George Hubbard and Mary Bishop
Husband George Hubbard
Born: Abt 1594 - England Christened: Died: Jan 1683 - New Haven, Connecticut Buried:Marriage: 1627
Wife Mary Bishop
Born: Abt 1633 Christened: Died: 14 Sep 1675 - Guilford, Connecticut Buried:
Father: John Bishop (1590-1661) Mother: Anne ( - )
Children
1 M George Hubbard
Born: 1601/1614/1620/1633 - England Christened: Died: 18 Mar 1684 - Middletown, Connecticut Buried:Spouse: Elizabeth Watts (1617-1702) Marr: 1639-1640 - Hartford, Connecticut
2 M John Hubbard
Born: 1630 - England Christened: Died: Buried:Spouse: Mary Sheafe Merriam (1625-1721) Marr: 1648 - Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts
3 F Mary Hubbard
Born: Abt 1625 - England Christened: Died: 13 Apr 1713 - Guilford, Ct Buried:Spouse: John Fowler ( -1676) Marr: 1647 - Guilford, Ct
4 F Hannah Hubbard
Born: 1637 - Wethersfeld, Ct Christened: Died: 1717 Buried:Spouse: Jacob Melyen (Molynoe) ( - ) Marr: 1662
5 F Elizabeth Hubbard
Born: 1638 - Wethersfeld, Ct Christened: Died: Buried:Spouse: Deacon John Norton ( -1704) Marr: late in life
6 F Abigail Hubbard
Born: 1640 - prob Wethersfield, Ct Christened: Died: Buried:Spouse: Humphrey Spinning ( -1689) Marr: 14 Oct 1657
7 F Sarah Hubbard
Born: 1635 Christened: Died: Buried:Spouse: Dan Harrison ( - )
8 M Daniel Hubbard
Born: Christened: 26 May 1655 Died: Buried:Spouse: Elizabeth Jordon ( - )
9 M William Hubbard
Born: 1642 Christened: Died: Buried:Spouse: Abigail Dudley ( - )
General Notes (Husband)
He may have come first to Watertown,MA in 1633, lived for a short time near the Merriam's, his son's wife's family. He probably went with some settlers from Watertown to Wetherfeld. GEorge travelled with his father in law, John Bishop, another Gerge Hubbard, a Thomas and a William Hubbard, relationships if any unknown. He was commissioned to survey the new town. Served as deputy magistrate and in Assembly. Lived in Wethersfield three years, then to shore of Long Island Sound, Milford, granted Milford Island, then sold that, to Guilford. It is recorded of him that he was highly respected and of marked integiry and fairness, which probably made him valuable in dealing w the Indians. He bore from Hartford a commission from the Colonial govt as "indian agent and trader for the Matabesett district".
I have him in 1640 m Elizabeth, dau of Richard and E Watts; I think that would have been George's son; certainly the other Bishop always getting confused with him.
I have this letter questioning whether George Hubbard married Mary Bishop.
Keep in mind that the George Hubbard's of early Connecticut are continually confused with each other.
This, however, is based on an analysis of Mrs. Bishop's will in which she names her four children or her three children and Mary Hubbard, depending on how one reads it.
Whether George Hubbard who married Mary Bishop was the father of George Bishop who married Elizabeth WAtts is controversial.
From Kathleen Pantano, [email protected], 29 Nov 1998.
I don't think that Geroge Hubbard married Mary Bishop, atleasst, according to Jacobus she didn't! Here is waht I found: [Jacobus has been known to be wrong.]
