Problem with this page?
Susan if you can link a Geni profile (the URL page - http://www. Geni . Xxxx address) into this discussion that seems to be "lost" from the line to Stephen Hopkins would be happy to take a look. Often this turns out to be "merge profiles needed" and easily solved, but it's hard without knowing the profile.
Mary Phinney
Mary Rickard is your husband's 6th great grandmother
Husband...Private
If your follow Mary Rickard tree it goes back to Stephen Hopkins through daughter Damaris.
Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger If you go to Stephen Hopkins it says :
Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger is your husband's 6th great aunt's husband's fourth great grandfather. Traced through daughter Constance. Hope this helps.
Susan I just used the pushpin tool (upper right hand corner in profile view) from your husband to Stephen Hopkins. Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger
Result: Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger is Stephen Wayman Erickson's 10th great grandfather.
This is the relationship path it shows (selecting share this path)
http://www.geni.com/path/Stephen+Wayman+Erickson+is+related+to+Step...
Step through each of the links & check for dups maybe?
Info on Mary, the first wife of Stephen Hopkins....
On pp. 126, v. 78, no. 2, June 2012 The Mayflower Quarterly, by Simon Neal says that Mary, Stephen's first wife was probably from Hursley. since children Constance and Giles were baptized there.
I am going to type word for word what is in this article. and post separately, using word and a paste to the message board in this project.
will post sometime this afternoon when I am finished.
FIRST INSTALLMENT, more coming late tonight or sometime tomorrow...
“Therefore, what clues, if any, do we have as to Mary’s surname? Any such clue would exist in any surviving documentation relating to Mary and Stephen in Hursley. First of all we have the inventory and administration for Mary, when she died, a translation of part of which follows:
The administration of the goods and chattels of Mary Hopkins, late of Hursley, widow , deceased, was granted to Robert Lyte of Hursley and Thomas Syms… during the minority of Copnstance, Elizabeth and Giles, children of the said deceased, on 12th day of May in the year of the lord 1613.
Mary’ estate was inventoried by Gregory Horwood, William Toot and Rlchard Wolle. The first thing to note here is that Mary is described as a widow, even though Stephen was still alive. This can be accounted for, presumably because Stephen was overseas in Virginia and Mary may have been unsure as to whether he was still alive and therefore have presumed that he was dead. Normally such an administration would have been granted to a close relative, and therefore we have two surnames here, namely Light and Sims, which are the prime suspects for the identity of Mary’s surname. Then we have three other surnames, which should be considered also, namely Horwood, Toot and Wolle.
Our second clue is taken from the only reference to Stephen Hopkins which has been found in the manorial records for the manor of Merdon. This manor was the principal manor of Hursley parish, and therefore its records are the best source apart from probate documents and parish registers for researching the history of the said parish. Although the exact nature of the aforesaid reference to Stephen is hard to work out, as one Latin word in this is very difficult to decipher and translate, Stephen is mentioned in connection with a “widow Kent”. Therefore this given us another surname, which is worth investigating in the parish of Hursley.
One third and final clues are the names of Stephen and Mary’s children, namely Elizabeth, Constance and Giles. Elizabeth is a fairly common name and so not worth pursuing, and Constance can perhaps be accounted for, as Stephen may have had an aunt with that name, as William Hopkins, possibly his uncle, married Constance Marline on 16 Apr 1592 in the parish church of St. Swithins upon Kingsgate, Winchester. Therefore we are left with Giles, which is not a common name, and does not appear in the Hopkins family before this, as far as we know, and so other instances of the name Giles occurring in Hursley should be investigated.
Therefore, if we assume that Stephen Hopkins married Mary around the year 1602 or before, and that Stephen was born in abnout 1581 in Upper Clatford, as is alleged, then we are looking for Mary his wife as being born at about the same time, quite possibly in Hursley, or at least nearby.
First of all we shall therefore examine the two administrators named in Mary’s probate record, namely Robert Lyte and Thomas Syms.
