PDA

View Full Version : DNA reply from a "Mayflower" lineage society



Wing Genealogist
08-13-2016, 10:48 PM
I received the following reply from a family society of a Mayflower passenger (regarding accepting DNA evidence)

"As for the DNA issue I think we will again follow the Mayflower rulings on this as it is fairly new. But all the lineal descent societies are dealing with the DNA issue. So it will be a while before societies "accept" DNA as
proof. Not in my lifetime anyway!"

Definitely looks like we need to educate some folks!

Saetro
08-14-2016, 02:35 AM
So it will be a while before societies "accept" DNA as proof. Not in my lifetime anyway!"

MacGregor clan accepted DNA as proof some years ago.
Hence conclude that Mayflower descendants are apparently able to post posthumously!

Wing Genealogist
08-14-2016, 06:49 PM
Definitely an uphill battle. But at least, I know where they stand, rather than be surprised when they dismiss DNA evidence.

rms2
08-15-2016, 03:07 PM
Believe it or not, I could get into the Mayflower Society if I wanted to without too much difficulty, because a number of my relatives (mainly female) belonged and have already done the heavy paperwork lifting. I have a male second cousin who is a member, and he got in based on the work of those old ladies. For some odd reason, it's just not something I care that much about. I guess I am like those Europeans who don't care to be dna tested: they know where they are from and where their ancestors were from, so genetic genealogy holds little attraction for them. Similarly, pretty much all my life I have known about my descent from Myles Standish and the rest, so I kind of take it for granted and don't feel the need for the official approval of the Mayflower Society.

My Mayflower ancestry comes via my second great grandmother, Olive Augusta Washburn. Her Washburn family were New England Puritans and intermarried with many of the old Mayflower families.

Kwheaton
08-15-2016, 04:46 PM
I think I have 6 Mayflower lines. Two I helped my cousin prove so they would be easy. The other's I am not sure.
I believe the DAR accepts DNA evidence the Mayflower shouldn't be too far behind. Of course that far back the only proof woukd be YDNA....

Grossvater
08-15-2016, 05:36 PM
I'm a Mayflower descendant from Stephen Hopkins but I've never joined any genealogy societies. What are the benefits? Is it just for the bragging rights?

C J Wyatt III
08-15-2016, 05:49 PM
I'm a Mayflower descendant from Stephen Hopkins but I've never joined any genealogy societies. What are the benefits? Is it just for the bragging rights?

I think some of the members are scared of DNA because they may lose their bragging rights.

Jack

Wing Genealogist
08-15-2016, 08:01 PM
I think I have 6 Mayflower lines. Two I helped my cousin prove so they would be easy. The other's I am not sure.
I believe the DAR accepts DNA evidence the Mayflower shouldn't be too far behind. Of course that far back the only proof woukd be YDNA....

I descend from at least 10 Mayflower passengers (and some passengers by multiple lines). I don't say that to boast (as I had not done anything to deserve to boast about).

I have heard where the GSMD (General Society of Mayflower Descendants) has accepted DNA evidence in some cases. I don't know if the GSMD has accepted any lineages based on mtDNA, but I do know the FTDNA Mayflower project (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/mayflowersociety/about)does list mtDNA descendants of several passengers (such as Elizabeth Tilley, wife of John Howland, and Priscilla Mullens, wife of John Alden). In theory, nothing would prevent the use of mtDNA as well, but it is simply harder to trace female lines than male lines.

Wing Genealogist
08-15-2016, 08:06 PM
I'm a Mayflower descendant from Stephen Hopkins but I've never joined any genealogy societies. What are the benefits? Is it just for the bragging rights?

Undoubtedly, some folks join at least partially for bragging rights. But there are any number of reasons for a person joining. For me, I wanted to prove (to myself) that I am doing an adequate job of accurately documenting my line of descent. I was pleasantly surprised when my application was approved, as the historian did comment upon how thoroughly I documented my lineage. I had concentrated on using the "best" evidence (primarily VRs and gravestones) and tried to minimize the amount of published genealogies I had used.

blinketyblink
08-15-2016, 08:07 PM
I've got one mayflower line (at least) as a descendant of the Compact signer, Edward Doty. Personally, I was put out when I discovered this, all that WASP respectability doesn't sit right with me somehow. ;)
If DNA could get me off the hook I might appreciate it. lol

Wing Genealogist
08-15-2016, 08:12 PM
I think some of the members are scared of DNA because they may lose their bragging rights.

