Lift Up Your Hearts!

Both Porter and I are fortunate in having many ancestors who were amongst the first Europeans to come to this country.  Whether it’s a fortunate situation in general may be up for debate, but for one doing genealogy research it is an undeniable blessing.  For one thing, those early New Englanders kept good records!  I didn’t know how good until I tried to find ancestors in Pennsylvania, where keeping birth records wasn’t generally required until the 1900’s.  Even next-door neighbor New York isn’t nearly as easy to research as New England, and the further west one travels, the worse it gets.  Except for California, that is.  California may not be so good with history, but its modern-day records are more open than most.  As a person concerned with privacy this makes me nervous, but the genealogist in me is grateful.

The second reason for being happy to have early New England ancestors is that so many other people have researched those lines already.  In many cases, all I have to do is find the right books.  That’s not as easy as it sounds, but it is what has enabled me to trace our lines so extensively.

Finally, as Gary Boyd Roberts of the New England Historic Genealogical Society has stated, "Living Americans with 50-100 immigrant ancestors in New England …can expect to find a royally descended forebear."  Why is it good to have royal blood?  It’s not for bragging rights, although I’ll admit some sort of perverse interest in finding myself descended from the villains of Robin Hood (King John), Becket (Henry II), and Braveheart (Longshanks).  I find it best to take refuge in what C. S. Lewis said in Prince Caspian, when Caspian expressed regret for not coming from a "more honorable lineage."  Aslan told him, You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve, and that is both honor enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor in earth.

The most important benefit of having royal ancestors is that it makes history much more interesting.  I never could abide history as a school subject, but finding a connection between the two makes both history and genealogy come alive.  One reason for my research is the hope that it will help our nephews and grandchildren to see historical figures and events as the real lives of real people.

From the standpoint of research, however, the best thing about royal descent is that those folks made history, and even those who didn’t keep records of the hoi polloi kept track of their noblemen.  How else would I be able to find ancestors as far back as the 6th century, and how cool is that?  And again, someone else has done the work that I would never do, even if I could.

What has been somewhat amusing about my research is that while I discovered multiple paths to royal ancestors in my line, I had found nothing for Porter, despite Gary Boyd Roberts’ assurances.  He, however, has multiple Mayflower lines, while I’ve found none of those for myself.  During my recent trip to Boston I rectified the former omission.

The key to the Wightman connection turns out to be Ursula Perkins, born 1812, died 7 August 1889, married Elbridge M. Wightman in 1829 and lived in Bristol, Connecticut.  The only information I had about her parentage was that she was the daughter of “Mark and Polly Perkins.”  Recently I decided to try to push her line back a bit further.  Skipping details of the research that led me to these resources, I discovered The Descendants of Edward Perkins of New Haven, Conn. by Caroline Erickson Perkins (Rochester, New York: C.E. Perkins, 1914), and Yale Genealogy and History of Wales by Rodney Horace Yale (Beatrix, Nebraska: 1908).  In the latter I found a Polly Yale who was born May 26, 1793 and “[m]arried Mark Perkins, July, 1811, and lived in Oneconta [sic Oneonta], N.Y.  He died Sept. 30, 1813.”  Her parents were Thomas Yale and Polly Beckwith.  So far, the facts were consistent with what I knew about Ursula.

In the second book I found a Mark Perkins, son of Elijah Perkins and Lydia Sperry, baptized in 1788 at Woodbridge, Connecticut.  Four brothers and sisters were baptized at the same time, so his actual birth year must be somewhat before this.  Unfortunately, the book stops short of naming a wife for Mark, so there was no obvious reason to connect him with Polly Yale.  However, there’s an LDS record that names a Mark Perkins who married a Polly Yale and died 30 September 1813 in Oneonta, New York.  The LDS sources are of varying reliability, but it was an encouraging find.