TAG vol 10, 1933; "George Hubbard's wife" by Donald Lines Jacobus. The statement is seen in many prented works (a) that Mary wife of George 1 Hubbard of Guilford was a daughter of John 1 Bishop of Guilford. The writer has not found any evidence to bear this out, and is convinced that the said Mary was not a daughter of John Bishop. John Bishop came with the original Guilford Company oin 1639. The history of George Hubbard is different. He came first to Massachusetts, then to Wehtersfield by 1636, removed to 1643 to Milford CT and 1650 to Guilford. Bishop brought a wife and yougn childrne with him to Guilford; the children, judging by the time they marreid, were born in the 1630's. Hubbard had several children beorn before he settled in Milford, the oldest almost certainly born bef 1640. The evidence of the dates would lead us to believe that Hubbard and his wife were not much younger than Bishop and his wife. The quewstion may be asked, how Hubbard came to acquire a daughter of John Bishop for his wife, since Hubbard was a married man while still residing in Wethersfield, and his marraige almost certainly took place prior to the arrival of the Bishops with the Guilford party in 1639.
all statements to the effect that Hubbard's wife was daughter of Bishop are apparently based on the will of Mrs. An Bishop, made 12 Jun 1673, in which she gave twenty shillings to her grandchild Elizabeth Hubbard. b Yet this will itself proves taht Mrs. Mary Hubbard was not her daughter. Mrs. Bishop gave her eldest son John Bishop 5 pounds above his equal proportion with my other two children," and she willed that the residue of her estate should be divided "Betwixt my three children, viz., John and Steuen Bishop and James Steele." Further she called James Steele her son in law, and the inventory mentioned property in Mr. Steele's hadns "which his wife claims as given to her by her Mother."
The Terms used in teh will prove conclusively that Mrs. Bishop had but three living children in 1673: John, Stephen, And Bethia wife of James Steele. Certainly no sane woman would refer to "my other two children" and again to "my three children" if she had at teh time four living children. The joker in the deck is that Mrs. Mary Hubbard was living in 1673, adn did not die until 14 Sep 1676. Therefore, she was not the daughter of Mrs. Ann Bishop. and if Mrs. Mary Hubbard was daughter of John Bishop by a former marriage, then her daugher Elizabeth Hubbard would not have been teh granddaughter of Mrs. Ann Bishop.
It must not be forgotten that not only did George Hubbard have a daughter Elizabeth, but Danel Hubbard 2 had married (in 1664) Elizabeth Jordan, and that the latter may conceivably have been the Elizabeth Hubbard whom Mrs. Ann Bishop called her granddaughter. Elizabeth Jordan was daughtrer of Mr. John Jordan, and original Guilford proprietor in 1639, by his wife Ann, and for anything we know to the contrary, Mrs. Ann Jordan may have been the daughter of Mr. John and Mrs. Ann Bishop. At any rate, Mrs. Jordan married secondly Thomas Clarke and died at Saybrook 1 Jan 1671/2. Therefore, she was not living when Mrs. Bishop made her will; and there is no objection to the theory that the Bishops had children who died prior to 12 June 1673 when Mrs. Bishop had but three surviving children.
This theory, which would make Elizabeth (Jordan) Hubbard the grandchild named in the will, is attractive, and the most serious objection that can be bruoght against it is that hte known ages of the Jordan children necessitate placing the birth of Mrs. Ann Jordan about a decade earlier than the births of the known three Bishop children. That objection is not insuperable. However, this should be considered merely as an unproved theory unless readers can supply documentary evidence of a more compelling charactr than the bare mention of Elizabeth Hubbard as a grandchild in the will fo Mrs. Bishop, which may admit of more than one interprestation.
Jacob reiterates teh above in TAG 29, 1953, pp 127-8.
Author of Hubbard History and Genealogy speculated that all people named Hubbard are descended from followers of a Danish viking prince named Hubba. Steven Bird of the DNA-genealogy list says the root is Saxon and means big head. Danes and Saxons are genetically similar, and their languages weren't all that different either. Both groups originated in Jutland, several hundred years apart. The Danish empire was smaller and more northerly than the Saxon empire. Steve Bird claims that Hubbard's are among the early emigrants to New England who were East Anglians of Saxon origins, but I think he may have been thinking of William Hubbard, founder of a prominent Puritan line, who was from Ipswich.
Hubbard DNA project finds so far that most people named Hubbard are R1b1 (atlantic modal haplotye), followed by E3b. - which turned out to mostly be descendants of this George Hubbard. Descendants of other New England Hubbards have apparently not been tested or atleast not joined the projects. George's origins are more mysterious than those of some of them.
George Hubbard Y DNA from Hubbard and E3b DNA projects. There have been a half dozen participants.