Jack

DNA testing does introduce a paradigm shift in genealogy. For the first time, it introduces hard scientific evidence to support the lineage. Traditional genealogy relied on faith in a lot of aspects (Faith the husband of the mother was the father of the child; Faith a person gives accurate and truthful information when Birth, Marriage & Death Certificates are created; Faith the clerk did not fabricate or make mistakes in his recordings; etc.)

Human nature is to resist (and even fear) change. The greater the change, the greater the resistance/fear. In the end, I do believe the GSMD and family societies will embrace DNA testing, but it will take time, and patience.

Wing Genealogist
08-15-2016, 08:32 PM
I've got one mayflower line (at least) as a descendant of the Compact signer, Edward Doty. Personally, I was put out when I discovered this, all that WASP respectability doesn't sit right with me somehow. ;)
If DNA could get me off the hook I might appreciate it. lol

I don't believe the pilgrims were all that "uppity". IMHO, it was the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay which personify the WASP mentality rather than the Separatists.

The Pilgrims initially struggled and faced severe financial hardships in order to send the Mayflower over. They originally had two ships, but one proved un-seaworthy for the trans-Atlantic trip and had to go back to England. Roughly half of the passengers were "strangers" and not members of the Separatists congregation. This large percentage of "outsiders" forced the original pilgrims to originally grant non Church members equal rights. There was no distinguishing the "Saints" from the "Strangers" on the Mayflower Compact. It was only after Plymouth Colony had basically "turned the corner" on their financial struggles (and were well on their way to paying off their debt) as well as a large influx of their church brethren, that the Colony became more intolerant of outside viewpoints.

Additionally, the arrival of the Quakers in the Colonies contributed towards this new intolerance. While Plymouth Colony was no longer financially strapped, they still had to compete with a number of English (as well as French & Dutch) Colonies, and to a somewhat lesser extant, competing with the Native Americans as well. The Plymouth leadership felt the need to have unity of purpose to survive this competition, and not be "swallowed up" by their much larger Bay Colony neighbors. The Quaker belief of everyone being equal and following your own inner light threatened this unity, and (in theory) their survival.

I do personally descend from both "Saints" and "Strangers" as well as some of the Quakers. I try to look at all of the possible viewpoints in order to honor all of my ancestral lines. Yes, mistakes were made, but that simply is part of being human.

Wing Genealogist
08-15-2016, 08:40 PM
I do believe, in time, even autosomal DNA testing may be accepted by the GSMD. For instance, there are currently a number of possible Mayflower lines where their is not enough "traditional" evidence for the GSMD (General Society of Mayflower Descendants) to accept the lineage. Some of these lines may be able to be validated using mtDNA testing, and (at least in theory) they may possibly be able to use autosomal DNA to validate as well. DNA testing the remains of Mayflower Passengers (or some of their early descendants) would go a long way to making many more of these lines testable.

I do understand their are VERY mixed feelings regarding disturbing the remains of our ancestors.

Wing Genealogist
08-15-2016, 08:54 PM
MacGregor clan accepted DNA as proof some years ago.
Hence conclude that Mayflower descendants are apparently able to post posthumously!

At my instigation, the Wing Family of America, Inc. [WFA, www.wingfamily.org] developed a DNA policy even before we had our first result (mine). We decided DNA evidence could only be used to INCLUDE someone, never to EXCLUDE someone.

The Board had a long discussion about what constitutes "family" and the consensus was that family was BOTH your genetic/biological line AND the persons who raised you.

We also developed a policy where breaks in the genetic line (NPEs) are not to be PUBLICLY published, or released, but details could be privately shared with affected members (at the discretion of the Genealogist [myself]). This last part I still struggle with. It is impossible to know in advance whether someone would be interested in knowing the truth, or would be ashamed of the past. Even privately discussing this with some folks have caused them to have hard feelings towards me. OTOH (on the other hand) I have had other folks who have thanked me for pointing out their "dual" lineage and openly embraced both their genetic line and their "adopted" line.

I can well imagine the GSMD (General Society of Mayflower Descendants) may want to take some different views on these issues. I cannot see anyone trying to fraudulently join the WFA (as their is nothing to gain by that). Some folks do feel they may have something to gain by creating false lineages to Mayflower families (or at least make leaps of faith that their Rogers, Fuller, etc. lines must have come from the Mayflower family). I can see the GSMD not accepting non-genetic/biological lines and publishing the results of such discontinuities. At the very least, the time is overdue for societies such as the GSMD to develop policies and standards around DNA testing, rather than being a proverbial ostrich with its head in the sands ignoring solid evidence.