The Light family of Hursley
If we look at the parish registers of Hursley, which, as we have said, only begin at the beginning of the 17th century, then one of the earliest marriages that cab be found is that for Robert Light to Alice Dowling in 1600. This couple appears to have bapti8sed eight children over a period of the follo9wing 20 years, two of whom are unnamed, and the six others called Agnes, Emma, Agnes (again), Christian, Marty and Thomas. Also in the registers around the same time is a John Light baptizing children, and the burial of a Nicholas Light in 1606 and his wife two years before in 1604. These burials may be the parents or grandparents of the above said Robert, and they are stated as being resident in Ampfield, a village in the said parish of Hursley, showing that the family must have been resident in the parish for at least one generation before this Robert Presumably this Robert is the person, who acted as Mary’s administrator. However, no probate record can be found for him and also his children’s names do not appear to resemble those in the Hopkins’ family. The death of the aforesaid Nicholas Lyte also appears in the manorial records for the manor of Merdon at the court dated 14 Oct 1606, and this shows that Nicholas passed his lands to James Light, his youngest son.
The two surviving probate records for the Light family of Hursley in this period are for John Lyte of Hursley, husbandman, whose will is dated 13 Apr 1610, and secondly for Richard Light of Hursley in 1585. John Lyte does not mention any family members with the same surname, only making bequests to several of his kinsmen, whose surname is Barling. One of his overseers is Thomas Syms, quite possibly the same man who administered Mary’s goods and chattels. The aforesaid Richard, whose will was proved in 1586, does not mention any children called Robert or Mary, but does include the names of several of his children, including John junior and John senior, indicating that he named two of sons both John, and one of these is quite possibly the above-said John Lyte. One of the people, who were responsible for Richard’s inventory, was John Symns, probably a relative of the aforesaid Thomas Symes, perhaps the father. This shows that the Symes family often played some sort of administrative role in wills and other probate documents for the parish of Hursley. The aforesaid Richard Light also shows up in the court rolls of Merdon in 1559 and 1560, when he was an homage juror. He also, along with his wife Alice, surrendered into the hands of the lord one messuage and half a virgate of land and one rood in Standon, as well as one toft and ferling in Stotepend in the tithing of Merdon, to the use of the said Richard and Alice in tail, with remainder to Richard’s right heirs.
All of these records show that the Light family was resident in the parish of Hursley for several generations, with the two earliest probate records being both dated 1558 for Ellen and John Light respectively, and suggest that they were a well respected family in the parish. However, they fail to reveal any links with the Hopkins family or there is no record of anyone with the name Mary Light, who would have been of about the right age to have been Stephen’ wife. Therefore we shall pass over this family and turn our attention to the Symmes family.
The Symmes family of Hursley
The Symmes family appears to have had several branches in the parish of Hursley in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. In the earliest parish registers of the 1600s there are several men with this surname who arte baptizing their children, namely Edmund, Geoffrey, Thomas and at least 2 Richards. These families appear to have been resident in Ampfield and Pitt, both villages in the parish of Hursley. Thomas Symmes, who may well be the same man as appears in Mary’s administration, baptized 2 sons called Richard in 1611 and 1613 respectively and also a daughter called Joan in 1615.
There are, however, few probate records for the Symmes family of Hursley during this period. The main one is the will of Richard Symes of Silkstead in the parish of Hursley, dated 22 Jun 1627, who is described as having been pressed to be a soldier to serve the kin’s majesty in the wars. In this he mentions four of his sons, namely Richard, Thomas, John and Robert. The Thomas he mentions could possibly be the aforesaid Thomas Symmes.
A search for the probate record of this Thomas Symmes does not show up any such person in Hursley parish. However, there is a probate record, dated 9 Nov 1613 for a Thomas Symmes of Slackstead in the parish of Farley Chamberlayne, yeoman, which said parish is neighbouring to Hursley. In this he mentions his sons Edward the elder, Richard, John Edward the younger, Robert and Thomas his sons and Joan his daughter. Thomas the son acted as executor for the father and either of these 2 Thomas Symmes could have been the person who is mentioned in Mary’s administration, as the will is dated quite a few months after Mary had died. Interestingly one of the overseers was named John Lyte, again showing some sort of relationship between the two families.
This family, like the Light family, had been resident in Hursley for several generations, with the earliest probate record being the will of William Sims of Hursley in 1544.
Therefore, just as with the Light family, we have here a family firmly established in the parish of Hursley, but again there is no obvious link with the Hopkins family and no Mary Symmes about the correct age to be Stephen’s wife.
Other people mentioned in Mary Hopkin’s inventory
As we have seen the 3 people mentioned as having inventoried Mary’s estate were Gregory Horwood, William Toot and Richard Wolle. Although it is less likely that these people were close relatives to Mary, as they may have been merely acting in administrative role, the sort of which they may have carried out for other people in the parish, it is still possible that they were kinsman or at least resident in the vicinity near to Mary.
