Early Bridgewater Families
Samuel Packard of
Bridgewater, Massachusetts
and His Family
By Karle S. Packard
Packard's Progress, Vol. 17 [Feb. 1991], pp. 9-12
Early Bridgewater Families
Samuel Packard of
Bridgewater, Massachusetts
and His Family
By Karle S. Packard
Packard's Progress, Vol. 17 [Feb. 1991], pp. 9-12
Samuel Packard of
Bridgewater, Massachusetts
and His Family
by Karle S. Packard
I. Introduction
Samuel Packard, long considered the progenitor of most of the Packards in the United States, was one of the early settlers of Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The Packard family was one of the leading families in that area, and descendants who can be traced to this source have spread throughout the country. The earliest published source for an account of this family is that by Nahum Mitchell in 1840 in History of the Early Settlement of Bridgewater. Unfortunately, Mitchell's account has numerous errors, many of which have been accepted uncritically by subsequent authors, and these later authors have introduced additional errors, thereby compounding the confusion. The writings have not been at what is now considered an acceptable level of genealogical scholarship. The result is that there is no reliable and comprehensive account of the early generations of the Packard family in America. This situation was articulated in a recent letter from Barbara Rice in the August 1990 issue of Packard's Progress, decrying the contradictions found in various sources. To partially remedy this situation, this brief summary of the known facts, with probable conclusions, is offered here.
II. Samuel Packard's Ancestry
As a result of the research of Brig. J. John Packard of London we can now be reasonably sure that our Samuel Packard was the third son of George and Mary (Wyther) Packard, baptized 17 September 1612 in Stonham Aspal, Suffolk, England. 1 This conclusion is presumptive, but is based on the fact that no other Samuel Packard of an appropriate age has been found in East Anglia, and this Samuel is not present in later English records, an indication that he went to America. Our Samuel is next found in the record of Daniel Cushing, the town clerk of Hingham, Massachusetts, where he is listed among those arriving 10 August 1638 at Boston on the "Diligent" of Ipswich, which left Ipswich in June. 2 He came with wife, Elizabeth, and a child, and was said to be "from Windham" (Wymondham) in Norfolk. This group of colonists settled in Hingham and we find further records of Samuel and his family there. Why and for how long Samuel was in Wymondham or its vicinity we do not know, nor has there been any success in finding some record of him there despite many attempts, but it is no longer reasonable to infer that, because he was "from Wymondham", this locality is likely to be the chief source of information on his early life in England.
III. Samuel Packard's Family
One major issue is the maiden surname of Samuel's wife, Elizabeth, which does not appear in any of the known records. Efforts have been made to find a marriage record for Samuel in both Suffolk and Norfolk parish registers, but without success.
Page 9
In the very recent past someone has suggested that her maiden surname might have been Stream, and, unfortunately, this has been accepted uncritically by some, without any supporting evidence. Brig. J. J. Packard has pointed out that Stream is a name that is unusual for East Anglia. At the present state of our knowledge, Elizabeth's maiden surname must be considered as unknown. Some day a record of their marriage may be found, or a probate record might provide sufficient evidence of her name.
A second issue is where and when Samuel and his family lived in Massachusetts. That he first lived in Hingham and lastly in Bridgewater is generally recognized, but most accounts have him moving directly from the former to the latter. However, he moved from Hingham to Weymouth, where he was a Selectman from 1654 to 1664 and at least two of his children were born. 3 He was still in Hingham in 1652 when his daughter, Deliverance, was baptized, but must have moved soon thereafter. In 1664 Samuel was appointed Constable in Bridgewater, so he must have moved there by that time. 4 Samuel was not an original proprietor of Bridgewater, who were all from Duxbury, but he purchased land from them before August 1662, when he was appointed to a group to lay out highways. 5 He was an active member of the town, being Collector of Minister's Rates in 1670, Surveyor of Highways in 1672, and Constable again in 1674. He was licensed to keep an 'ordinary' in 1671. 4 He died there 7 November 1684, and his will, dated 29 October 1684, was signed by mark, helping to explain why the common mispelling of his name as Packer was not corrected earlier. 6
Another major issue is the number, birth order, and approximate birthdates of the children of Samuel and Elizabeth. The traditional number of children found in the published accounts has been twelve, but, in fact, we can account for fourteen, as shown below. The birth order and birthdates for the children in these accounts are widely variant and often obviously incorrect. The first common error to be corrected is the identity of the first child, born in England, but whose baptism has not yet been found. The name of this child does not appear in any of the early records, but there has arisen an unfounded practice of using the name Elizabeth, presumably because that was the mother's name. This must be incorrect as it leads to obvious contradictions, and the only reasonable conclusion is that the first child was Mary. This is based on the following argument:
1. The earliest baptism we have for this family is that of Elizabeth, Samuel, Hannah and Israel on 19 July 1646 in Hingham. 7
2. If Elizabeth were baptized in England it is unlikely that she would be baptized again, and even more unlikely that a baby would be brought on such a dangerous voyage without baptism.
