Main Page

Elizabeth Rose, wife of Michael Taintor

Compiled by Judy & Gary Griffin, 2007 - email address

Direct Line

Elizabeth Rose + Michael Taintor
..... 2 Joanna Taintor + Josiah Gillett
........ 3 Nathaniel Skinner + Mary Gillett
............ 4 Cynthia Skinner + Oliver Eggleston
................ 5 Zalmon Eggleston Polly Bundy
.................... 6 Charles H. L. Eggleston + Alwilda M. Edwards
........................ 7 Goldie Ellen Eggleston + Bruce Griffin

Family of Elizabeth Rose (1)

Robert Rose ca 1594 – 1664-65 + (1) Margery _?_ ca 1594 – , (2) Elizabeth Potter Parker
… 2 John Rose ca 1619 –
… 2 Robert Rose ca 1619 – + Rebecca _?_
… 2 Elizabeth Rose ca 1621 – + Michael Taintor
…… 3 Joanna Taintor 1657 – 1734/35 + Josiah Gillett ca 1650 – 1736
...…… 4 Mary Gillett 1686/87 – 1740 + Nathaniel Skinner 1685/86 – 1750
… 2 Mary Rose ca 1623 –
… 2 Samuel Rose ca 1625 – + Mary Tompkins
… 2 Sarah Rose ca 1627 –
… 2 Daniel Rose ca 1631 – + Elizabeth Goodrich
… 2 Dorcas Rose ca 1632 – + Daniel Swaine
… 2 Jonathan Rose ca 1634-35 – + Delivered Charles
… 2 Hannah Rose ca 1636 –

Robert Rose

Robert Rose was born circa 1594, possibly in England where he sailed from Ipswich on the ship Francis in 1634. He died at Branford, Connecticut, between August 25, 1664 (date of will) and April 4, 1665 (will presented in court of New Haven). Robert married, first, before he emigrated, to Margery _?_, born circa 1594. Her surname is not known, or her date of death, but she came in 1634 with her husband, eight children, and had two children after their arrival. It is said that she died before 1644, though no socumentation has been found. Nothing further is known about Margery.

In 1644 the Branford (also called Brainford) settlement was created on land purchased from the New Haven Colony, mostly settled by people from Wethersfield. The first settlers included Jasper Crane, Richard Harrison, Robert Rose, William Swaine, and George and Lawrence Ward.

After Margery died, Robert Rose married Elizabeth Potter Parker in 1664. (2) Elizabeth died on July 28, 1677. She first married John Potter, (3) by whom she had John, Hanna and Samuel Potter. She next married Edward Parker by whom she had John, Hope and Lydia Parker. The second marriage of Robert Rose was soon after June 7, 1664, when the widow Parker was about to leave New Haven “to change her condition” and desired to know the “mind of the Court” concerning her children’s portions. (4) They were married only a few months, Robert died soon after.

Robert Rose’s second wife Elizabeth seems to have been a strong willed woman. A court action in June 1643 involved slander of “widow Potter and Edward Parker by a Mrs. Br-A-Aster. It appears that for some reason the church elders did not approve of Edward Parker and had requested Mrs. Potter not to receive his attentions. Mrs. Brewster reported that “Mrs. Potter would not join the church because she would not give up Edward Parker. Elizabeth did marry him, and in June 1646, “Edward Parker and his wife presented their desires to the Court to inyest John Potter’s two sons in the right of their father’s land and house and declared themselves willing to bestow a heifer of a year old on Hannah and deliver it presently for her use . . .” (5)

James Shepard published information on Elizabeth Rose: (6) “In the same year ‘It was ordered with the consent of Edward Parker and his wife, that Jno. Potter should be put an apprentice for 8 years from the first of Aug. last unto Roger Allen for to learne his trade.’ In November, 1649, Edward Parker appeared in Court and ‘desired that he might be freed from his engagement concerning the house and lott which was John Potter’s and is securitie for the children’s portions, for he is willing to leave it to the court to dispose of otherwise.’