Dewsloth
08-18-2016, 04:03 PM
I'm a Mayflower descendant from Stephen Hopkins but I've never joined any genealogy societies. What are the benefits? Is it just for the bragging rights?

Maybe you get your choice of venison or a turkey drumstick on Thanksgiving? :beerchug:

Do the Mayflower groups count Anne passengers, or just Mayflower?
I just found out yesterday that I seem to be descended from three passengers on the Mayflower [Francis Cooke, John Cooke (his son) and Richard Warren] and three on the Anne [Richard's wife, Elizabeth and their daughter, Sarah; and Francis' wife Hester le Mahieu].

If correct, my dad is walking around with Elizabeth Walker and Sarah Warren's MtDNA. That matrilineal DNA line stops with him, though. All I've got is autosomes.:behindsofa:

Wing Genealogist
08-19-2016, 08:28 PM
Maybe you get your choice of venison or a turkey drumstick on Thanksgiving? :beerchug:

Do the Mayflower groups count Anne passengers, or just Mayflower?
I just found out yesterday that I seem to be descended from three passengers on the Mayflower [Francis Cooke, John Cooke (his son) and Richard Warren] and three on the Anne [Richard's wife, Elizabeth and their daughter, Sarah; and Francis' wife Hester le Mahieu].

If correct, my dad is walking around with Elizabeth Walker and Sarah Warren's MtDNA. That matrilineal DNA line stops with him, though. All I've got is autosomes.:behindsofa:

The GSMD (General Society of Mayflower Descendants) and all of the State societies only accept Mayflower passengers. There are other lineage societies, such as the National Society Sons and Daughters of the Pilgrims (NSSDP) For the purpose of this Society, the term “Pilgrim” denotes any immigrant who settled before 1700 within the territory which began the forty-eight contiguous states of the United States of America without regard to religion or place of origin.

Dewsloth
08-19-2016, 08:41 PM
Thanks! At least the Fortune and Anne families weren't on a sinking Speedwell if it had gone down out of reach of rescue/return.

Pegasusphm1
09-14-2016, 05:43 AM
DNA testing as a tool not a holy grail. Automosal testing I'm with in a few generations of George Soule, regularly get matches down stream from Susannah Soules line in Rhode Island. Establishment of those lines affirms other research as I look at it.

Wing Genealogist
09-14-2016, 10:44 AM
DNA testing as a tool not a holy grail. Automosal testing I'm with in a few generations of George Soule, regularly get matches down stream from Susannah Soules line in Rhode Island. Establishment of those lines affirms other research as I look at it.

You are absolutely correct. DNA testing is only a tool. Much like any tool, when used correctly it can be of great assistance in one's research. Also, just like any tool, it has its limitations, and can be misused.

My point of this discussion is how it is a disservice for a Mayflower-based family association to reject using a useful tool. the technology is proven, as long as used correctly.

Pegasusphm1
09-15-2016, 03:38 AM
Mayflower and colonial period are very well documented. If one can establish their family genealogy tree, combined with DNA. Its really a no brainier. Mayflower is a great case study for science.

Wing Genealogist
09-15-2016, 11:06 AM
Mayflower and colonial period are very well documented. If one can establish their family genealogy tree, combined with DNA. Its really a no brainier. Mayflower is a great case study for science.

While the earliest generations of Mayflower families have been very well studied, their are still gaps and unknowns (especially with daughters). As you stated earlier, DNA testing is a tool, and it may be possible to use this tool to help fill in some of these gaps.

greerpalmer
06-28-2017, 04:46 PM
Believe it or not, I could get into the Mayflower Society if I wanted to without too much difficulty, because a number of my relatives (mainly female) belonged and have already done the heavy paperwork lifting. I have a male second cousin who is a member, and he got in based on the work of those old ladies. For some odd reason, it's just not something I care that much about. I guess I am like those Europeans who don't care to be dna tested: they know where they are from and where their ancestors were from, so genetic genealogy holds little attraction for them. Similarly, pretty much all my life I have known about my descent from Myles Standish and the rest, so I kind of take it for granted and don't feel the need for the official approval of the Mayflower Society.