Haplogroup E3b. SNP testing reported on E3b DNA Project web site; one person has SNP testing in progress, the first person below had SNP testing confirm M35, = E3b1, no testing for subclade. Emigrant ancestor to England probably Danish or Saxon. Emigrant ancestor to U.S. probably from eastern or southern England, which has been teh guess.
From this and the definitions it is not clear whether the list meant to identify the participant as E3b or E3b1, since according to Wikipedia the M35 SNP marker defines all of E3b.
Apparently there are several subsets of E3b. Those who are known ot have been in England are likely to be of the subgroup of E3b1 that evolved in the region of the Balkan peninsula. The rest, according to Wikipedia, evolved in East Africa and came to Spain and Sicily with the Moors. E3b apparently originated in North Africa, time uncertain, maybe as long as 26,000 years ago, and came to Europe through the Middle East, possibly with paleolithic and neolithic expansions. That is controversial. Oppenheimer states that it came to England during the Neolithic expansion, but Steven Bird argues convincingly on the DNA-genealogy list that that is unlikely. E3b is found mostly in regions of Britain invaded by Saxons and Danes in early medieval times. If it either came to Britain during the stone age, or was carried by Norse vikings, it would be more widespread in Great Britain. Anything found in eastern Europe in Roman times could also have come to Britain with the Romans, but E3b appears to be a western German sort of marker.
The border reivers project study found this:
Scientists believe that haplogroup E3b originated in the Near East, and spread across the Mediterranean and North Africa during the Neolithic. It may also have spread up through the Balkans into northwestern Europe, becoming a minority admixture in Germany and Denmark, and eventually arriving in England with the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes. Judging from the results of the Capelli study, we may conclude that E3b is not associated with either Norse Viking settlement or the Q-Celtic speakers of Ireland and northern Scotland.
The highest level of E3b among the Capelli samples appears in Southwell, once part of the Danelaw zone, but most of the elevated levels appear outside the main areas of Anglo-Saxon and Danish settlement. Moreover, the ratio of E3b to I1a/I1b/I1c in all these areas is 2 to 6 times higher than that in the Germany/Denmark sample. This suggests that E3b in Britain may have had additional sources.
Phoenicians and other traders from the Mediterranean may have brought E3b to Britain in the centuries before Christ. It could also been brought to Britain in more recent times by Iberian sailors, Viking slave traders orNorman administrators and Flemish merchants of Portuguese Sephardic ancestry.
Almost certainly, it arrived with Roman troops and settlers from such places as Mauretania, Asturias, Syria and Mesopotamia. The population of Roman Britain is now thought to have been between 3 and 4 million, greater than at any other time until the late Middle Ages. Respected scholars believe that at least 75 percent of the English population has some Roman DNA.
In fact, much of the E3b in the Germany/Denmark sample may have originated during the Roman settlement of the Rhineland in such places as Cologne ("Colonia" in Latin).Data obtained by "A Y Chromosome Census of The British Isles" show that the highest levels of E3b were found in areas with a known history of Roman settlement. In addition to Southwell, these include Uttoxeter in the midlands, Dorchester and Faversham in southern England, and towns in Wales, like Llangefni and Llanidloes, where the Romans established forts and mined for gold and lead.
The incidence of E3b in our Border Reiver sample is comparable to that found in these towns by the Capelli study. Both E3b and J2 could have come to The Borders with Roman troops and support personnel of Middle Eastern descent.
The border reiver study is actually based on the data in Y-search. The Hubbard haplotype comes closest to matching the eastern European haplotypes; it could have been brought to England by Jews, or by Romans. It could also have been taken to German areas by Romans.
I also found this possible clue on a discussion about multicopy markers. One of hte people below has a fifth STR-464 marker (copy of)
"Marker DYS464 appears to be a rapidly changing Y chromosome marker and is a multi-copy marker. DYS464 occurs at least four times near the center of the Y-chromosome. The first four copies are called: DYS464a, DYS464b, DYS464c, DYS464d. Marker DYS464 is also known to occur more than four times, generally in African lineages of Haplogroup E. Additional copies of DYS464 are called: DYS464e, DYS464f, and so forth... DYS464 has an observed range between 9 to 20 inclusive."
