Some Thoughts about Thomas

MAIN GENEALOGY INDEX

Who was Thomas Page of Walpole, MA? If this man had tried to hide, or otherwise obliterate his ancestry, he couldn't have done a better job! If he didn't, then researchers for 250 years have been baffled and unable to uncover any meaningful clue to his origins. There perhaps may have been personal reasons if it was a deliberate attempt to cloud his past or this then current circumstances. If not deliberate, then a rather large delegation of genealogists and Page researchers have either failed to find, or have overlooked any documented connection between Thomas and his parents! Theories of course, abound, but they will remain only theories until proof is located which substantiates his origin.

Since 1985 I have spent numerous hours ploughing the same ground that many before me have ploughed, also without result. However, I do have a sense that tends to indicate he may have been a descendant of John Page. To support my contention that Thomas was of, or closely associated with, the John Page of Haverhill, MA line, I offer the following random thoughts.

First, all of the immigrant John Page and wife Mary Marsh's children lines have been documented rather comprehensively, except, for some reason, his first son, John Jr. I feel that Thomas of Walpole may fit as a great-grandson of John Jr., and therefore a great, great-grandson of John and Mary Marsh of Haverhill, MA. I have been unable to locate any records of John Jr.'s children, except for daughter Sarah. John Jr. and wife Sarah Davis, daughter of JAMES DAVIS and Cicely Thayer, were married 18 June 1663, and their only recorded child, daughter Sarah, was born in 1680, 17 YEARS AFTER THEIR MARRIAGE! It seems reasonable to assume that additional children were born of this union. Savage seems to think so, because he states "probably there were other children born before (Sarah), or after, or both". (Ref: Descendants of John Page (1641-1687) of Hingham and Haverhill, MA, by Theda Page Brigham, Haverhill Historical Society, Haverhill, NH, 1972). Additionally, a statement concerning John, Jr. found on page 108, Appendix 21a, of the above reference states "Descendants from this John, Jr., have not been traced". The inference here seems to indicate that there were additional children of John Jr. and Sarah Davis which, for reasons unknown, were not traced! Why Not? In the colonial period, large families were commonplace, yet after 44 years of marriage to have only one child's birth recorded seems just a little strange!

Next, the comparison of given and middle names of descendants in both lines is a matter of some interest. Thomas of Walpole was my 4th great maternal grandfather, and his line of descent to my mother, including all of his children, male and female, and many of his grandchildren and great grandchildren, consist of 103 individuals. Of these, there are 61 specific individual given and middle names, and 42 duplicates and triplicates of some of the more common of those 61 names. Now, the point of interest, 53 of those 61 are documented names repeated in the John Page line, and only eight of the 103 names are not found within the John Page line. Since a surprising 94% of this collection of Thomas Page descendant given and middle names appear in the John Page Line, I think it might be safe to conclude that the two lines may have been inter-related, or, at least inter-connected at some point in time! It would seem implausible to consider this a total coincidence. Let's look at a breakdown of some of these names. While many were common, i.e. Thomas, Mary, Sarah, Rebecca, Hannah, Elizabeth, William, Ebenezer, Anna, Charles, Deliverance, etc., others would have to be considered somewhat unique. Is it just a coincidence that descendants of John of Haverhill, MA, and Thomas of Walpole, MA, in subsequent generations both named children Lewis, Lois, Sally, Justus, Lucy, Polly. Mille, Oliver. Daniel, Betsey, Elmer, Augusta, Ellsworth, Andrew, Warren, Charlotte, Frank, Patty. Emily, Irving. Lawrence, Adelaid, Maria and Timothy? The odds of this happening in any two descendant lines with the same Page surname, without an established relationship would seem to be very high, and the odds that the two lines were not related would be very low!

An additional item of curiosity regarding names in both lines is that of Caroline Augusta Page. In 1817, a Caroline Augusta Page was born in Hardwick, MA daughter of Jesse Page and Charlotte Robinson. Jesse Page was a great something grandson of John Page of Haverhill, MA. On 25 July 1818, another Caroline Augusta Page was born to Samuel Page and Deborah Curtis in Milton, MA Samuel was a grandson and Caroline a great granddaughter of Thomas Page of Walpole, MA. Jesse's Caroline apparently died very young because seven years later, on 23 July 1824, in Barre, MA, Jesse and Charlotte named another daughter Caroline Augusta Page! The name comparisons of the two lines indicates I think, that there are reasons to look to possible additional children of John Page Jr. for the answer to the mystery! Of course, spouses who married into the Page line also had an influence on their children's names.

Next, Thomas' grandson Daniel, (Joseph, Thomas), born 26 November 1795, named his 3rd son, born 2 February 1823 JAMES DAVIS Page! And, if you subscribe to the John Page Jr. theory, James Davis of Haverhill, MA, would have been Thomas' great, great maternal grandfather, whose daughter Sarah, married John Page Jr., 18 June 1663.