First of all we will deal with Gregory Horwood. However, as no information about him has yet been found concerning Gregory Horwood, it is not known whether he was resident in Hursley parish or not.
Richard Wolle was presumably resident in Hursley or nearby, as there were a few families of that surname in the parish registers in the early 1600s and the court roll for Merdon manor in 1560 mentions an Andrew at Wull the younger, son of Andrew at Wull the elder, who was the heir of Denise Syms and received her lands in Ampfield. However , no probate records have been found to shed further light on this Richard Wolle or the Wolle families in Hursley in the early 1600’s.
As for William Toot, a man of this name does appear in the parish registers for Hursley. In 1606 he married Alice Machell and they appear to have baptized at least 4 children, namely Pascua in 1612, William in 1614, Richard in 1617 and John in 1619. We also have a William Toot appearing as a homage juror in 1560 in the manorial court rolls for Merdon, showing the family as having been resident in Hursley parish for at least a couple of generations.
However, as for Robert Light and Thomas Symmes, who may have also just been acting in an adminstative role as overseers of the poor, we have no evidence of any link to the Hopkins family that might help us in our search for the identity of Mary the wife of Stephen Hopkins.
Private User I don't see issues in the tree - I checked your profiles, the MPs, everything looks clean and well organized (under sourced as usual on Geni :):)
So here's another idea - there's a wonderful little side application here
http://historylink.herokuapp.com/
You can run a report from your husband's profile and selecting for direct ancestors only, filtering for "problem profiles" only. That should show if there's a conflict in the way.
If there isn't I'll have to get help from those better at working with the "relationship calculation" engine.
BTW the history link app is particularly relevant to this discussion because
Stephen Hopkins, "Mayflower" Passenger is the 11th Great Grandfather of
Private User
Jeff might be interested in looking at the research into his wives Sally is so kindly reporting for us on http://www.geni.com/discussions/82866?msg=901886
Erica, I think the issue for my husband's link to Stephen Hopkins is in the relationship calculator as you are right in saying there are no problems. There have been a number of mergers and additions made mostly with John Rickard 1657 who married Mary Rickard (Cooke) and it is with Mary that my husbands relationship shifts. Thanks to you though I know how to work around it. Sue
LAST INSTALLMENT
CONTINUATION OF MAYFLOWER QUARTERLY ARTICLE ON PARENTAGE OF STEPHEN HOPKIN’S WIFE MARY
The use of Giles as a first name in Hursley parish
Therefore with not much to go on so far, it iws now best to turn our attention to searching for any use of Giles as a first name in the various sources available for the parish of Hursley.
A search of the parish registers in the early 1600’s shows that Giles is uite a rare name in the parish. In addition to Giles, son of Stephen Hopkins, there are just a handful of children baptized Giles, as follows:
Giles Trod, son of Thomas Trod, baptized on 2 Jun 1610
Giles Smith, son of Robert Smith, baptized on 21 Apr 1614
Giles Kent, alias Back, whose father is unnamed, baptized on 15 May 1616
Giles Machiull, son of Giles Machill the younger, baptized on 14 Jul 1619
In addition, the search was widened to cover any fathers called Giles in the same records who were baptizing children at this time. Such fathers were found only in the Machill and Kent, alias back families, as before mentioned.
The marriage records reveal only two men named Giles:
Giles Earle, who married a certain Agnes, whose surname is not given, on 1 Sep 1605
Giles Machill, son of Giles, who married Amy Kirby on 1 Jun 1618, and presumably is the Giles the younger who appears in the baptismal records.
The burial records again show a distinct lack of people called Giles. Apart from the aforesaid Machill and Kent alias back families, the only record found is that for a William Earle, son of Giles Earle of Ampfield, who was buried on 14 Sep 1607, presumably the same Giles Earle who appeared in the marriage registers.
The next most obvious source to be checked for people called Giles in Hursley parish was the probate documentation. Only 2 records appear after a searfh of the computerized vatalogue on the Hampshire Record Office we-site, on whose reliability much of this research depends. These are, as follows:
The will of Giles Machill senior of Hursley, yeoman, dated 20 Feb 1629, proved at Probate Court of London on 28 Apr 1656.
The will of Giles Back alias Kent of Ratlake in Hursley, yeoman, dated in 1639.