“After Edward Parker's death in 1662, his widow, Elizabeth, married Robert Rose of Branford, who died in 1665. Rose and his first wife were ancestors of the writer, and by this marriage he can say that he descended from both wives of Robert Rose. Widow Rose was probably a business woman, for her son John Potter, in his will, 1706, gives to his son Samuel ‘ye still that was my mother’s.’ He also gives to the same son the bedstead and little chair ‘that was his grandmother’s,’ (widow Hannah Beecher's). Widow Elizabeth Rose made her will July 23, 1677, and died before signing it. The children agreed to abide by the will and later the court admitted the will to probate. Nothing is known against widow Elizabeth Rose, alias Parker, alias Potter, except her romantic attachment for Edward Parker, and nothing is known against Parker except that the elders for some unknown reason did not approve of him. The fact that her heirs agreed to stand by a void will is conclusive proof that she was a woman of merit and had the respect of her children, who were willing, even in property affairs, to abide by her wishes. She died July 28, 1677. Her will, recorded in vol. i., part first, p. 176, New Haven Probate Records, is as follows:

“‘The last will of Elizabeth Rose widdow N. Haven deceased. Know all whom it may concern that I Elizabeth Rose of New Haven widdow being weak in body yet of competent sound understanding and memory doe make and ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following; committing my soule into ye hands of Jesus Christ my redemer and my body to a descent burial 1 according to ye discretion of my executors hereafter to be named ; I dispose of my outward estate as followi’th. Imps. I doe give and bequeath unto my two sons John Potter and Samll. Potter twenty shillings a piece. Item. To my son John Parker my house he lives in with all my land and meadow and all the rights & priveledges thereunto belonging. Item, to my daughter Brooks Twenty shillings. Item, to my daughter Hall my small bible, and to my daughter cooke my best sute of apparrell. Item, to all my grandchildren twelve pence a piece. Item. After all my debts & legacyes be paid and other necessary expenses discharged my will is that ye remainder of my estate be equally divided between my three daughters Alary, Hope, & Lydia. And I doe desire and appoint my two sons John Potter and John Parker joint Executors of this my last will and testament and I doe allow them to have out of my estate ten shillings a piece for their care and paynes therein. And I doe hereby revoke all former wills and declare and publish this to bee mv last will and testament. In witness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and seal this three and twentyeth day of July one thousand six hundred and seventy seven, 1677, signed and sealed in ye presence of but dved before signing and sealing.” The inventory of her estate amounted to £49. 11s. 09d.’”

The list of passengers of the Francis (John Cutting, Master) which embarked from Ipswich, England “bound for new England” the last of April 1634, the adult passengers who presumably took the Oath of Allegiance, were listed: (7)

Robert Rose aged 40
Margery his wife aged 40
John Rose aged 15
Robert Rose aged 15
Eliz Rose aged 13
Mary Rose aged 11
Samuell Rose aged 9
Sarah Rose aged 7
Danyell Rose aged 3
Darcas Rose aged 2

In an article “Robert Rose of Wethersfield, Connecticut,” (8) John Insley Coddington writes that Col. Charles E. Banks evidently erred in his The Planters of the Commonwealth (pp. 122- 124), in stating that Robert Rose came from Elmswell, County Suffolk, England. Coddington had a search conducted in England in 1939-40 by Miss Lilian J. Redstone who made extensive searches, particularly in the records of Ashfield Magna (Great Ashfield), Bacton, Cotton, Elmswell, Fornham St. Genevieve, Fornham St. Martin, and Hemingston, all in Suffolk. Though she found Roses in each of these parishes, she did not locate the marriage of Robert to Margery. Mr. Coddington also stated it appears that the Robert Rose of Elmswell was probably the eldest son of William Rose of Cotton, yeoman, who was buried at Elmswell 26 Feb. 1620/21 leaving a will dated 18 May 1618, proved 12 Mar. 1620/1 (Archdeacons.’ Court of Sudbury, Book 48, folio 175). Because of the appearance of a Robert ‘Roose’ who was taxed 17 shillings in Elmswell Parish in the Ship-Money Tax of 1639-40 (Vincent B. Redstone, The Ship-Money Returns for Co. Suffolk, transcribed from Harleian MSS. 7540-7542 [Ipswich, 1904], p. 59), we must proceed with caution in determining the ancestry. Robert Rose who embarked for the colonies in 1634 on the Francis could not have been taxed in Elmswell in 1639-40. It is possible that there were two Robert Rose in that parish, one who left for the Colonies and the other who remained, but it is also possible that Robert of Elmswell with wife Margery remained, and that another Robert with a wife by the same named sailed on the Francis. Thus the ancestors of Robert is unknown.

It is not known if Robert Rose first settled in Watertown, Massachusetts and moved to Wethersfield about 1635, or if he went directly to Wethersfield in 1634. Dr. Bond in his History of Watertown says that it is not clearly ascertained that this family settled in Watertown, but that “it is probable, as they came over in the same ship with several other Watertown families and belonged to the colony that went thence to plant Wethersfield.” (10) Wethersfield, the oldest town in Connecticut, received from Watertown, Massachusetts its first considerable immigrations in 1634. Pvquag, its Indian name, was changed in 1635 to Watertown (named for the Massachusetts settlement), and on May 29, 1635 was again changed to Wethersfield (Weathersfield).

