Marriages of Richard Otis (1626)

I found this related web page, although I'm not sure how much it really helps...

http://stanleyhistory.net/descnarratives/ThomasConley.htm

This thread makes a pretty good case that Conley is correct:

http://newsarch.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/QUAKER-ROOTS/2000-04/...

From here, do we merge Shuah/Susannah or is there another Susannah out there that is the daughter of Edward Starbuck and Katherine Reynolds?
I found this pointing to the possibility that it is indeed Starbuck: www.gencircles.com/users/alp51/5/data/339 (I had to use Google's cache to view).
I'm still pretty timid about making changes like this :)

If you refer to the book of the Canadian branch of the OTIS family (page 8 in french)- it states that Richard Otis had three (3) wives. The first was Rose Stoughton c. 1651; the secon was to Anna Shua (?), James Heard's widow c. 1676, and a third time to Grizel Warren c. 1686 (note it is written as Grizel).

And therein lies the problem: who was Anna Shua? Or more specifically, who were her parents?

Heather,

I looked into the Anna Shuah Starbuck mystery a few months ago - lots of ambiguity! There seemed to be a major argument that she and sister Susannah are in fact the same person. I think that's what we settled for as what to show in Geni (but understanding that the case is not closed on the topic ....)

I'm merging up around Richard Otis so that should help. Please be sure and put the references you found into the profile "about me" so we don't forget. :)

In reading again I'm inclined to go with Shuah as daughter of Conley in Geni. What do you all think?

Seems like the best supported theory.

I've updated Anne-Shuah Otis and disinherited her from the Starbucks.

A site I found said "Richard Otis has given more than one genealogist major migraines." :)

D'accord! I am communicating with someone locally who has accessed many of the original source documents (with a focus on Jean-Baptiste Otis), and am negotiating a purchase of a book outlining his research that he self-published. I will see if there is anything there to further clarify the matter.
Thanks for your merging help Erica!

It helps me! I'm a Starbuck apparently. I love that name.

Heather,

So at this point I'm inclined to believe that Ann-Shuah somehow got mixed up with Susannah Starbuck early on in history, but that in fact she was always a Conley. It explains a lot actually.

Jean Baptist dit l'Englais Otis --- do you know the story of how he went from Maine to Canada and became French? It sounds like it would be interesting.

Actually, I also have a tree in Ancestry.com and a contributor on that service posted the following document which is quite interesting. The article makes reference to book entitled: THE OTIS FAMILY, CANADIAN BRANCH BY GERARD MALCHELOSSE- which I have (my grandfather helped finance it).

http://trees.ancestry.ca/ShareHandler.ashx?retUrl=%2Ftree%2F1322254...

Here's another one of interest:
http://trees.ancestry.ca/ShareHandler.ashx?retUrl=%2Ftree%2F1322254...

Marc,

Be sure and add those links to his profile! The more documentation the better.

It is indeed an interesting story! Jean-Baptiste, born John, was said to have been captured by Native Americans during the Concheco Massacre of 1689, He spent 11 years in captivity until he was "sold" to a Quebec family where he was baptised Jean-Baptiste. The full story is available in the notes under Richard Sr. 's profile, which I will move to Jean-Baptiste's I think.

Wow. So he went Indian, and then Quebecois?

I haven't found any data on how he lived with the Indian tribe..whether he was captive the entire time or if he integrated with them. It is said he was mistreated and had his fingernails removed and ears cut off, which is rather gruesome. He then married a Quebecois woman, and declined to return to the United States when that option became available.

Apparently, it was customary for captives taken during raids, to be sold to the French in New France. Remember that the real war going on at that time was between the British and the French. They in turn were using the Native Americans as proxy fighters- the British the Mohawk Nation while the French supported and armed the various groups of the Abénaquis nation. In the case of Jean-Baptise (John by birth), he was “sold” to French missionaries who quickly converted them to Catholicism- I believe that the Otis’ were Quakers? In reading further, they were eventually given land and married into the local population. Some years later, when the hostilities were over, the British arranged for a party to travel to Québec and Montréal to repatriate the hostages, but many simply refused, including Jean-Baptiste and his sister. His other siblings, that had been taken to Montréal by the same Indian war party with his father’s third wife (Grizel Warren) returned to NH.

So many cultural collisions. It must have been a fast moving time and place.

Libby himself discovered that the daughter of Edward Starbuck was "____ Heard."

Court records confirm her first name was Susannah twice [and not once Shuah].

Edward Starbuck had a daughter Susannah.

