George Sydenham of Poole, Morebath, Devon, and New York

[r***@yahoo.com]

Another item possibly "of interest":

Evelyn Wachter's _Sidman-Sidnam Families of Upstate New York_ says,

"The emigrant ancestor of the Sidman and Sidnam families of upstate New York was George Sydenham, born probably c. 1655, at Poole in Morebath, county Devon, England. ... George was the eldest son of George Sydenham, born c. 1623, buried 12 October 1694, Morebath, Devon. ..."

A few pages on, she seems to quote from original documents concerning Poole, Morebath, and a certain Walter Sydenham.

https://books.google.com/books?id=m8VRAAAAMAAJ&dq=george+sidenam+new+york&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=poole

Thomas Wotton's 1727 _Baronetage_ mentions the apparent father George Sydenham, "of Poole in Moorbath," with an eldest son Walter, as well as a younger son George "of New-England."

https://books.google.com/books?id=fwRbAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA421&dq=%22george+sydenham%22+poole&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigxM_agOvdAhWnhOAKHX9WBCgQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22george%20sydenham%22%20poole&f=false

So at least as early as 1727 there were printed claims that George of Poole in Morebath had a son George Sydenham in the colonies.

Burke's _Dormant Baronetcies_ might be easier to follow, as least as far as possible noble ancestry:

https://books.google.com/books?id=VikAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA520&dq=%22perty+of+the+earl+of+westmoreland%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXgLLUhOvdAhWFT98KHTusB4UQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It looks like they might connect up with these people (of Magna Charta descent, at least):

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA3-PA158&dq=%22sir+humphrey+audley%22+sydenham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ3dbuhOvdAhXJdN8KHZGyDssQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20humphrey%20audley%22%20sydenham&f=false

[r***@yahoo.com]

Interesting item in the _Cal. State Papers: Colonial_ concerning Geo. Sydenham:

https://books.google.com/books?id=uDoRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA281&dq=lieutenant+george+sidenham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMt4vFiOvdAhWqTt8KHZgSBmsQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=lieutenant%20george%20sidenham&f=false

[r***@yahoo.com]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[taf]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Evelyn Wachter's _Sidman-Sidnam Families of Upstate New York_ says,
"The emigrant ancestor of the Sidman and Sidnam families of upstate New
York was George Sydenham, born probably c. 1655, at Poole in Morebath,
county Devon, England. ... George was the eldest son of George Sydenham,
born c. 1623, buried 12 October 1694, Morebath, Devon. ..."

1623 is the earliest possible date of the father's birth. Thomas Sidnam of Whetstow recorded a pedigree in the 1623 visitation of Somerset, including children of ages ranging from 14 to 2 and no George among them, so he may have been born later in the year, or later still, but not before.

taf

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Evelyn Wachter's _Sidman-Sidnam Families of Upstate New York_ says,
"The emigrant ancestor of the Sidman and Sidnam families of upstate New
York was George Sydenham, born probably c. 1655, at Poole in Morebath,
county Devon, England. ... George was the eldest son of George Sydenham,
born c. 1623, buried 12 October 1694, Morebath, Devon. ..."

1623 is the earliest possible date of the father's birth. Thomas Sidnam of Whetstow recorded a pedigree in the 1623 visitation of Somerset, including children of ages ranging from 14 to 2 and no George among them, so he may have been born later in the year, or later still, but not before.
taf

Hopefully Thomas left a will or something naming a son George (Senior).

I notice that George's mother was a Sellick. Wasn't there a big article published some years back on some Sellicks in Somersetshire, one of whom came to New England or New York?

[taf]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Hopefully Thomas left a will or something naming a son George (Senior).

Maybe a 'something', but not a will. Devon Wills Project shows a PCC administration granted in 1635 to his wife, Dorothy.

George (the father) left a PCC will (pro 1695):
grandson Henry Chave (<14), son-in-law William Chappel, sons Thomas Sydenham & Walter Sydenham, son Thomas sole executor - George isn't mentioned at all, but as you have already found, he was essentially disinherited.

taf

[taf]

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Hopefully Thomas left a will or something naming a son George (Senior).

Maybe a 'something', but not a will. Devon Wills Project shows a PCC
administration granted in 1635 to his wife, Dorothy.

We both overthought this. Westow is in Lydeard St Lawrence, and the registers of that parish include in 1624:

Georg the sonne of mr Thomas Sidenham was baptized the 28 Day of Aprill

taf

[JBrand]

Post by taf

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Hopefully Thomas left a will or something naming a son George (Senior).

Maybe a 'something', but not a will. Devon Wills Project shows a PCC
administration granted in 1635 to his wife, Dorothy.

Georg the sonne of mr Thomas Sidenham was baptized the 28 Day of Aprill
taf

Good find!

I also noticed that "Dorothy Selleck" is shown as wife of Thomas Sydenham in the Selleck article I was talking about (? by Stott) in TAG. See this snippet ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-w8oAQAAMAAJ&q=%22dorothy+selleck%22+sydenham&dq=%22dorothy+selleck%22+sydenham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNgOWz2uzdAhUFvKwKHQPMBTgQ6AEIKTAA

So presumably this would mean George Sydenham of New York was fairly closely related to the Selleck/ Sellick immigrant (whoever that was).

[taf]

Post by JBrand
I also noticed that "Dorothy Selleck" is shown as wife of Thomas
Sydenham in the Selleck article I was talking about (? by Stott)
in TAG.