There is one other Giles in Hursley, who appears in certain other documents, namely a Giles King. He is mentioned in tax records in the period 1586 to 1598, and he was one of the overseers of the will of Henry Herynge of Hawstead in 1605. He was also a deponent in a Star Chamber lawsuit in about 1604, which gives his age as about 60, which means he would have been born in about 1544.
Therefore we can see that the name Giles was confined to a small group of families in Hursley parish, and so it is these families that should be analyzed for any possible connection, as it appears most likely that Mary originated from one of these. The Trod family have not left many records, which makes further investigation almost impossible. There are a number of probate records for the Smith family which have been glanced through in earlier research, but perhaps should be rechecked, but their dates are somewhat late for any references to the Hopkins family to turn up. As for Giles King, no information can be found about any descendants he might have had, but he appears to be the first person in the parish to be called Giles in the 16th century.
Therefore the 2 families where the name Giles is predominant are the Machell and Kent alias Back families, and therefore the rest of the research is centered on them, as these family names have already come jup previously in this presentation. The William Toot, who appears in Mary’s inventory, appears to hae married an Alice Machell, and the manorial record concerning Stephen Hopkins was in relation to a widow Kent.
The Machell Family
The Machell family appears throughout the records for Hursley, where the surname can also be found spelt Machill, but this may actually be a different surname and family, so we will concentrate on where it is spelt Machell or Machill.
As we have seen, a Giles Machell baptized three children in the early 1600’s, namely Elizabeth in 1601, Agnes in 1604, and Thomas in 1607. He also had a son called Giles, who, as we have mentioned, married Amy Kirby in 1618, and baptized several children thereafter, when he is described as Giles the younger. His will appears to be the afore-mentioned will dated 20 Feb 1629, but this was not proved until 28 Apr 1656, and shows no reference to the Hopkins family, but this is not surprising, as they had all presumably disappeared from the parish and gone to America, except possibly for Elizabeth, Stephen’s daughter, as we do not know what happened to her. In this will he mentions Giles his eldest son and Ambrose his son, and his grandchildren Giles, Richard and Peter Machell, sons of Giles, his son. He also mentions his daughters Elizabeth Machell, Alice Toote, Pascua Machell, Judith, and Annis Clerke, his daughters. The Alice Toote mentioned is presumably the same Alice who in 1606 married William Toote, who was one of those mentioned in Mary Hopkin’s inventory. If his daughter was old enough to marry in 1606, she would have been born uin about 1585, and, indeed taxation records show that Giles was resident in Hursley in 1586, when he was taxed 4 shillings for 4 pounds worth of goods his surname was given as Machild. This means that he might be old enough to be the father of Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins, who would have presumably been born in about 1582. If this is the case, then he would have had all his children born over a space of 25 years, as his youngest son Thomas was baptized in 1607. Giles was buried in 1635 in Hursley, and although his age is not stated, he may well have been old enough to be producing offspring in the early 1580s.
The origins of this Giles the elder fan be traced through the probate record for Robert Machell of Hursley, whose will is dated 24 Jan 1575 and was proved on the 25th Apr in the same year. In this he mentions Joan his wife and the said Giles his son, who is presumably the same Giles whose will is dated 1629. As regards daughters, he mentions ones named Elizabeth and Joan, but there is no one of that name called Mary. This Robert Machell also appears in the court records for the manor of Merdon in the court dated 26 Oct 1559. As I have previously said, Giles was buried in 1635, but his will was not proved until 1656 in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, over twenty years after his death. The reason for this is unclear, but it is noticeable that on 15 Nov 1655, a few months before the will was proved, there is a burial entry for Ricahard Machell. This Richard was probably Giles’s grandson, the older brother of Peter Machell, who was named as executor in their grandfather’s will, so it is possible that he was unhappy that his younger brother was the chief legatee in the will and so hindered the probate of the will.
Therefore again we are left without any positive evidence for a connection to the Hopkins family, but we have a strong coincidence of the name Giles being used, and also that Alice Machelll, daughter of Giles married William Toote, who appears in Mary Hopkin’s inventory. And so we are left with one final fiamily to investigate, namely the Kent alias Back family.
The Kent alias back family
As we have seem, Stephen Hopkins was mentioned in a manorial document of the manor of Merdon in connection with a widow Kent, the exact nature of what was involved is unclear, but it is evident that they were connected in some way. The name Giles appears in the family which normally used the surname Kent alias Back, although it is often found as just Kent, and Back in sometimes spelt as Bate or Batt. These various forms of the surname have made this quite a hard family to trace, butI shall start with the families that appear in the parish records.