My Mayflower ancestry comes via my second great grandmother, Olive Augusta Washburn. Her Washburn family were New England Puritans and intermarried with many of the old Mayflower families.

We're related through John Washburn (Jr) and Elizabeth Mitchell. My GGGG Grandfather Ezra Washburn (b. 1745) is 3 generations removed from both their sons Samuel Washburn & Joseph Washburn (almost too close for comfort!) on either side. You're descendant from James one of John and Elizabeth's other sons.

Baltimore1937
08-31-2017, 08:01 AM
I still haven't given up on the idea that my direct maternal line stems from early Massachusetts. But as was pointed out above, daughters are harder to trace. I just bumped into a distant match at Ancestry that has Makepeace and Hathaway in her list of ancestors. So I added that to my Ann Johnson research tree. But I still can't connect to my maternal line. My Ann Johnson tree is based on HVR1 & HVR1+HVR2 matches at the now defunct SMGF Sorensen Lab. This latest match gets as far as New Jersey and New York. So at least it shows they all weren't stuck in MA.

astondive
08-31-2017, 05:43 PM
I'm a Mayflower descendant from Stephen Hopkins but I've never joined any genealogy societies. What are the benefits? Is it just for the bragging rights?

You probably know that Stephen Hopkins was from Wortley, Wotton-Under-Edge, Gloucestershire. My wife is from (Born 1949) W-U-E and after our marriage I lived there from 1968 until 2004, when we moved to Wales.

The link is about Stephen:-

http://www.connectedbloodlines.com/getperson.php?personID=I6311&tree=lowell

.

Grossvater
08-31-2017, 09:15 PM
You probably know that Stephen Hopkins was from Wortley, Wotton-Under-Edge, Gloucestershire. My wife is from (Born 1949) W-U-E and after our marriage I lived there from 1968 until 2004, when we moved to Wales.

The link is about Stephen:-

http://www.connectedbloodlines.com/getperson.php?personID=I6311&tree=lowell

.

Thank you for mentioning Wortley, Wotton-Under-Edge. I haven't given it much thought but since you brought it up, I decided to see what it looked like and so did a Google image search. It appears to be a very charming and pretty village. If I ever get over to England, I'll have to go there and have a look around.

The link you sent has some information that modern scholarship seems to have proven inaccurate. Constance Dudley is no long considered to be Stephen Hopkins' first wife. From Wikipedia:

"The following is based on the extensive research of author Simon Neal:

Stephen Hopkins' spouses:

Mary Kent is believed to be the first wife of Stephen Hopkins, born in Ratlake, Hampshire, in about 1580, the daughter of Robert and Joan Kent. Robert's father may have been named Andrew Kent. Joan's maiden name was probably Machill, or a variation thereof such as Machell, based on documents of the time. Research indicates Joan's parents' names were sometimes given as Robert and Joan Machell and that she (Joan the younger) had a brother Giles and sister Elizabeth. Giles and Elizabeth also appear as the names of two of Mary's children.[12][13]:58

Per Neal, the Machell and Kent families may have been able to trace their ancestries back to ancient times when they first appeared at the manor (then castle) of Merdon in Hursley parish, which could have been as early as the 13th century.[12]On 20 November 1558, per the bequests of the will of Thomas Backe of the parish of Hursley, Robert Machyll (Machill) is cited as being an Overseer, Witness and one of those who had taken his estate inventory on 2 December 1558. Robert Machill was the father of Joan Kent and grandfather of Mary Kent, wife of Stephen Hopkins.[13]:59Robert Machell, father of Joan Kent, appears in court records for the manor of Merdon, Hursley, Hants., on 26 October 1559.[12]:131,137On 28 April 1560 Robert Machyll (Machill) is recorded in the Hampshire Record Office as being involved, with two others, in the estate inventory of Margaret Backe, late the wife of Andrew Backe of the parish of Hursley.[12]:53The will of Robert Machell of Hursley, Hants., per the Hampshire Record Office. Will date: 24 January 1575, proved 25 April 1575. Persons mentioned in the will were Joan (wife), Giles (son), and Elizabeth and Joan (the younger) (daughters). Joan (the younger) would later be the mother of Mary Kent.[12]Documents for the 1588 rental of the manor of Merdon at Hursley, Hants. lists Robert Kent, father of Mary Kent, renting at Ratlake for 5s a sum total of 46 acres (19 ha) consisting of house, orchard, garden yard, etc.[13]:60Mary's father, Robert Kent, died when she was young, leaving her mother Joan a widow. Mary's ancestry is difficult to research, but author Simon Neal determined that she had originally come from the Hursley area. No marriage record has been found for Mary and Stephen who had three children together between probably 1603 and 1608 Elizabeth, the eldest, Constance, and Giles. The baptism records for the three children have been located in the parish registers of Hursley, Hampshire. It is known that after their marriage around 1602 or before, Mary and Stephen resided with her mother Joan where they ran a small alehouse. Stephen departed for America in 1609, with his children being left in the care of his wife Mary and her mother Joan. In 1620 Stephen, his second wife Elizabeth and children Giles and Constance were Mayflower passengers.[12]:126-127,138Manorial court documents relating to the manor of Merdon list the following court date and charge: 3 Sept. 3 James I (1605): Alehouse keepers Joan Kent (and two others named) are charged with being common tipplers and have broken the assize of bread and ale. Therefore each of them is in mercy (fined) 4 pence. Joan Kent was the mother of Mary Kent, wife of Stephen Hopkins.[13]:62Joan Machill's brother Giles was named in the manorial court for the manor of Merdon, Hursley, Hampshire, for a minor offense with a date of 3 October 1611. At the time Giles Machill was recorded as innkeeper of the Star and his sister Joan Kent was the alehouse keeper.[13]:64In 1611 Joan died at about age 50, leaving the three Hopkins children in Mary's care.