Some researchers state that the immigrant Robert Rose was a soldier in the Pequot War in 1637, but this may be his son Robert whose service is proved. Robert Sr. is listed in Judge Sherman W. Adams’ list of first settlers of ancient Wethersfield. (11) He was on a committee January 16, 1639, to view lands for a settlement at Unxus Sepus (Farmington); (12) was sworn Constable at Wethersfield February 6, 1639; (13) and was also a committeeman there February 8, 1640 “to take into serious consideration” how the ground may be improved and the cattle kept. (14) Stiles states he was one of the largest owners of “adventurers lands;” his homestead was on the southeast side of Broad Street, between Lieut. Rob’t Seeley and John Clarke (later John Robbins). He sold this homestead to his son John Rose (who in turn sold it to John Latimer March 11, 1650). He bought 20 acres in 1640 from Andrew Ward, and already “held the same amount in his own right” at the time. (15) “He also exch. 20 acs. of Plain Id. for a like quantity there, with John Robbins, 1641.” (16)

Robert represented the town at general court as Deputy, September 1641, August 1642, and March and April 1643. (17) Robert Rose was active in the affairs of the town, and served on many committees. He also served as fence viewer, helped collect taxes, appraised, and served the town in many other capacities. He is mentioned often in the town records. There is a plaque marking the homesite of the “adventurer” Robert Rose, Wethersfield, Connecticut. It states “Home Site of Robert Rose One of the Adventurer 1634 Born in England 1594 Died in Branford, Conn. 1664.”

A letter written by Samuel Smith, son of the Rev. Henry Smith who was in Wethersfield by 1639, (18) gives a glimpse into life during those years in early Wethersfield: “Ye firste Meeting - House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins. Its Foundations was laide in ye feare of Lord, buts its Walls was truly laide in ye feare of ye Indians for many & grate was ye Terrors of em. I do minde me yt alle ye able-bodyed Men did work thereat & olde & feeble did watch in turns to espie if any Salvages was in hidinge neare & every Man keept his Musket nighe to his hande. I do not myself remember any of yt Attacks mayde by large bodeys of Indians whilst we did remayne in Weathersfield, but did oftimes hear of em. Several Amiles Wch did live hack a ways from ye River was either Murderdt or Captivated in my Boyhood & we all did live in constant feare of ye like . . .”

There was a controversy among the previously mentioned Rev. Henry Smith, who moved into Wethersfield with his wife and several children in 1639, and members of his congregation. So much difference existed that in 1643 the General Court appointed a committee to take the matter “into sadde and serious consideration,” and their report, submitted April 13th of that year, found the difference to be “exceeding great.” (19) In November 1643 the General Court cleared Mr. Smith from the accusations against him, and proceeded to impose penalties upon the signers of the “declaration” against him. Among the list of those fined was 40s on Robert Rose. Probably as a result of this dissension, he removed about 1644 with others to Totoket (Branford) and the name of “Ro Rosse” appeared in the first division of meadow lands there on July 7, 1646. (20) The move of those from Wethersfield to Branford is described in Rockey, History of New Haven County, vol. II, pp. 2-3, (21) quoted in that source from an account of Rev. Elijah C. Baldwin: “In the month of December, 1638, the New Haven settlers bought an additional tract of land of the Indians. It was ten miles in length. north and south. and extended eight miles east of the Quinnipiac riyer. It was bought of Montowese, son of Sowheog, the sachem of Mattabeseck Indians . . . this territory was then called Totoket, from the Indian name of a range of hills in the northern part . . . September 3d, 1640, the general court at New Hayen made a grant of Totoket to Mr. Samuel Eaton . . . [however], he went to England to procure settlers, but never returned. In 1643 Totoket was granted to Mr. William Swaine and others of Wethersfield . . . the remoyal from Wethersfield was the result of diyisions in the church there . . . the men who had bought Totoket for a settlement ame to occupy their purchase early in 1644.”

Robert Rose had three acres in his house-lot in Branford, beside meadow lands, and a dwelling house appraised at forty pounds in May 1663, (22) one of the highest in town. In a list from the same town records for 1663, (23) his acreage was equaled only by Mr. Plum and Tho. Muliner.

He appeared in the Particular Court records on August 1, 1644, in an action Nath. Foote agst Robert Rose. (24) The jury awarded plaintiff damages and costs of court. In an action on June 5, 1646, Robert Rose plaintiff agst Robins defendant, the jury found for the plaintiff ten pounds damages and cost of court. (25) In another record, (26) court of March 1, 1648, Robert Rose was fined 20s for a misdeamor (nature not stated), and in the same court Enoch Buck was fined 10s for irregular speeches in court against Robert Rose “when hee spake vppon his oath.” In the Town Records of Branford, (27) Mr. Crane entered action May 16, 1655 agst Robert Rose and Josiah Ward for “pulling down his fence which they acknowledged they to pay court costs and make the fence good.”