The earliest baptism in the registers is dated 10 Feb 1600/1 and is for Alice daughter of Johyn Kent. There is then a 10 year gap until there are 2 baptisms for children called John and Edmund, sons of John Kent, dated 14 Jan 1612/3 and 2 Oct 1614 respectively. Then we discover the first instance of the surname Kent alias Back being used in the baptismal register, and significantly this is for Stephen Kent alias Back on 22 Nov 161`4, which of course is the first name of a certain Stephen Hopkins. Unfortunately the father’s name is not given. The next entry similarly does not name the father, but is for a Giles Kent alias Back, baptized on 11 May 1616. The next entry is for a Richard Kent alias Back on 24 Jan 1618/19, and this time the father’s name is actually given as Giles, who then proceeds to baptize 2 more children, Michael and Robert, under the surname Kent alias Back, followed by 2 daughters, Eleanor and Elizabeth under the surname Kent. Therefore not only does this family use the name Giles, but there is also one instance of it using the first name Stephen. This Stephen Kent alias Back died when he was only about 7 or 8 months old and was buried on 29 Jul 1615, and his burial entry actually states his father’s name as Giles. Stephen is rarely used as an a first name for children born and baptized in Hursley parish, and a search of the IGI confirms this. For in the period 1600-1635 there is only one Stephen baptized and that is, of course, the aforesaid Stephen Kent alias Back in 1614. Surely it cannot be merely a coincidence that Stephen Hopkins named his first son Giles, and Giles Kent alias Back appears to have named his first son Stephen. I would suggest that they must be related to each other, quite possible as brother-in-law.
If this is so, then we must examine if it is possible to establish more facts about this family and see how and if Mary Kent alias Back fitted into this family.
Giles Kent alias Back, if he had his first child in 1614, would probably have been born around 1590. Unfortunately there are no surviving probate records for this family between 1561 and the year 1639, which is when we find a will for this Giles, who is described as being a yeoman of Ratlake, in the parish of Hursley. In this will, which is dated 10 Aug 1638 and proved on 8 Jan 1639, Giles names Edith his wife, Giles, Richard and Robert his sons and Elizabeth and Joan his daughters. His overseers are given as Richard Morley of Ampfield, Robert Sims of Pitt and Robert Kent, his brother. The first 2 of these also witness his will, as do also Richard
Toote, and John Wooll. What is noticeable here is that 3 of the surnames, Sims, Toote and Wooll, also appeared in the probate documents concerning Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins.
Therefore we have some idea of this family in the 1600s, but we will have to examine other sources to try and construct a picture of this family during the period before the parish registers commenced. There survives a rental of the manor of Merdon which is dated 1588, which is around about the time of the birth of Giles and would also be not long after Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins, would have been born. Therefore it is likely that their father assuming that they have the same father, might be expected to appear in this document. A careful search of this rental has produced 2 possible candidates for their father. The first is named John Batt alias Kent and appears to be resident in Ampfield, and he is paying a rent of 13s 1 ½ a year for 40 acres and 32 perches of land, which include a house, orchard, coppice and various closes and meadows, suggesting that he is a farmer or husbandman of a smallholding.
The second candidate is named Robert Kent and he is resident in Ratlake, a hamlet which is extremely close to Ampfield, paying a rent of 5 s a year for 46 acres, three roods and 7 perches of land, namely a house, orchard, garden and yard with various coppices, meadows and closes, similar to the aforesaid John. It is noticeable that after
Robert’s name there is written in Latin “now William Morley” . As we have seen a Richard Morley was one of the overseers of the will of Giles Kent alias Back, and Giles’s inventory was taken by 3 people, including James Morley and John Morley. The William is most probably the second son of Richard Morley of Ampfield, husbandman, whose will is probated on 29 Mar 1600. Richard’s will also mentions John Morley, his eldest son, and a James Morley, who are likely to be the people who took Gile’s inventory. It therefore appears that William Morley took over Robert Kent’s manorial property, although in 1600 he may have moved back to his father’s property, as he is bequeathed freehold lands in the aforesaid will.