I also found this in Wikipedia's article on a Welsh city that was founded by Romans; "Recent genetic studies [1] <http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/7/1008.pdf> on the y-chromosomes of men in Abergele have revealed that there is a substantial percentage of North African DNA in Abergele. Genetic marker e3b was found to average at 38.97% in male y-chromosomes in Abergele. Genetic marker e3b is found at its highest concentrations in North Africa at 75% but at much lower percentages in Northern Europe at less than 5%. The reason for the high levels of e3b in Abergele is most likely due to the heavy Roman presence in Abergele as most of the Romans that came to Britain did not come from Italy rather from other parts of the empire such as North Africa, the Middle East and eastern Europe. Above average levels of genetic marker e3b have been found in other towns in Britain that were known to have had a heavy Roman presence."
On the other hand, Cruciani in an article published in 2004 argued that certain STR haplotypes are assocated with the SNP-defined subclades of e3b. His STR's are not actually included in the paper, but are extensively discussed on the web. He specifically found that the unusual allele DYS 460 = 9 equates to etither, e3b1a, or e3b1a2, depending on one's specific interpretation of hte data. This grouping reaches its peak in teh Balkan Mountains, or Albania, and decreases as one goes westward in Europe, and is unusual to the east and Middle East except for Turkey. People from the Balkans migrated north and eastward across Germany and Denmark and the low countries at various points in time.
6 and 7 are from SMGF. 1 through 5 are from ftDNA Hubbard and E3b DNA projects and from Y-Search. It is unclear whether I found anyone in Y-Search who was not in the E3b DNA project.
Two George Hubbard's who lived close together in Connecticut during the same period of time are often confused into a single individual, especially by familysearch.com, though they lived distinct, well documented lives. Not helping is that their children's names also overlapped. They have often believed to be father and son but no proof of it and the age difference between them was arguably barely great enough for that to be possible. Their origins are unknown. SMGF gives the lineages, and in most cases the ftDNA sources do not. Number 6 below is actually three individuals of two lineages claiming descent from George Hubbard the maybe son, and number 3 belongs to one of the two lineages. The others appear to belong to George Hubbard the maybe father and they have more variation between them than the lines of descent from Possibly Junior. George Possibly Junior and George Possibly Senior were clearly closely related in some way.
Number 6 is 3 identical haplotypes from three families. All claim descent from Daniel and Samuel Hubbard, sons of George Hobart and Elizabeth Watts, who I show as arguably a son of George Hubbard and Mary Bishop - though the timing is wrong for him to have been their son. He may possibly be the other George Hubbard who lived in some of the same places. Unfortunately the pedigree taps into family search, which shows a single George Hubbard generically married to Mary Bishop and Elizabeth Watts, died when George Husband the husband of Mary Bishop did, or, rather, was buried when he died, having died a year earlier, and has him the son of Richard Hubbard. Person number 7 is closely related. He claims descent from George Hubbard and Mary Bishop via son John who married Mary Merriam.
Hubbard History and Genealogy says that George Hubbard who married Mary Bishop, died in Guilford January, 1683, and was buried in a graveyard in the center of the village had children Mary, John, Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth, Abigail, William, and Daniel, and George in parentheses with a question mark. There is no Samuel. John married Mary Merriam, Daniel married Elizabeth Jordan, and William married Abigail Dudley.
George Hubbard who married Elizabeth Watts the possible son is who died on March 18, 1864, and was buried with his wife in Middletown, Connecticut, in the Middletown Riverside Cemetery. His sons were Mary, Joseph, Daniel, Samuel, George, Nathaniel, Richard and Elizabeth. DAniel married Mary Clark, as did the Daniel of the SGMF DNA records, and Samuel married Sarah Kirby.
If these people got their lineages straight, then the two George Hubbard's were two separate individuals who were closely related to each other.