From the History of New Haven County, (28) quoted from the records of Rev. Elijah C. Baldwin: “[Robert Rose] was one of the Branford original proprietors. There is a tradition ‘that Robert Rose owned ten cows and sixty horses;’ also, that the Sunday ‘milking’ was always given to the poor. The Bible he bought with him from England, printed in 1599 . . . has been in its time the property of three or four deacons of the Rose family.” Rose researcher Margo Tilton states that when Robert died he owned ten horses, and there were less than twenty in the town. (29) Tilton provided information on Robert’s will and estate: Will, dated August 25, 1664, Branford, New Haven County, Connecticut, in his will, he left 6 pounds, 13 shillings, 4 pence to the church. An unprecendented thing, as the church was supported by taxes on the whole town and no one had ever done such a thing there before.

After the death of Robert Rose, there appeared in the Branford Town Records for December 12, 1665 a matter in which “Frances Linsley Defendant in a case about a Calfe that hee had in his home lot and went through goodman Roses fence into his home lot . . . and there by being lost hee entered an action against Samuel Rose being administrator of his father Robert Rose deceased.” (30) The mention of “Goodman” Rose in this record gives some proof that the various records in the Town Records of Branford do indeed refer to the immigrant Robert Rose. There has been speculation on this, since some of the early records refer to Robert Rose (or Rosse) and others refer to “goodman Rose.” Donald L. Jacobus in his “Rose Notes” (31) believed that “Goodman Rose” was the Robert Rose of Long Island. However, a careful study of the Long Island family of Robert Rose was made and found that various historians erred in an identification of this man. Robert Rose of Long Island left a widow named Dorothy, and though both he and the Branford Robert had sons named John, the court records prove that the Long Island John was born about 1638 for he testified in 1655 that he was about 17, (32) while the John who came on the Francis was born circa 1619 according to his age as stated on the ship passenger list. Further, “goodman Rose” of Branford was still living after the death of Robert Rose of Long Island. There remains the possibility that Robert Rose of Long Island may have been for a time in Branford, or even that some of Branford family may have been on Long Island, but clearly there are two Robert Rose and each left families.

Miss Nora G. Frisbee of Glendale, California prepared the following account in 1966: “One of the most delightful and unintentionally comic episodes in which Robert Rose was involved was that of the bull which was hired to ‘go with’ the Branford cows. In November 1653, according to the New Haven Town Records: Mr Linge, attorney for Mr Robins of Wethersfeild, entered an action against Thomas Blachly of Brandford for fetching away a bull of the said Mr Robins from Guilford wihout order, wch bull was left at the said Towne of Brandford or Totoket and therefore desires, satisfaction. Mr. Linge does not add in his complaint that the bull was dead, the Branford people having carelessly allowed him to mire himself in a mudhole. This had apparently transpired before the bull could perform the function for which he had been hired, and the Branford people were apparently refusing to pay the agreed-upon fee. Thomas Blatchely appeared to answer the complaint, and testified that: he and Goodman Roses sonn fetched the bull for the Townes vse, Goodman Rose haueing hired him of Mr Robins for that purpose.

“Goodman Rose was Robert Rose, but it is impossible to be certain which of his five sons fetched the bull from Guilford . . . Goodman Rose, being present in the Court, affirmed Blatchely’s statement and added in explanation that: Mr Swaine and Mr Sherman wrott to him to Wethersfeild to hire a bull for the Towne to goe wt their cokes, and hearing Mr Robins had one, hee went w one Goodman Edwards and hired the bull and vpon that ground sent tor him. It appeared, however, that Goodman Edwards was in Wethersfield and could not appear at New Haven to verify his testimony. Rose said that ‘they sent a weeke agoe’ for his statement, but that ‘the messenger is not returned.’ He asked that the case be ‘respited till next Court,’ and this request was granted. The next Court was held the 6th of December. Goodman Rose appeared and said that their affidavits had not vet come from Wethersfield . . . he asked for another extension and the request was rather grudgingly allowed, he being warned that: if ye next Court he cleare it not. the case will goe against him. At the January Court Rose appeared a third time with ‘sundrie testimonies to prove that the bull was hired of Mr Robins’ and not borrowed without permission. John Edwards’ statement was to the effect that Mr. Robins: was loath to let him (i. e., to hire the bull out), but would haue them buy a steere for him of John Roote.