Mary died in 1613, at about age 33, with her burial entry appearing in parish registers on 9 May 1613 where she is described as the wife of Stephen Hopkins. Her inventory and administration were held on 12 May 1613 where it was noted she was the mother of Elizabeth, Giles and Constance and that she was a widow although at the time Stephen Hopkins was very much alive in Virginia. This may have been an error since apparently some monies from his employment at Jamestown did reach his wife and she may have known he was alive. In 1614 Hopkins received a letter at Jamestown informing him of his wife's death and shortly thereafter came back to England to care for his orphaned children.[12]:126 [4]:164,165Per author Neal, the Kent family continued its line through Giles Kent, Mary's probable brother, and continued to flourish in Hursley throughout the 17th century.[12]:138"

astondive
09-01-2017, 05:29 PM
Thank you for mentioning Wortley, Wotton-Under-Edge. I haven't given it much thought but since you brought it up, I decided to see what it looked like and so did a Google image search. It appears to be a very charming and pretty village. If I ever get over to England, I'll have to go there and have a look around.

The link you sent has some information that modern scholarship seems to have proven inaccurate. Constance Dudley is no long considered to be Stephen Hopkins' first wife. From Wikipedia:

"The following is based on the extensive research of author Simon Neal:

Stephen Hopkins' spouses:

Mary Kent is believed to be the first wife of Stephen Hopkins, born in Ratlake, Hampshire, in about 1580, the daughter of Robert and Joan Kent. Robert's father may have been named Andrew Kent. Joan's maiden name was probably Machill, or a variation thereof such as Machell, based on documents of the time. Research indicates Joan's parents' names were sometimes given as Robert and Joan Machell and that she (Joan the younger) had a brother Giles and sister Elizabeth. Giles and Elizabeth also appear as the names of two of Mary's children.[12][13]:58