Another curious note, Asa Page, son of Thomas, born 1747, married Susannah Rhodes, and had a daughter named Sally, born 1783. Also, Asa Page, a descendant of John Page's son Cornelius, born 1773, married Phebe Noyes, and had a daughter Sally born in 1801!

The question for researchers now is, where can one focus attention in hopes of documenting his ancestry? It would certainly help if we knew from whence he came. But, all we really know is that he was in the Walpole, MA area sometime in the mid to late 1730's, courted and marred Sarah Robbins in September 1741. He could have been from Haverhill, or any other place in eastern MA, or even Walpole itself. However, since he is not buried in proximity to his parents, I tend to rule out the Walpole area. He could have been the immigrant ancestor from England that many thought he was, however, I believe that this possibility holds the least amount of credibility. Based on tombstone data, we know that Thomas died 22 April 1786, in his 65th year, which would make his birth in the 1721\1722 time frame, and that he Married Sarah in September 1741 when he was either 19 or 20 years old. Assuming that he was in Walpole, MA for several years prior to his marriage while he was courting Sarah, He would have been 18 or 19 years old at that time. It would be doubtful that he would have had the financial means to pay for passage to America at that tender age, since at best he would have probably been an apprentice yeoman in England prior to departure. If he came with parents subsequent to the 1720\21 time frame, and that is a possibility, then his father would have been the immigrant ancestor, and not Thomas! I have been unable to locate any arrival data that puts Thomas on any ship land landing in New England between 1721 and 1742, which leads me to believe he was already in Walpole, MA during his mid to late teens, and came from a yet unidentified existing colonial Page family. He could have wandered up to New England from the southern colonies of Virginia or the Carolinas, or wandered down from Canada. He could have been a mariner and left his ship when it docked in New England on its return trip to England He could have been indentured to another family from England, been in bondage, or even a convict. The point is, there are more than just a few possibilities to consider concerning his origins, and none can be eliminated until some type of ancestry proof can be found. However, it seems unlikely that as a mid to late teenager, he would have been a convict, indentured, or a crew member allowed to leave his ship. Since he married into a prominent Walpole family, I would have to believe that he was from reputable origins and his background was probably without blemish!

He is the oldest resident in his cemetery plot, the others being two of his children, Asa and Joseph and their wives, and some of his grandchildren. His wife Sarah is buried next to him.

If it can ever be determined where to look, the next question is, who to look for? With that in mind, and with nothing but the naming pattern of the children of Thomas and Sarah to go on, I submit the following possibility: Thomas and Sarah had 9 children. Children #1 and #2, Thomas and Sarah, were obviously named after he and wife Sarah, and possibly his father, if he was named Thomas! Children #5 and #6, Ebenezer and Mary, probably were named after wife Sarah's parents Ebenezer Robbins and Mary Fales. This leads me to believe that the names of children #3 and #4, Asa and Charles, must either, or both reflect his ancestors names. Since both were males, it could be concluded that his father and grandfather may have been Asa, Charles or even Thomas! Children #7 and #9, Joseph and Lebbeus, also males, may have some as yet undetermined ancestral naming significance. Child #8, Anne, could be his mother's or grandmother's namesake. I believe that focusing on an Asa, Charles or Thomas Page in generations previous to 1720, Thomas' approximate birth year, may provide an answer.

In spite of the above, the question still remains, who was Thomas Page of Walpole, MA?

On 21 November 1997, I received a xerox copy of a handwritten account of birth, death and marriage information on Thomas, Sarah and their nine children, compiled circa 1910, by a relative of Katherine Ybarra of Phoenix, AZ, citing Lynn. MA as the birthplace of Thomas of Walpole, in 1717. This letter also indicated that Sarah Robbins was born in Foxborough, MA. In Thomas' case, this date of birth does not match the gravestone inscription of his death date and age at death. His headstone reads "Thomas Page, Died April 22 1786, Aged 65 years". Based on that data, Thomas would have been born circa 1721. (Thomas, or members of his family, or those who provided the data for the headstone inscription could have been in doubt as to just how old Thomas was at the time of his death, and he either thought, or others assumed that he was 65 years old when he died). In Sarah's case, portions of Foxborough, MA, were later incorporated into the town of Walpole, MA, but Foxborough wasn't incorporated as a town until 1778, 56 years after she was born. However, all of the additional birth, death and marriage data on the two documents that Katherine Ybarra furnished regarding Thomas, Sarah, and family, exactly matched the data that I already had entered on their individual records. Could Thomas possibly have been born in Lynn, MA? Something to think about.