“The steer was, presumably, to be given to Robins by way of fee for the service of the bull, but Rose and Edwards could not come to an agreement with Root. They ‘came againe to Mr Robins’ and he finally: let them ye bull for twenty shillings, and they should summer him a steere into the bargaine, that is, the Branford people were to agree to feed and pasture one of Robins’ steers during the summer as a part of the fee for the use of the bull. Rose also presented other testimony, including that of Phillip Goff taken December 17, 1653, and that of William Boarman taken December 5, 1653, none of which advanced their case to any extent, but at least made it clear that Robins had agreed to hire out the bull. Up to this point nothing at all had been said about the eventual loss of the bull. The point makes its first appearance in testimony of one John Russell, ‘aboute the age of 21 yeares,’ who was probably a servant of Mr. Robins. He testified that: he heard Mr Robins say he let a bull to Goodman Rose of Totoket, but because the bull was carelessly lost, he would make the said Goodman Rose pay for him. Attorney Linge then took the floor and pleaded that the testimony of Edwards was inadmissible, inasmuch as he was a party to the action. The Court challenged him to prove his statement, which he could not do so, and so Edwards’ testimony was allowed to stand. Linge then raised another objection: if they did hire the bull, why did they leaue a steere wch they should haue fetched away wth him and summered for Mr Robins? The Court then intervened and informed Linge: that it doth cleerly appeare by these testimonies that Mr Robins did lett the bull to them of Totoket. Linge was not going to be satisfied with this decision, however, and he now brought up the question of the death of the bull. He claimed that the animal had been lost through the carelessness of ‘them of Totoket,’ but, challenged to prove it, said ‘he was not fitted at present to cleere by proofe.’ He declared that he could get the proof, however, and the case was again set forward to a future sitting of the Court. By the time of the March court, Linge had secured his affidavits, and the case came up once again. He presented a statement from John Norton, one of the original Branford planters, who testified that: he saw the bull stick fast in a litle salt pond He thought it would have been several days before the bull died, and he: apprehends it was negligenee in the Towne that the bull was not looked after. Linge’s second statement was from Thomas Blatchley, against whom the action had been brought in the first instance, so that Blatchley was in the position of testifying against himself. Linge had objected to accepting the testimony of John Edwards for the defense, on the ground that he was an interested party, but no protest is shown by the Branford people, and his testimony went into the record unchallenged. Blatchley added very little to the sum of the evidence, however; he said merely that if they had had any idea that the bull would mire himself, they would have watched him more carefully and so might have saved him alive.

“Robert Abbott, still another of Branford’s original settlers, appeared on behalf of the town and testified that the bull ‘was well the dry cattel,’ and, since it ‘was not a time of swamping,’ they had not foreseen that he would fall into a mudhole. Linge took this up immediately and demanded to know why, if the bull was hired for the cows, they had allowed him to run with the dry cattle. Abbott retorted that, on the contrary, the bull was hired for the town’’s use, and that ‘they were not lvmitted to any place or heard.’ Furthermore, the record states that the testimonies: did but speake their apprehensions and sweare nothing possitively. Linge, balked at every turn, now had nothing more to say. The Court declared their minds: that they see not such negleet in ye Town of Brand-ford as to ast the loss of ye bull upon them; “moreoyer, the action had been entered only for the recovery of the hire of the bull and the summering of the steer, and this had already been settled in favor of Mr. Robins. They were now heartily sick of Mr. Robins and his bull, and they advised the Branford ‘people to pave Mr Linge for Mr Robins twenty shillings for the hire of the bull and ten shillings for their not summering of ye steere (for so much it is said Mr Robins saith it stood him in) and 3s 4d for ye Court charges, and so make an end of it. The Branford people ‘at first . . . were loath to veild,’ although they were out only the court costs whereas Mr. Robins had lost the value of his bull, but afterward they said, ‘to avoyde further trouble, they would doe it,’ “and so the matter ended.” (33)