Most indicative was the cemetery records of Old North Cemetery in Bristol.  There I found:  Thomas Yale, who died 18 February 1814, age 52; Polly, his wife, who died 17 April 1795, age 25; and Anna, his relict (widow), who died 15 September 1830, age 70.  All these are consistent with the Yale book, so I am confident I have the right family here.

Also in the cemetery is Elijah M. Perkins, who died 30 September 1813 at age 31; the records note that he is buried in the Thomas Yale lot.  Considering the death date, it takes very little imagination to believe that this is not the Elijah Perkins noted above as Mark’s father, who could not have been 31 in 1813, but rather that Mark’s full name was Elijah Mark Perkins and that he was brought home from Oneonta to Connecticut for burial in the lot of his wife’s father.

Furthermore, also in the Thomas Yale lot is Polly Yale, wife of Thomas Peaslee, who died 23 April 1870 at age 77.  The age is consistent with the Yale book’s birthdate for Polly.  I’m convinced that Polly Yale Perkins, left a widow with an infant, married again in Oneonta, to a Thomas Peaslee, returning to Connecticut to be buried—census records suggest that she may have outlived her second husband and returned between 10 and 20 years before she died.  All this is speculation; remember what I said about New York records being less than stellar?  So far I've been unable to find a death record for Mark Perkins (nor one for Elijah, who apparently moved to New York as well), nor a birth record for Ursula Perkins, nor a marriage record for either Thomas Peaslee or Polly (Yale) Perkins.  Nor can I find any evidence of a Thomas Peaslee who fits well into this scenario.  I haven’t given up, but as these records are not essential to the present purpose—finding Porter’s royal ancestry—I’m giving it a rest.  That Polly Yale was Ursula Perkins’ mother I have no doubt.

Someday I hope to arrange all the generations in easily-readable, printable form, but that’s a task I’m not willing to tackle at the moment—real life calls—so here is all most of you will want to know, anyway.

The generations to Ursula Perkins from Thomas Yale and Anne Lloyd, English immigrants to the New World and each a “gateway” ancestor to proven royal descent:

Thomas Yale = Anne Lloyd

Thomas Yale = Mary Turner

Thomas Yale = Rebecca Gibbards

Nathaniel Yale = Anna Peck

Abel Yale = Esther Cook

Abel Yale = Sarah Jerome

Thomas Yale = Polly Beckwith

Polly Yale = Mark Perkins

Ursula Perkins = Elbridge M. Wightman, Porter’s great-great-great grandparents

I believe these are their pictures; if anyone knows differently, please let me know.

Our relationships to various historical figures; interested parties can calculate their own relationships from there.  Note that this shows only the closest relationships; in many cases there is more than one line to the same ancestor.

Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor:  Porter's 37th great-grandfather, Linda's 37th ggf

Alfred the Great: Linda's 36th ggf

King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine (Becket, The Lion in Winter, buried near and namesake of Château de la Motte Henry in France): Porter's 23rd great-grandparents, Linda's 25th ggp

King John (Lackland) of England (the Magna Charta guy, Robin Hood's enemy—Jonathan may not take this one very well): Porter's 22nd ggf, Linda's 24th ggf

King Duncan I of Scotland (killed by Macbeth): Porter's 27th ggf, Linda's 29th ggf

Saint Margaret of Scotland: Porter's 26th great-grandmother, Linda's 28th ggm

William the Conqueror (1066, Norman Conquest): Porter's 26th ggf, Linda's 28th ggf

There’s a lot more, not only royalty (because they were all so interrelated) but people with names like Ælfweard and Ælfgifu and Gruffudd o’r Rhuddallt ap Madog Fychan ap Madog Crupl, and all sorts of people who no doubt would be at least as interesting as those above if only I knew more European history.  If there’s a relative out there who’s studying any part of European history, let me know, and I’ll see if there’s someone on the list to make it more personal for you.

[Li’l Writer Guy is politely requested to close the books for a while, because what’s past may be prologue, but what’s present is too persistent to be ignored for long.]