Per Neal, the Machell and Kent families may have been able to trace their ancestries back to ancient times when they first appeared at the manor (then castle) of Merdon in Hursley parish, which could have been as early as the 13th century.[12]On 20 November 1558, per the bequests of the will of Thomas Backe of the parish of Hursley, Robert Machyll (Machill) is cited as being an Overseer, Witness and one of those who had taken his estate inventory on 2 December 1558. Robert Machill was the father of Joan Kent and grandfather of Mary Kent, wife of Stephen Hopkins.[13]:59Robert Machell, father of Joan Kent, appears in court records for the manor of Merdon, Hursley, Hants., on 26 October 1559.[12]:131,137On 28 April 1560 Robert Machyll (Machill) is recorded in the Hampshire Record Office as being involved, with two others, in the estate inventory of Margaret Backe, late the wife of Andrew Backe of the parish of Hursley.[12]:53The will of Robert Machell of Hursley, Hants., per the Hampshire Record Office. Will date: 24 January 1575, proved 25 April 1575. Persons mentioned in the will were Joan (wife), Giles (son), and Elizabeth and Joan (the younger) (daughters). Joan (the younger) would later be the mother of Mary Kent.[12]Documents for the 1588 rental of the manor of Merdon at Hursley, Hants. lists Robert Kent, father of Mary Kent, renting at Ratlake for 5s a sum total of 46 acres (19 ha) consisting of house, orchard, garden yard, etc.[13]:60Mary's father, Robert Kent, died when she was young, leaving her mother Joan a widow. Mary's ancestry is difficult to research, but author Simon Neal determined that she had originally come from the Hursley area. No marriage record has been found for Mary and Stephen who had three children together between probably 1603 and 1608 – Elizabeth, the eldest, Constance, and Giles. The baptism records for the three children have been located in the parish registers of Hursley, Hampshire. It is known that after their marriage around 1602 or before, Mary and Stephen resided with her mother Joan where they ran a small alehouse. Stephen departed for America in 1609, with his children being left in the care of his wife Mary and her mother Joan. In 1620 Stephen, his second wife Elizabeth and children Giles and Constance were Mayflower passengers.[12]:126-127,138Manorial court documents relating to the manor of Merdon list the following court date and charge: 3 Sept. 3 James I (1605): Alehouse keepers – Joan Kent (and two others named) are charged with being common tipplers and have broken the assize of bread and ale. Therefore each of them is in mercy (fined) 4 pence. Joan Kent was the mother of Mary Kent, wife of Stephen Hopkins.[13]:62Joan Machill's brother Giles was named in the manorial court for the manor of Merdon, Hursley, Hampshire, for a minor offense with a date of 3 October 1611. At the time Giles Machill was recorded as innkeeper of the Star and his sister Joan Kent was the alehouse keeper.[13]:64In 1611 Joan died at about age 50, leaving the three Hopkins children in Mary's care.

Mary died in 1613, at about age 33, with her burial entry appearing in parish registers on 9 May 1613 where she is described as the wife of Stephen Hopkins. Her inventory and administration were held on 12 May 1613 where it was noted she was the mother of Elizabeth, Giles and Constance and that she was a widow although at the time Stephen Hopkins was very much alive in Virginia. This may have been an error since apparently some monies from his employment at Jamestown did reach his wife and she may have known he was alive. In 1614 Hopkins received a letter at Jamestown informing him of his wife's death and shortly thereafter came back to England to care for his orphaned children.[12]:126 [4]:164,165Per author Neal, the Kent family continued its line through Giles Kent, Mary's probable brother, and continued to flourish in Hursley throughout the 17th century.[12]:138"

I hope you get the chance to visit Wotton as it's a very interesting place. I post a few links that may interest you:-

The White Star Line, Titanic. http://www.gloucestershirepubs.co.uk/AllGlosPubsDatabase/RAIGConnection.php?pubid1=1090

Sir Isaac Pitman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Pitman (He lived in Orchard Street W-U-E there's a plaque on the house)

The Ram Inn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/weirdwest/2004/10/ram.shtml

My wife tells me there are some Hopkins living in Wotton but we don't know if they are any thing to do with Stephen. Hopkins is quite a common name in the UK.

http://www.britishphonebook.com/search.php?last=HOPKINS&city=WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE


My wife and I got married in the church St Mary the Virgin, Wotton-under-Edge which has a famous organ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary_the_Virgin,_Wotton-under-Edge

"The church is perhaps best known for its large organ. Positioned in the south-east corner of the church, adjacent to the altar; it is one of the biggest organs in the county and is famed for having been played by Georg Handel when in its previous location of St. Martin in the Fields.[1][2]
The organ was presented to St. Martin in the Fields by King George I[2] It possesses a large range of stops over three manuals and a pedalboard, including two trumpets, six diapasons, a cornopean, and a flute"

The organ was purchased from St Martens in the Fields. Here's the good bit some of my ancestors were married and Christened in St Martens in the Fields, so the organ would have been played at their marriages and in 1968 it was played at ours.

Grossvater
09-01-2017, 10:27 PM
Thanks for sharing the links about Wotton-under-edge. That is pretty cool about the St. Martin-in-the-Fields organ, your ancestors and being married with the sound of the organ they would have heard. Not too many people today can claim that! And the organ was played by George Frederick Handel! In my town, we get excited about buildings that were built in the 1860s!

C J Wyatt III
09-01-2017, 11:03 PM
Tn my town, we get excited about buildings that were built in the 1860s!

As we say in Georgia (USA), if Sherman did not get them, the termites did.

Jack