1, 2, and 3, from the E3b Dna Project with ft DNA, each have close but not exact matches in YSearch. They should reasonably each have an exact match in Y Search. Unclear if the varying markers represent different people, or mistakes in data entry somewhere. Number 1 may be Carol Hubbard, Number 2 may be Rose Dennis, and number 3 may be Craig Hubbard, and apparently from the similarity of markers is one of the first of the three submitters to SMGF who claim descent from George Hubbard maybe Jr. and Elizabeth Watts, specifically from son Daniel.
Steven Bird has it E3b1a2 They came to England not before Roman times, as E3b not much found in Ireland. They came from either Germanic or eastern/ Balkan territory. Steven Bird argues that George Hubbard YDNA belongs to a sort of haplotype not often found in England, and bears striking resemblance to his Bird ancestry and to a Goodrich line, all of whom have Saxon/ Danish names, and to a Lancaster/ Satterthwaite (sp?) line possibly from Northern England and possibly Norman - though the name may have arisen on the Lancaster estates in northern England.
Steven thinks it was brought to England by Romans, after arguing that the names are Saxon. E3b basically came to England with Romans from the Balkan area, and with Germanic peoples from Celtic and Germanic areas. It apparently did not, however, come with the Celts because not found in Ireland. It seems to be concentrated in Saxon and Danish areas, which were of course settled by Romans before them.
My own line of descent is from John Hubbard and Mary Merriam.
Marker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
393 13 13 13 11 11 13 11
390 26 25 26 25 25 26 25
19 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
391 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
385a 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
385b 16 17 17 18 18 17 18
426 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
388 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
439 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
389-1 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
392 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
389-2 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
------------------
458 15 15 15 15 15
459-a 9 9 9 9 9
459-b 9 9 9 9 9
455 11 11 11 11 11
454 11 11 11 11 11
447 25 25 25 25 26*
437 14 14 14 14 14
448 20 20 20 20 20
449 33 32 32 32 32 34*
464-a 15 14 15 14 15 Half Not given
464-b 16 16 16
464-c 16 17 17
464d 17 18 18
465e 18
---------------------------
460 9
H4 12 - 12
YCAII 19,21 19, 19,
456 16 15 -
607 12
576 18
570 20
CDYa,b 30,35
442 11 12 -
438 10
444 12 12
461 12 12
A10 13 13
AC4 - 23H4
The Y DNA haplogroup is E3b1a2, of an eastern European and middle Eastern type found in low numbers in Britain. The one thing we do know is that sometime around the time of Christ or the first centuries AD, the male line ancestor of these families lived in eastern Europe or the Middle East. It is known generally how this haplogroup got to England, and there were only a handful of likely ways to get to England from Eastern Europe, particularly without leaving behind a visible genetic trail in central and western Europe; but it is not specifically known what path the ancestors of these families took to get there. Theirs is an uncommon haplotype for England. Only the aristocratic Satterthwaite and Lancaster lines, found mostly in Lancashire, are otherwise even close to their Y DNA, and not that close. The three families probably have common ancestry between 500 and a thousand years further back than the beginning of the 17th century, and they all ended up more or less near Hartford, Connecticut, all of which seems rather remarkable, though not impossible, if they never even knew each other in England. Bird (Brid), Goodrich (Goderic), and Hubbard (Hobart) are all Saxon names - though Hubbard and variants are also attributed to followers of a Danish Viking. It matters to this discussion that Saxons and Danes came from the same general area at different points in time, both empires were centered in Jutland, and they cannot be distinguished from each other genetically, though the Saxons had a larger empire and more of their descendants have genetic markers typical of central Germany. Steven Bird, who runs the E3b DNA project and has put alot of work into E3b1a2 and its roots, thinks we can be certain only that the Bird, Goodrich and Hubbard ancestors were in England before the Normans, and since we know of two E3b1a2 Norman families in England and one of them is not all that genetically distant from the Birds, Goodrich's and Hubbards, we cannot even be sure the common ancestor was not Norman or a group of Normans from the same village. Normans are thought of as Norse Vikings but they are actually more likely ot have been Danish Vikings, when they invaded England they had ruled a powerful under-kingdom in northwestern France for six generations, and most participants in the invasion were not Norse. That they came with the Saxons or were Roman slaves or soldiers and descendants had Saxon names is equally likely. Alternatively they could have been Jews. Either Jews or descendants of Roman soldiers or slaves could have lived in places that became Saxon territory before descendants migrated to Britain, and probably more Jews converted to Christianity over time than did not. Nonpaternity events were even more common in medieval times than now, and surnames were adopted only slowly after the Norman conquest. It is also possible that the three families are illegitimate spawn of wandering Norman aristocrats like the Lancaster family; they would hardly have taken their names.