From the Town Records of Branford, the will of Robert Rose was presented at a court for Branford April 4, 1665. (34) In New Haven Probate Records, the will is recorded with some slight variations, but it is essentially the same: (35) “The last will & testament of Robert Rose of Brandford made August 25th 1664: Item First I give to my son Jonathan a hundred pounds. 2I when all my debts are pavd then I give to my wife one third part of my whole estate. 3Y I giye to my son Jonathan five pounds more. 4ly I give to my Daughter Hanna ten pounds more. 5Y It is my will that all ye rest of my estate shal be equally divided into eight parts Amongst my other eight children as followeth: That is to each of them alike part, but my son John & Daughter Mary & my Daughter Elizabeth shall have but twenty pounds of that part that falls to them, but the rest of that part which falls to them shall be given to their children. Item I give unto the church of Brandford six pounds thirteene shillings foure pence. The marke M of Robart Rose. Witness Laurance Ward, Samuel Swaine. This writeing was proved in Court at Brandford the 4th day of ye 2d month 1665 to be ye last will & testament of Robert Rose Deceased, by ye testimonies upon oath Laurance Ward & Samuell Swaine . [Lawrence Ward, John Wilford & Richard Harrison were appointed to settle any difficulties or differences that might arise among the legatees.] Note Robert mentioned Jonathan and Hannah, and eight other children, but only naming three of these – John, Mary, and Elizabeth. The inventory was taken by Laurance Ward, John Wilford and Richard Harrison. (36) It included £260.00.00 For house and land, two bulls, a number of other stock, and household Furniture. Total inventory, £826.09.07. His son Samuel was administrator of his estate, as shown in a recorded deed. (37)

A few years after the death of Robert Rose, on December 26, 1670, Elizabeth Rose of Newhaven deeded to Jonathan Rose of Branford 1/2 of house, barne, gardens, yards, orchards, pasture, ground or meadow lying in the town of Branford which came to her by “gift or will” of “my late husband Robert Rose of Branford.” It was witnessed by Nicholas Auger and John Parker. (38)

The will of his widow Elizabeth Rose is dated July 20, 1677. (39) She bequeathed to sons John Potter and Samuel Potter, 20 sh. each; to son John Parker. house he lives in with all my land and meadow; to dau. Brooks, 20 sh.; to dau. Hall, my small bible; to dau. Cooke, “my best suite of apparrell;” to all my grandchildren twelve pence a piece. Remainder of estate to be divided between three daughters, Mary, Hope and Lydia. Named as executors, my two sons John Potter and John Parker, and allows them each ten shillings for their “care and paynes therein.” She died before the will was signed or witnessed, but it was accepted by the court on February 27, 1677/8. Inventory of her estate was taken by John Cooper Sr. and John Winston Sr. on August 2, 1677 and amounted to £49.11.09. James Shepard comments, (40) “Widow Rose was probably a business woman, For her son John Potter, in his will 1706, gives to his son Samuel ‘ye still that was my mother’s.’ When she died leaving an unsigned will, it was nonetheless accepted in Court without dispute by her children indicating that she ‘had the respect of her children, who were willing . . . to abide by her wishes.’”

Some of Robert’s descendants settled in Branford, Connecticut. In a census of New Haven County, Connecticut taken in 1667 were listed the following in Branford: (41) John Rose, John Rose, Jonathan Rose, Jonathan Rose.

Children of Robert Rose:

• John, born circa 1619, married (1) unknown, (2) Ellen (Moulthrop) Luddington, (3) Phebe (Bracey) Dickinson. A Rose researcher (42) states that Deacon John Rose was born circa 1619 in England. (43) He emigrated on November 12, 1634 to Massachusetts Bay Colony. (44) He moved before 1647 to Wethersfield, Hartford, Connecticut. He owned 47 acres deeded to him by his father before 1647 in Wethersfield, Hartford, Connecticut. He appeared in court between 1649 and 1653/54. (45) He served as a juror five times during this period. Savage implies that this was in Bradford, but says he was living there after 1667. He appeared in court about 1665 in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut. According to the genealogist Christine Rose, Robert Pinion testified that attempted access to the house of John Rose, when John and his wife were away at a meeting, and when the children refused to let him in, her entered by way of a window. He made the two younger daughters leave a room so he could be with the elder daughter. Curiously, Christine Rose mentions that among the charges against Robert Pinion were theft and breaking of the Sabbath, but she does not mention that he was charged regarding this incident.

  He moved before 1667 to Branford (East Haven), New Haven, Connecticut. (46) It is not clear whether John lived in Branford or nearby New Haven, but he lived near the iron works, where he was Constable. He was admitted a planter in 1673. He became a member in 1667 in Branford, New Haven, Connecticut. He was Constable (appointed) between 1671 and 1672 in New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut. (47) He was a chosen Constable of New Haven iron works in 1677 in New Haven. These iron works, on the river between East Haven and Branford, were the first in Connecticut when built in 1655. All of the employees lived in the New Haven area. The works operated for 25 years until about 1680, when its supply of iron ore (from North Haven) was exhausted. He admitted a freeman in 1678. He owned and deeded a number of lots to settle his affairs (he made out a will a year later) in 1682 in Branford. He signed a will on April 18, 1683 in Branford. He left his wife Phebe 40 pounds and very little else to his children. He died before May 10, 1683 in Branford. On this date, his will was proved. Children were: John Rose, Mary Rose, Hannah Rose, Martha Rose, Rose.