Therefore we have one man using the surname of just Kent, who is resident in the same area of the parish where Giles Kent alias Back appears to have resided at his death, and another who is actually using the alias version of the said surname. Unfortunately, however, we do not have any other manorial records surviving for the crucial period late in the reign of James 1. In the courts dated 18 Jan 1605 and 26 Sep 1605 we find a John Kent acting as an homage juror. In the latter court an unnamed son of John Kent is presented for making a nuisance upon the lord’s waste near to the royal way at Hursley by digging a pit there, but he was pardoned due to lack of evidence. In the same court John Back alias Kent mortgages a messuage and half a virgate of villain land in Hursley to John Arthur of Branshaw, Wilts, for the payment of 78 pounds on Candlemas day 1607 . Again in the court 4 Apr 1606 John Kent presumably the same person, is involved in another mortgage with Dorothy Stringfellow for 110 pounds on 6 May 1607. Some of the lands mentioned here match the ones described in the 1588 rental for John Kent alias Batt, indicating that this was probably the same person. In the court dated 1 Oct 1607 a John Kent acts as a constable and is also involved in another mortgage for 132 pounds 12 shillings with Richard Smith. In the court 19 May 1608 Richard Longland complains against John Kent in a plea of debt of 20 shillings, and at the next 2 courts, John Kent is presented for default of suit of court and amerced for this offence, that is, he had to pay a small fine.
Clearly, therefore, in the early part of the reign of James I, this John Kent ran into some monetary difficulties, but the manorial documents do not reveal why this was. However, a document at the National Archives may reveal why he was borrowing all this money. A John Kent alias Back, probably the same person, is one of the defendants in a lawsuit in the Court of Star Chamber in about 16093, which was brought against him and several other tenants of the manor of Merdon to the number of about 29, including Alice his wife, by Thomas Trodde and William Harries, both yeomen of Hursley, who accused them of dispossessing them with violence and strong hand of 2 cottages, which Giles Hoby, the lord of the said manor, had erected in about 1596 and then granted to the said Thomas Trodde and William Harries for their lives in survivorship. The bill of complaint states that the defendants assembled at Hursley on 9 Jun 1603 at night time, and being forcibly and riotously weaponed and arrayed with pickaxes, bills, guns, swords, daggers, pitchforks, spits and other like riotous weapons, and with some of the said men arrayed in women’s apparel, they riotously and unlawfully entered into the said cottages and cut up the hedges and cast down the ditches, banks and fences thereupon, and broke asunder and pulled up the gates and posts there, and with outrageous outcries vowed the destruction of any that should withstand them in their proceedings. They then proceeded to break open the doors of the cottages and by force and outrage pulled the complainants out of the said cottages and set upon them, crying “kill them, kill them.” And did with long staves then and there beat them to the ground and gave them divers grievous blows, so that the complainants had much ado to escape with their lives and were grievously wounded, so that they bled at their noses and on their heads and legs, and were in great jeopardy of their lives. In response to these charges, John Kent alias Back and also Alice his wife make separate answers, in which they deny the accusations. Unfortunately the outcome of the suit is not known, but clearly John may have run into financial problems as a result of being involved in this suit. It is not clear from the parish registers when this John died, although there is an administrative record for a John Kent of Ampfield, dated 20 Oct 1624, when the administration of his goods was granted to Margery Godman, wife of Randall Godman, his aunt, which said document also states that Thomasine, John’s widow, had also died soon after her husband. However, this may be a different John Kent, as his wife’s name is Thomasine, not Alice.
The aforesaid John Kent alias Back is likely to have been related to Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins, but how closely we cannot determine. However, what is clear, is that Mary must have been closely related to the widow Kent mentioned alongside Stephen Hopkins in the manorial document, as mentioned previously. As to the identity of this widow we need to look elsewhere in the manorial documents. At a court dated 3 Oct 1611 several people are presented, which include Giles Machill, innkeeper of the “the Star” and Joan Kent, alehouse keeper. This Joan can also be found in an earlier court dated 19 Apr 1604, when she is presented for being a common tippler, who has broken the assize of bread and ale, for which she is amerced 3d. Most probably she was selling beer or ale illegally. Here she is described as a widow, and it appears almost certain that she is the aforesaid widow Kent and perhaps the mother-in-law of Stephen Hopkins. She was similarly amerced 4d for a like offence at the court dated 26 Sep 1605. Another point to note is that in Mary’s inventory there appears to be references to a “beer-house, shop, shop-board and a plank” all which suggest that her property may have been an alehouse. Furthermore Stephen Hopkins, himself, was fined in America in 1638 for selling wine, beer, strong waters and nutmegs at excessive rates, which may suggest that he had gained some experience of the beer trade back in England.