Looking at these and particularly comparing them to the modal values for E3b1a2, it is actually not clear that they did not each diverge from the modal (assumed ancestral) haplotype itself. The most distinctive characteristic is DYS 390 = 25 in all three cases.
The study of Y HRD in the border reivers web site lists an uncommon haplotype of the first nine markers of trhe first 12 of this haplotype as found most often in the Balkans, followed by Spain, Poland, and Switzerland. He thinks some of these are Jewish in origin, and some in Spain might also be North African. Jews actually dispersed far and wide at an early point in time, often converted to Christianity, and could have come to England with any migration, though transportation directly from the Balkans or eastern Europe, or the Middle East, by the Romans, remains the most likely.
On the other hand, Cruciani, in his latest (2007) paper on E3b subclades, finds that E3b1a2 apparently evolved in western Asia around 11,000 years ago, migrated to the Balkan penininsula, and then diffused outward from there, decreasing steadily in all directions across Europe, western Asia, and Asia Minor and somewhat in the Middle East, around 5000 years go, probably propelled by Bronze Age technology and population expansion. This is based on his own study, and hte data I saw that it was based on was entirely from Eastern Europe and points south and east. He argues that the incidence of E-V13 (E3b1a) moves outward in a clinal fashion from the southern Balkan peninsula and possibly from points east, rather than hopscotching across Europe with Roman slaves or soldiers or Jews. Archeologically, Asiatic people did live in the Balkan peninsula before the Myceneans and then Indo-European peoples arrived there, and the Greek defeat of the Myceneans may have been accomplished mainly by indigenous people of hte area and of the Balkans, after a critical buildup of tensions between teh people of the region and their foreign overlords.
See also George Hubbard.
Bird Goodrich Hubbard
393 13
390 25 25 25/26 moderately fast mutating 24 is modal ***
19 13
391 10
385a,b 18/19,19 16,19/20 16,16/17 Fast mutating markers modal 16,18
426 11
388 12
439 11 12 13 relatively fast mutating modal is 12
389 1,2 13,30
392 11
458 16 15 15 relatively fast mutating
459a,b 9,9
455 11
454 11
447 25 26/27 25 moderately fast mutating modal is 26
437 14
448 20
449 32 33/34 32 relatively fast mutating Modal is 32
464a-d 15,16,17,17 14,16,17,17 15,16,16/17,17,18 fast mutating and prone to reading errors
Modal 14, 16, 17,17
460 9
GATA H4 9 9/10 12 moderately fast mutating Modal is 11
YCA II a,b 18,21 19,21 19,21 slow mutating ? Modal is 19,21
456 15 15 16 relatively fast mutating Modal is 17 **
607 12
576 17/18 18/19 (1) 18 slow mutating Modal is 17
570 20 19/20 (1) 20 relatively fast mutating Modal is 19 **
CDYa,b 30/31,36 32,34 30,35 relatively fast mutating Modal is 31, 34
442 11
438 10 11/10 10 very slow mutating Modal is 10
General Notes (Wife)
E-mail; don't have if private or a Rootsweb post, author below
I also descend through George Bishop (d. 1682/3) and his wife Mary. According to Donald Lines Jacobus, his wife's surname IS NOT BISHOP. Here's the text of the TAG article - see what you think! TAG vol. 10; 1933 - "George Hubbard's wife" by Donald Lines Jacobus The statement is seen in many printed works (a) that Mary wife of George1 Hubbard of Guilford was a daughter of John1 Bishop of Guilford. The writer has not found any evidence to bear this out, and is convinced that the said Mary was not a daughter of John Bishop.