• Robert, born circa 1619, married Rebecca _?_.

• Elizabeth, born circa 1621, married Michael Taintor. See Taintor family history.

• Mary, born circa 1623, still living in 1685, said to have married James Wright, probably had children, see her father's will.

• Samuel, born circa 1625, married Mary Tompkins, moved to Newark, New Jersey.

• Sarah, born circa 1627.

• Daniel Rose, born circa 1631, died in 1696 at age 66 in Wethersfield, Connecticut. He married Elizabeth Goodrich who is said to have been born in 1645 in England. A Rose researcher (48) states that Daniel Rose married Elizabeth Goodrich in 1664. Elizabeth was born on November 2, 1645, daughter of John and Elizabeth Goodrich. Daniel Rose and his wife lived and died in Wethersfield. He was admitted freeman on May 11, 1665 and on October 11, 1669 “Danil Roas” was listed as freeman. He held various offices. He was fence viewer in 1669; pound-keeper in 1680, and drew in the 1670 and 1694 allotments. He bought Hugh Welles’ lands at Red Hill, East side river, 112 acres, in 1663, and bought Thos. Couch’s homestead west side of Sandy Lane 1666. He also bought of Sam’l Wylles in 1670, the Sherwood homestead of 17 acres on south side of what became Pratt’s Ferry Road, and sold 1 1/4 acres of this to Nath’l Foote in 1683. He gave his son Jonathan a homestead on north side of “road to Htfd,” next west to Stephen Mix, 1 1/2 acres with home in 1711. (49) From the Town Records of Branford, Samuel Bradfield of Branford to Daniel Rose, a parcel of upland on Mullines Neck, dated November 8, 1674. This was witnessed by John Wilford, Commissioner, and Eleazer Stent. From the same Town Records, Daniel Rose of Wethersfield gave right in land of 2 acres lying in great plaine and 1 acre in the Indian Neck to Jonathan Rose, 3 Mar 1674/75, signed before Josiah Gilbert and Jno ffrisbie. Daniel Rose of Wethersfield deeded to John Rose of Branford several parcels, November 6, 1677. Wit.: Daniel Swaine, John ffrisbie. He appended a notice “Received of my Cousin John Rose” full payment, October 29, 1680 When John Goodrich made his will June 9, 1672 in Wethersfield he gave “unto my daughter Elizabeth Rose” 16 shillings over and above what I have bestowed on her already. In the division of the estate are mentioned Joseph Goodrich, Jonathan Goodrich, Daniel Rose, Thomas Reed, and Zachariah Maynard. In 1680 the executors refused to qualify. The court ordered Lt. Samuel Steele, Daniel Rose and Joseph Goodrich administrators and ordered the distribution to be made. Transactions in this estate were still being recorded for many years. Daniel Rose, aged about 66, testified September 3, 1696 that he sold to Deacon John Robins a piece of land “which fell to me from my father John Goodrich Deceased.” (50) From Wethersfield Deeds Benjamin Smith of Wethersfield deeded to Daniel Rose on February 23, 1707/8, though the record does not specify Sr. or Jr. In deeds, Daniel Rose Senr. sold to Thomas Wright, acknowledged January 7, 1713/4. In June 1711 he made disposition of some of his property to some of his family, viz: to son Jonathan; son-in-law James Wright; son-in-law Jonathan Lattimer; and son Daniel Jr. He probably died soon after.

  The children of Daniel and Elizabeth were: (51)

• Elizabeth Rose, born April 15, 1665, married Obadiah Coolidge (said to be 6th great grandfather of President Calvin Coolidge) and/or Joshua Robbins. There is a dispute regarding who Elizabeth married, but Obadiah Coolidge is probably correct. Elizabeth is said to have died April 24, 1736.

• Daniel Rose, born August 20, 1667, married Mary Foote on May 14, 1706. Mary, daughter of the third Nathaniel Foote, was born November 24, 1679 at Wethersfield.

• Mary Rose, born February 11, 1669/70, married James Wright.

• Hannah Rose, born August 12, 1673, married Thomas Horton on June 7, 1700.

• John Rose, born June 10, 1675 (err. rec. as 1685), married Sarah Buck.

• Jonathan Rose, born September 20 or 30, 1670 or 1679, died October 8, 1768 in Granville, Massachusetts, married Abigail Hale.

• Sarah Rose, born November 2, 1681, died July 24, 1683 aged 1y 9m. d. rec. as Mary in printed vital record.

• Abigail Rose, born September 14, 1683, married (1) Jonathan Latimer, (2) John Williams.