Therefore, if she was widow in 1604, her husband must have died previous to this date, and she cdannot6 be the widow or wife of the aforesaid John Kent alias Back, who is stated as being married to an Alice in the Star Chamber lawsuit and appears to have been alive in 1604. Therefore this Joan must have been marrie4de to another member of the Kent alias Back family. If we return to the 1588 rental we only have one probable candidate left, namely Robert Kent, who is not found in any of the James I manorial records or in the parish registers, and therefore probably died before 1600 and the start of the parish registers. This Robert was stated in the rental as being resident in Ratlake, and later on Giles Kent alias Back, who may have been Joan’s son, was residing in the same place at his death. Both Giles and Robert had connections to the Morley family, and Giles, indeed, does name one of his sons Robert and one of his daughters Joan.
We can also notice that the aforesaid Joan Kent was mentioned alongside Giles Machill, whom we have discussed earlier in the presentation, and both are described as alehouse keepers. This would suggest a connection between these 2 families, and it is quite possible that Joan was the sister of the said Giles, and if we go back to the will of Robert Machill, Giles’s father, this does, indeed, state that the testator had a daughter called Joan.
It is therefore my conclusion or theory that Joan Machill, daughter of Robert Machill, married Robert Kent, and that this Robert died sometime between 1588 and 1600, leaving Joan a widow. The probably had several children, two of which may have been Giles Kent alias Back and Mary Kent alias Back, and this Mary later married Stephen Hopkins.
The Early History of the Kent alias Back family in Hursley
The earliest probate record for the Kent alias Back family in Hursley is the will of Thomas Backe of the parish of Hursley, whicfh is date 20 Nov 1558. This mentions Elizabeth his wife, and John and Thomas his sons, and Alice his daughter, as well as an Andrew Kent the younger. One of his overseers and witnesses is also called Andrew Kent, and one of the people who took his inventory is named Andrew Backe, most certainly the same man. This presumably shows the interchangeable use of the surname. Another person who acted in a similar administrative manner was Robert Machyll, whom, as we have argued earlier, may have been the father of Joan, the mother of Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins, according to the hypothesis. This therefore shows evidence of strong links between threw Kent alias Back and Machell families at this early date.
Probate records can also be found for an Andrew Back, whose will, dated in 1560, is endorsed “alias Kent” and whose widow Margaret also left a will in the same year. This Andrew is probably the same man who witnessed the will of the aforesaid Thomas Backe or at least a close relation. In his will he mentions Thomas, Andrew and Robert his sons, and Agnes and Alice his daughters. His inventory shows that his goods were worth 75 pounds 11 shillings 8 d at the death. Margaret’s goods were worth somewhat less at her death, namely 52 pounds 14 shillings, 10 d, and it is notable that one of the 3 people who took her inventory was Robert Machyll.
The manorial records for the manor of Merdon also record the death of this Andrew. At the court held on 25 Apr 1560 the death of Andrew Kent alias Backe is presented, and his lands in Hawstead in the tithing of Merdon passed to Robert Backe, his younger son. This Robert is quite probably the Robert Kent, who appears in the 1588 rental, who according to my argument is the father of Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins.
The earliest record of this family that has so far been found is from a taxation document dated in about 1523 or 1524, where a Thomas Bake is taxed 2 s 6 d for having 5 pounds worth of goods. He appears in the section under Ampfield, and presumably Bake is an old spelling for Back, showing that the family was resident in the Ampfield area since the early 16th century. As we can see Andrew Kent alias Backe had lands in a place called Hawstead, which is most probably the place called Hawstead Farm on a modern map, which is next to Ratlake and Ampfield.
A similar search of the 1543 tax documents for Hursley parish, when a large proportion of the parishioners were taxed, does not reveal anyone called Back or Machell, but does have a Richard Bate, who is taxed 6 s for 3 pounds worth of goods. Moreover, it does contain an Andrew Kent under the heading of Silkstead, which is a township of Hursley and this probably covers Ampfield. This Andrew is taxed 13 s 4 d for 20 pounds worth of goods, and is very likely to be the father of Robert Kent, Mary’s supposed father. Interestingly in this same document under the section for Hursley we can find a man named Henry Hopkynse, who was taxed 4 d for 40 s worth of goods, but whether he could be an ancestor or relative of Stephen Hopkins, the Mayflower passenger, is open to much debate.