3. Mary was not among those being baptized on the above date, but she was there and probably about nine years old as she was married and a mother eleven years later. Therefore, she must have been baptized earlier and that in England.
4. Mary was married about 1656, or nine years before Elizabeth, and therefore, probably the older of the two. In fact, she had five children by the time Elizabeth was married.
Page 10
Assuming that the order listed in the baptismal record is in order of age, and using the common two year birth interval, we can establish a probable birth order and approximate birth dates for the first five children as:
| 1. | Mary | b. England, ca 1637 | |
| 2. | Elizabeth | b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1639 | |
| 3. | Samuel | b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1641 | |
| 4. | Hannah | b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1643 | |
| 5. | Israel | b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1645 |
The next baptisms we have are those of Zaccheus, Jane and Abigail on 20 April 1651 and that of Deliverance on 11 July 1652. 8 Jane and Abigail are always omitted from accounts of the family, suggesting that they died young. It is likely that they were twins and too weak to survive. Before listing these four children, however, we must consider the other children and what we know about them. In particular, Samuel Packard's will lists five (surviving) daughters as Mary, Hannah, Jael, Deborah and Deliverance, thus implying that Jael and Deborah were older than Deliverance. Furthermore, since Jael had her second marriage in 1672, and her first probably about 1665, she would have to be born before 1652. This leads to the following listing:
The remaining children are Thomas, John and Nathaniel, the latter two being named in that order in Samuel's will and Thomas not named. Of all the children, John is the only one whose recorded birthdate has been found, being 20 July 1655 (because July was the fifth month in the Julian calendar this has been given, mistakenly, as May). While the placement of Thomas is arbitrary, we can complete a logical listing of the children as:
| 12. | Thomas | b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1653 | |
| 13. | John | b. Weymouth, Mass., 20 July 1655 9 | |
| 14. | Nathaniel | b. Weymouth, Mass., ca 1657 |
Some accounts place the births of some of these children in Bridgewater, which is clearly in error. The above birthdates are, with one exception, approximate and subject to future correction. They are, however, consistent with all known facts.
The marriages of these children are as follows, with the approximate dates based on the birthdates of their firstborn:
| 1. | Mary m. Richard Phillips ca 1656 in Weymouth | ||
| 2. | Elizabeth m. Thomas Alger 14 November 1665 in Taunton 10 | ||
| 3. | Samuel m. Elizabeth Lathrop ca 1675 | ||
| 4. | Hannah m. |
(1) Clement Briggs ca 1667 (2) Thomas Randall ca 1671 |
|
| 5. | Israel no known marriage | ||
| 6. | Jael m. |
(1) ? Jones ca 1665 (2) John Smith 15 November 1672 in Taunton 11 |
|
Page 11
| 7. | Deborah m. Samuel Washburn ca 1676 | ||
| 8. | Zaccheus m. Sarah Howard ca 1678 | ||
| 9. | Jane prob. died young | ||
| 10. | Abigail prob. died young | ||
| 11. | Deliverance m. Thomas Washburn ca 1680 | ||
| 12. | Thomas m. ? ? (had son Joseph) | ||
| 13. | John m. Judith Winslow 12 April 1688 in Taunton 12 | 13. | Nathaniel m. Lydia Smith ca 1682 |
Israel is not found in the records after he was named a Trooper in 1671. It is often supposed that he was killed in King Philip's War, but this is belied by the claim that no one from Bridgewater died in that war. 13 The record on Thomas is similarly scant, and he is often confused with Thomas Packer, a British surgeon who lived in New Hampshire.
A few words about confusion of names are in order as much erroneous information has appeared in this regard. The name Packard appears in English records as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, and is probably of Anglo-Saxon (Old Teutonic) origin. It is not a derivation of Pickard as claimed by some, nor is it related to Packer as is concluded by many because of the early mispelling of Samuel Packard's name. The name Packard was well established in East Anglia long before Samuel's birth, and while the spelling varies as Paccard, Paccarde, etc., it is unquestionably a unique surname.
It is hoped that this summary of the known facts regarding Samuel Packard and his family will serve to clear up some of the confusion created by existing published accounts and to focus further research where it is needed.
References
Page 12
Return to Early Bridgewater Families
Email comments to Dale H. Cook
The Plymouth Colony Pages, commenced 08-Jul-2002.
Created and maintained by Dale H. Cook.
.
Copyright © 2006-2010 by Dale H. Cook. All rights reserved.