Chadbournes, Nasons, Shapleighs, Waldernes, Starbucks and Heards were all either Quaker or anabaptists. Quakers only married other Quakers and Anabaptists. This was a very small secret community during this period.

Let's examine the evidence:

The Massachusetts authorities became suspicious that Edward Starbuck was professing Anabaptism and they ordered the court secretary to see if there was any evidence; this was dated 18 Oct 1648; nothing more was heard of the matter [History of Dover, new Hampshire p 165].

That's why Chadbourne.org shows the wife of James2 Heard to be Susannah2 Starbuck. And Katherine Walderne likely being the wife of Edward Starbuck [NEHGR 1854 p 78].

Province and Court Records of Maine (1931) Vol 2 p 177

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951t00061502a&view...

James Heard, Nicholas Shapleigh and Richard Nason..."being Quakers, they are dismist as from that trust of Townesmen [Kittery]."

Province and Court Records of Maine (1931) Vol 2 p 137

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951t00061502a&view...

Section about the wives of the Heard men and then...

This is Libby's own footnote: "The Quakers could not go to the tavern: their money was no inducement. The private householder who allowed them food or shelter was heavily fined (In this instance eight-fold as much as for a minor offence). The idea was that if these religious enthusiasts could get nothing to eat and no place to sleep, they would return whence they came. The daughter-in-law was Shuah Starbuck. The original traditional Nantucket genealogies, before "suffering" from correction by William C Folger (born 1806), include among Elder Edward Starbuck's daughters "____ Herd." Contemporary New Hampshire court files confirm this.

This is based on Libby's own findings of a Nantucket reference that Edward Starbucks daughter was ___ Heard [Penobscot Pioneers Vol 1 p 70].

However, Libby must have been unable to read correctly his own handwriting or his co-authors did not [notes taken decades before in Nantucket] since GDMNH p 321 has her name as Shuah although she was "my daughter in law Susannah Heard" in John Heard's will of 1675/6 (Maine Wills p 74) and at the court of 1 July 1661 she was Susanna Heard, wife of James, to whom Peter Wittum issued an apology for his slander of her [Province and Court Records of Maine (1931) Vol 2 p 103]. James Heard was deceased by 11 Sep 1677 when the court granted administration to his widow's new husband Richard Otis [Province and Court Records of Maine (1931) Vol 2 p 515]. And people endless cite this last reference as proof her name was Shuah but no one ever bothers to look at the actual record which doesn’t even name Richard Otis’s wife at all!!!

Province and Court Records of Maine (1931) Vol 2 p 515

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951t00061502a&view...

There never was a wife made Shuah, not of James Heard and not of Richard Otis – not in any original records from the period of these events. She was always Susannah.

Now here is the Conley connection with three parties included: 1) Nathan Lord who was godson of “Abra Conley” the clothier and who sold tobacco to the Indians illegally 2) Nicholas Frost who purchased land outright from him and John3 Heard but note that court cases trace his right all the way back to his grandfather explicitly John1 Heard. That appears to suggest as with the connect to old Abra Conley might go back very far indeed as with Nathan Lord perhaps back to England.

The only surviving son was the second John3 Heard, whose place in a boundary dispute helps to establish the identity of young John Heard's connection to Abraham Conley. The boundary in question was between land formerly of Abraham Conley's, now held by Nicholas Frost, Nathan Lord, and Richard Otis, the later as "Gardeon unto the son of James Heard deceased, sd James being the son of John Heard deceased" [Province and Court Records of Maine (1947 Vol 4 p 142] referring to the court discussion of 29 Sep 1680 transmitting the case to the General Assembly). At the court session of 30 May 1682 it was noted that the land held by Nicholas Frost had been sold to him by “Abra: Conley deceased” [Province and Court Records of Maine (1931) Vol 2 p 9]. At the court of 27 Jun 1683 it was noted that the land claimed by young John Heard had formerly belonged to Abraham Conley [ibid 34-5]. The court of 9 Oct 1683 ordered the survey [ibid 183]. On 25 June 1684, the re-survey completed, the General Assembly transmitted its acceptance to the Court of Sessions [ibid p 47]. On 26 May 1685 the Court of Pleas transmitted the suggested resolution to the Court of Assembly for acceptance and awarded Nichols Frost costs against Richard Otis and "young John Heard to him sd. Otis is Gardenon" [ibid 120-123]

What is the truth of this matter – that is for you to decide!

I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving and wish you the best during the holidays to come.