Traces of the Kent family can be seen on a modern map, as there is a small wood called Kent’s Copse on a modern day map (Kent’s Coppice in the 19th century tithe map of the parish of Hursley). This coppice is very close to Ratlake and presumably was owned by the Kent family at some stage in the past and took its name therefrom. This could well be the coppice referred to in the 1588 rental for Robert Kent.
Further research into the records of the manor of Merdon should reveal further details about these families, and it should be noted that extensive details of this manor are included in the Winchester Pipe Rolls, as the manor was owned by the bishops of Winchester until the 1550s. Indeed, there appears to be entries about the Kent alias Back family in these rolls as early as 1515 and almost certainly there are likely to be references in the 1400s. Therefore it may be able to trace the families of Machell and Back alias Kent back to the times when they first appeared within the manor of Merdon in Hursley parish, which could even be as early as the 1200s.
Conclusions
Therefore, although no conclusive evidence has been found as to the identity of Mary, wife of Stephen Hopkins, this research leaves us with 2 possible solutions.
Firstly that Mary was the daughter of Giles Machill, who died in 1635, and after whom Stephen and Mary called their eldest son. However, as Giles was alive in 1613 when Mary’s probate is dated, it might be expected that as the grandfather and closest relative in Hursley to Mary’s 3 children, he would have played some role in the administration of her estate, and the records show that this was not the case.
Secondly Mary was the daughter of Joan Kent, who was probably the wife of Robert Kent of Ratlake. Joan’s maiden name was probably Machill and she was possibly the sister of the aforesaid Giles Machill. If Joan is not Mary’s mother, she is likely to have been at least her aunt.
My opinion is that the second option is more likely, and that Mary was born in about 1580 in Ratlake, the daughter of Robert and Joan Kent. Her father died while she was still relatively young, leaving her mother a widow. Mary married Stephen Hopkins and they lived together with Joan her mother, where they ran a small alehouse. After Stephen and Mary had 3 children together, Stephen left to go to America in 1609, leaving his children in the hands of Mary and Joan. Then 2 years later in 1611 Joan died, leaving Mary to bring up the children alone, a responsibility which may have been too much of a burden for Mary. For 2 years later, as we all know, she died. The Kent alias Back family continued its line through Giles her probable brother and continued to flourish in Hursley throughout the 17th century, although a tragedy struck the family in 1663 when Giles’s granddaughter Mary was drowned in a well, and so there are likely to be many descendants of the family alive today.
Wow. This is a fascinating picture of the time & place - quite Shakesperian?
Just copying out the hypothesis:
"It is therefore my conclusion or theory that Joan Machill, daughter of Robert Machill, married Robert Kent, and that this Robert died sometime between 1588 and 1600, leaving Joan a widow. The probably had several children, two of which may have been Giles Kent alias Back and Mary Kent alias Back, and this Mary later married Stephen Hopkins."
I discovered a direct lineage to Stephen Hopkins from my GGGgrandmother Emily Sherman, who was descended from Mary Snow who was descended from Constance Hopkins, Stephen's daughter. I usually keep my family tree private but I will open it up for a few days so any of you who are interested can see it. I am not a genealogist so I can't offer any additional research information but I sure do appreciate the contributions of others and will share what I stumble across whenever I can.
Looks ok to me, Jeff... There is a part of the same article in which I found out about Mary Hopkins, that describes more about Elizabeth Hopkins(Fisher). I will try to get this typed into this project also, when I finish the re wiring of the house, which is suppose to happen today... But down here one is never sure if the repair man or contractor is going to show up or not. 50 - 50 chance. One thing for sure is I need electricity to do this sort of thing.
Thanks to Sally for the hours it took to type all that. Currently we can get it the images of the pages
https://www.themayflowersociety.org/images/stories/quarterly/nov-ju...
. . . . . with the huge (26 pages) detailed back-up appendix (sources) at
http://tinyurl.com/NEAL-SOURCES
. . . if you're working on Giles Hopkins here's one of the two American distant cousins who flew to Nottingham who searched and found the baptism records of the kids in Nottingham, England and a deed record of Gabriel with his wife Jane there in 1637 at NEHGR article at http://jliptrap.us/gen/nehgr.pdf
The Native-American connection (or non-connection) is discussed at
http://tinyurl.com/NE-Natives-Wheldon-Jacobus
Shirley