John Bishop came with the original Guilford company in 1639. The history of George Hubbard is different. He came first to Massachusetts, then to Wethersfield by 1636, removed 1643 to Milford, CT and 1650 to Guilford. Bishop brought a wife and young children with him to Guilford; the children, judging by the time they married, were born in the 1630's. Hubbard had several children born before he settled in Milford, the oldest almost certainly born before 1640. The evidence ofthe
dates would lead us to believe that Hubbard and his wife were not much
younger than Bishop and his wife. The question may be asked, how Hubbard came to acquire a daughter of John Bishop for his wife, since Hubbard was a married man while still residing in Wethersfield, and his marriage almost certainly took place prior to the arrival of the Bishops with the Guilford party in 1639.
All statements to the effect that Hubbard's wife was daughter of Bishop are apparently based on the will of Mrs. Ann Bishop, made 12 June 1673, in which she gave twenty shillings to her grandchild Elizabeth Hubbard. (b) Yet this will itself proves that Mrs. Mary Hubbard was not her daughter. Mrs. Bishop gave her eldest son John Bishop 5 pounds above "his equal proportion with my other Too children," and she willed that the residue of her estate should be divided "Betwixt my three children, viz., John and Steuen Bishop and James Steele." Further she called James Steele her son-in-law, and the inventory mentioned property in Mr. Steele's hands "which his wife claims as given to her by her Mother." The terms used in the will prove conclusively that Mrs. Bishop had but three living children in 1673: John, Stephen, and Bethia wife of James Steele. Certainly no sane woman would refer to "my other two children" and again to "my three children" if she had at the time four living children. The joker in the deck is that Mrs. Mary Hubbard was living in 1673, and did not die until 14 Sept. 1676. (c) Therefore, she was not the daughter of Mrs. Ann Bishop. And if Mrs. Mary Hubbard was daughter of John Bishop by a former marriage, then her daughter Elizabeth Hubbard would not have been granddaughter of Mrs. Ann Bishop.
It must not be forgotten that not only did George Hubbard have a daughter Elizabeth, but Daniel2 Hubbard had married (in 1664) Elizabeth Jordan, and that the latter may conceivably have been the Elizabeth Hubbard whom Mrs. Ann Bishop called her granddaughter. Elizabeth Jordan was daughter of Mr. John Jordan, and original Guilford proprietor in 1639, by his wife Ann, and for anything we know to the contrary, Mrs. Ann Jordan may have been the daughter of Mr. John and Mrs. Ann Bishop. At any rate, Mrs. Jordan married secondly Thomas Clarke and died at Saybrook 1 Jan. 1671/2. Therefore, she was not living when Mrs. Bishop made her will; and there is no objection to the theory that the Bishops had children who died prior to 12 June 1673 when Mrs. Bishop had but three surviving children.
This Theory, which would make Elizabeth (Jordan) Hubbard the grandchild named in the will, is attractive, and the most serious objection that can be brought against it is that the known ages of the Jordan children necessitate placing the birth of Mrs. Ann Jordan about a decade earlier than the births of the known three Bishop children. That objection is not insuperable. However, this should be considered merely as an unproved theory unless readers can supply documentary evidence of a more compelling character than the bare mention of Elizabeth Hubbard as a grandchild in the will of Mrs. Bishop, which may admit of more than one interpretation. (a)"1000 Years of Hubbard History," pp. 199-200, states that "with thses migrators [from Watertown, MA, to Wethersfield, CT] went George Hubbard, his family , his father-in-law, John Bishop, and his family." No contemporary record has been found to indicate that John Bishop ever resided in Watertown, Mass., or Wethersfield, CT, or that he was the father-in-law of George Hubbard; as stated in the text above, he first appears in 1639 with the Guilford settlers who came direct from England. (b) Manwaring's Digest of Early Conn. Probate Records, vol. 1, pp. 183-184. (c) Guilford Vital Records, vol. A, p. 68. Jacobus reiterates the above in TAG 29, 1953 pp. 127-128. Kathleen Pantano [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Table of Contents | Surnames | Name List
This Web Site was Created 6 May 2012 with Legacy 6.0 from Millennia