)
The difference arising is that now Eleanor and Williams' mother also sailed for America but she, too, died at sea. The second difference is that in the letter transcription, the children were the ones who requested to remain in the colony. In other words, it was their idea not to return to England.
The last text does not mention the mother; "In 1686 Mathew Baines, with children Elinor and William, left England for Pennsyvania, the father dying at sea." (Duer Family of Bucks County).
Although only one work stated with no evidence that Margaret came on board almost every tree had that she died at sea. But there's more...
Unfortunately, the History of Bucks County recorded Mathew and Margaret's children as follows:
Thomas, born 11 mo., 11, 1675, married 4 mo., 21, 1718 Elizabeth Ellison;
Elinor, born 8 mo., 22, 1677, married (at Falls) 7 mo. 2 1694, Thomas Duer;
Timothy, born 1 mo. 1678, married 1710 Hannah Low;
William, born 5. 14, 1681, married 1707 Elizabeth ___;
Deborah, born 1, 1, 1683, married 1708 (at Falls), Thomas Ashton.
WHOA! Where were Thomas, Timothy, and Deborah after their parents died? How did they get to Bucks County since no account said they traveled on the ship with their parents? Why were they not deemed orphans as Elinor and William were if they were somehow left behind in England?
There is one more work - A Genealogical and Personal History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Vol II, published in 1975 which was a modified reprint of The History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Clearly, the new editors realized there was a problem with the original work, likely asking the same questions I raised. How they "fixed" the situation was to add "In the year 1687, Mathew Baines sailed for America with his family, but he and his wife and possibly two of their children died at sea." Notice that the year of emigration is now different from any of the other works!
Which two of the three children died at sea? Why was one child left behind? Who was the child left behind in England? How did that child emigrate alone later and marry?
There are no ships registries for William Penn's ships so this can't be solved quickly with a look up. Too many generations back for autosomal assistance. The only way is to research the three children, wife Margaret, and grandfather William who remained in England.
William may have been the William Baines who was buried in Lancashire in September 1687. If so, he would not have been taking care of the remaining children for long. William supposedly had three other sons, the oldest, James, who had bought William's estate, Joseph, and John. No records show the children with any of their uncles
No record of Margaret is found after the arrest in 1660. She likely died in England before Mathew sailed which would account for the surviving children being named orphans.
Timothy Baines was born in March 1678 in Lancaster to father Mathew.
There was a marriage of a Timothy to Hannah Low, daughter of Hugh Low, on 4 Apr 1710 in Haigh, Lancashire, England.
The couple had the following children:
Mary Bains born 25 Feb 1712 in Harshaw, Lancashire, England.
James, born in 1719 in Haigh, Hartshaw, England.
Then twins were born on 16 Aug 1720 in Haigh, Hartshaw, England. One was Hugh Bains, likely after Hannah’s father and the other was John Bains.
Hannah likely died 18 Aug 1775 in Mellin, Lancashire.
No death record was found for Timothy. He may have been one of the four Timothy Bains/Baynes that died inLancashire between 1726-1772.[1][2][3][4]
The Timothy that married Hannah is not likely to be the son of Mathew and Margaret Hatton Baines for several reasons. He was not named as emigrating with his father and two of his siblings in 1686. If he had somehow stayed behind in England he would have been considered an orphan as siblings Elinor and William were deemed by the Pennsylvania court. There is no record found that he became a ward in England. It is very unlikely that young Timothy would have been writing letters to his siblings in Pennsylvania notifying them of his marriage in Lancashire in 1710, given that the family had been separated as children for at least 24 years. There is no record that the Timothy who married Hannah ever emigrated to Bucks County, Pennsylvania which is implied by his inclusion in History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Interestingly, the text does not list any of his children, likely because they weren’t known to whoever submitted the information. If the family had been close his descendants would have known about his children. Most likely, someone found a marriage of Timothy Baines and decided it was the son of Mathew Baines that had died at sea. Clearly, it wasn't.
Mathew's son Thomas Baines was born on 11 January 1675 in Gousner, Lancashire.
A Thomas Baines was noted to have married an Eliz Ellison on either the 1st or 21st June 1718 in Bicursteth, Lancashire, England. No record for the couple’s parents was recorded.
No children for the couple was found. An Elizabeth Bains, wife of Thomas Bains died 14 August 1723 in Lancashire; she was a Non-Conformist. Another Non-Conformist Elizabeth Bain, wife of Thomas Bains died on 14 June 1723 in Lancashire. It is not known if either or another Elizabeth was the wife of interest who had died.
There were 26 Thomas Baines/Bains who had died in Lancastershire between 1718-1795, none providing a father’s name of Mathew.
It is more likely that Thomas Baines, son of Mathew and Margaret Hatton Baines was not the Thomas who had married Elizabeth Ellison in Lancashire in 1718.
Like sibling Timothy, if the Thomas of interest had stayed behind in England when his father emigrated with two of his younger siblings, Thomas would have been named an orphan after his father’s death but there are not records that he became a ward of England. It is also unlikely that after being separated from his emigrating siblings Elinor and William that he would have begun correspondence with them after 32 years to notify them of his marriage. There is no record that Thomas emigrated to Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He likely died in England, probably before 1686/7 when his father Mathew sailed for America.
Lucky for me, I did not have to research the last missing child, Deborah, as a wonderful blog article had already done so. The Deborah of Bucks County, Pennsylvania was not in the family group of Mathew and Margaret Hatton Baines of Lancaster.
What also does not make sense is why Mathew would have only selected two of his five children to emigrate with. I could understand that perhaps Margaret would remain home with the oldest, Thomas, to help her in Mathew's absence, and maybe the two youngest, William and Deborah but William, at age 5 was sent. If William was considered old enough to embark why didn't Mathew also take Timothy, the middle child, who was age 8 or 9? Or take William instead of Mathew? Likely because Timothy was already dead.
Although evidence is lacking, the only logical conclusion was that Mathew left England for a new beginning with his two remaining children, Ellin and William. Unfortunately, he did not survive and from the letter he wrote, his wife had pre-deceased him. We know this because Margaret, alive, would not cause the children to be named orphans. How soon she had died before Mathew wrote the letter on the boat in perhaps, autumn of 1686 we don't know but she was dead before he requested wards for his unnamed remaining children. Records of orphan court do tell us those children were Ellin and William who went on to grow up and thrive in their new location. Why did the children want to remain in the colony? They had nothing to return to in England. If their mother and siblings were alive they would have wanted to return to them.
And one more problem with the trees who have William of Stangerwaith as Mathew of Wyersdale's father - Mathew would have been the oldest son. Why did he not buy out the land from his father that had been in the family for hundreds of years? Many trees show that William had married twice and that Mathew was from the first marriage. The 1660 arrest showed that the first wife was still alive so William could not have married a second wife, Sarah, and gone on to have three children with her. Two men named William, both non-conformists, in a close geographic area are being confused.
Although online family trees can be helpful we do need caution in blindly accepting what has been placed there. Furthermore, we also need to use care when consulting published works. Just because information is written in a book does not make it correct. Thoroughly exhaustive research and careful analysis is important in establishing identity and relationship.