• Dorothy Rose, born May 3, 1687.

• Lydia Rose, born April 2 or 24, 1689.

The Cook family history gives some additional information on Daniel: (52) “Henry Cook is accredited as the First Settler of Plymouth, Connecticut. . . . It is thought that he may have been one of the seven men of Branford who were sent up from the coast, under the command of a Sergeant, for the protection of Litchfield in 1725, and that the new town was so attractive to him that he decided to settle there with his family. Possibly Daniel Rose, from the same place was also one of these seven, because Henry Cook of Litchfield and Rose of Branford bought land as partners in the township of Waterbury less than two years after the twenty one men from Branford, Guilford, and Wallingford marched thru Waterbury on their way to the new town in the wildernness. The earliest name applied to the region now occupied by Plymouth and Thomaston was, Up River, so named in 1688 because it laid in the up river division of meadow lands. Twitch Grass meadow was selected at a later day as the name for the same region, to distinguish the little hamlet from their distant neighbors at Woster or Wooster Swamp. Taken collectively the present towns of Oakville, Watertown and Plymouth were in 1730 sometimes called Wooster and sometimes Our Northwest Inhabitants. Thirty acres of the elevated ground or plain on which the Village of Thormaston stands was the Up River division. Twitch Grass Meadow is the extensive meadow west of the river just below the village. The natural expanse of meadow just above Thomaston bridge has long been known Andrew’s meadow. Just above is a ridge which divides it from Welton’s up river division. It was in Welton’s meadow that the supposed first house in Plymouth was built. In Weltori’s Meadow on Feb. 2, 1727-8 Henry Cook of Litchfield and Daniel Rose of Branford bought of Gershom and Abigail Fulford, Thomas and Mary Porter – heirs of Stephen Welton – two thirds of a Lot of land “Supposed to be ten acres more or fewer lying towards the upper bounds that was our grandfathers, John Welton’s deceased.” February 1, 1727/28, or the day before Henry and Rose had bought of Thomas and Mary Porter, twenty acres to be taken up in the undivded lands, and the next day they had it laid out on the west side of Welton’s Meadow. January 14, 1728, nineteen and a half acres were laid out to the same parties “at a place called Welton’s meadow,” and the same day still another “triangle” piece of thirteen acres, both pieces having been bought of Jonathan Scott Junior. . . .”

• Dorcas, born circa 1632, and died 1708 in Branford, Connecticut. She married Daniel Swaine on July 26, 1653, son of William Swayne. He was born circa 1634 in London, England, and died 1690/91 in Branford, Connecticut. The children of Dorcas and Daniel were:

• Deborah Swain (Swayne) was born April 24, 1654 in Branford, Connecticut, and died after May 1684.

• Daniel Swaine was born July 26, 1652.

• Samuel Swaine was born December 23, 1655.

• Dorcas Swaine was born December 2, 1657. She married John Taintor, brother of our Joanna Taintor.

• John Swaine was born December 20, 1660, died 1694.

• Joshua Swaine was born January 12, 1663.

• Rachel Swaine.

• David Swaine.

• Hannah Swaine.

• Jonathan, born circa 1634-35, married Delivered Charles. A Rose researcher (53) states that Jonathan Rose was born in 1635, died on August 21, 1684 in Branford, New Haven County, Connecticut. Jonathan married Deliverance Charles, born circa in New Haven, New Haven County. They were married on January 5, 1668/69 in Branford. The child of Jonathan and Delivered/Deliverance was Jonathan Rose, born before 1680 in Branford, married Abigail Barker on August 15, 1697 in Branford. Their son was Daniel Rose, born November 27, 1705 in Branford, died before March 2, 1746/47 in Frederick County, Virginia, married Hannah _?_. The children of Daniel and Hannah were: Sarah Rose, born June 15, 1734 in Rhode Island; Jonathan Rose, born July 21, 1738; Abraham Rose, born January 7, 1739/40; Hannah Rose, born October 2, 1742; Isaac Rose, born August 20, 1744; Abigail Rose, born February 6, 1746/47. Another Rose researcher (54) states that Jonathan and Deliverance were married on January 5, 1668/69 and that Delivered, died January 26, 1708/09 at Branford, was also the wife of John James. The children of Jonathan and Deliverence were: Captain Jonathan Rose, born circa January 5, 1696/97 at Branford, died circa 1736 at Branford; Lydia Rose, born September 20, 1671; Samuel Rose; Hannah Rose, married Caleb Frisbie in 1696 at Branford.

• Hannah, born circa 1636, was still living in 1685. She is probably the Hannah who witnessed deed of Robert Rose of Stratford to his brother Jonathan in 1674.

Endnotes