In addition to the visitation, we have this from the 1624 will of David Sellick of Morebath, who names his son-in-law Thomas Sydenham and daughter Dorothy. It also names a Walter Sydenham and a goddaughter Catherine Sydenham, and brother's sons Robert and John Sellick. I find two separate abstracts of this will. One in Crisp's abstracts that calls Walter "son" and a second at genealogy.com that calls Walter grandson - I am not sure if this is independent of Crisp of is 'correcting' him, but were I to guess for the context of Crisp, Walter was actually called godson.

The 1640 will of Christopher Sellick names his 'cousin' (niece) Dorothy Sydenham.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044032306862;view=1up;seq=31
https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/selleck/117/

The immigrant was David Sellick of Dorchester, Boston and Virginia is identified with a David baptized at Overstowey, son of Robert:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051210105004/http://www.fhsu.edu:80/~phrp/Selleck/David/David.html

The connection between George Sydenham and David Sellick was discussed in this group 14 years ago:

https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/q1wOomLo/who-was-george-sydenham-of-new-england

taf

taf

[taf]

Post by taf
The immigrant was David Sellick of Dorchester, Boston and Virginia
https://web.archive.org/web/20051210105004/http://www.fhsu.edu:80/~phrp/Selleck/David/David.html

Let me correct something here. In relating the fact that immigrant David Sellick and his wife Susanna Kibby received a licence dated 28 September 1636 and then were married 1 October the compiler says:

- "Dr. Sellick also wrote in 1995 "that the license was granted
- just three days before the wedding took place. An almost indecent
- hurry!" Could the rush have been because previous arrangements
- had been made by David to leave for the colonies and the date for
- the ship to sail had almost arrived?"

It is not uncommon to see marriages the same day as the licence, and it is usually within a week, while you do sometimes see longer (I have seen one couple, the groom a future Admiral, who did not marry until several years and several children after receiving their licence). Thus this is not an indecent hurry, or any kind of hurry that needs explaining.

taf

[r***@yahoo.com]

OSelleck/David/David.html

Post by taf
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/q1wOomLo/who-was-george-sydenham-of-new-england

The thread was apparently started by yours truly (... so much for my memory).

There was an article published on Selleck the immigrant in 2005 in _TG_:

https://fasg.org/wp-content/uploads/TG-19-1.pdf

I also notice that Evelyn Sidman Wachter had a _TAG_ article on George1 Sydenham/ Sidnam & descendants in 1969, long before publishing her book. It doesn't speculate about his parentage, but uses the Colonial State Papers and other docs to trace his somewhat scandalous and chequered career.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
OSelleck/David/David.html

Post by taf
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/q1wOomLo/who-was-george-sydenham-of-new-england

The thread was apparently started by yours truly (... so much for my memory).
https://fasg.org/wp-content/uploads/TG-19-1.pdf
I also notice that Evelyn Sidman Wachter had a _TAG_ article on George1 Sydenham/ Sidnam & descendants in 1969, long before publishing her book. It doesn't speculate about his parentage, but uses the Colonial State Papers and other docs to trace his somewhat scandalous and chequered career.

Actually the relationship of David Selleck to George Sydenham doesn't seem to be especially close.

Would the best royal descent be ...


Edward III, King of England = Philippa of Hainault

Edmund of Langley, Duke of York = Isabella of Castile

Constance Plantagenet = (liaison w/) Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of Kent

Eleanor Holland = James Touchet, 5th Lord Audley

Sir Humphrey Audley = Elizabeth Courtenay

Elizabeth Audley = John Sydenham

Thomas Sydenham = Elizabeth Crosse

Thomas Sydenham = Dorothy Selleck

George Sydenham = Mary Hill

Lieut. George Sydenham (disinherited, went to New York), living 1720

[taf]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Would the best royal descent be ...
Elizabeth Audley = John Sydenham
Thomas Sydenham = Elizabeth Crosse
Thomas Sydenham = Dorothy Selleck
George Sydenham = Mary Hill
Lieut. George Sydenham (disinherited, went to New York), living 1720

Richardson makes the first Thomas the son of Joan Arundell of Lanherne. She does not appear in Vivian's Arundell of Lanherne pedigree, unless she is the Johanna shown marrying William Pentier several years before the first appearance of Joan with Sydenham.

taf

[r***@yahoo.com]

Until the Audley vs. Arundel question is sorted out, here is another descent.


King John of England

(illegit.) Richard FitzRoy, Lord of Chilham = Rohese de Dover

Lorette de Dover = Sir William Marmion

Sir John Marmion, 1st Lord Marmion = Isabel

Sir John Marmion, 2nd Lord Marmion = Maud (? Furnivalle)

Avice Marmion = John Grey, 1st Lord Grey of Rotherfield

Maud Grey = Sir Thomas Harcourt

Sir Thomas Harcourt = Jane Fraunceys

Sir Robert Harcourt = Margaret Byron

Margaret Harcourt = Walter Sydenham

John Sydenham = __ Audley and/or __ Arundell

Thomas Sydenham (maternity uncertain) = Elizabeth Crosse

Thomas Sydenham = Dorothy Selleck

George Sydenham = Mary Hill

Lieut. George Sydenham (disinherited, went to New York), living 1720

[John Higgins]

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Would the best royal descent be ...
Elizabeth Audley = John Sydenham
Thomas Sydenham = Elizabeth Crosse
Thomas Sydenham = Dorothy Selleck
George Sydenham = Mary Hill
Lieut. George Sydenham (disinherited, went to New York), living 1720

Richardson makes the first Thomas the son of Joan Arundell of Lanherne. She does not appear in Vivian's Arundell of Lanherne pedigree, unless she is the Johanna shown marrying William Pentier several years before the first appearance of Joan with Sydenham.
taf

FWIW the Johanna Arundell shown by Vivian as marrying William Pentier appears also in a detailed pedigree of the Arundell family in Sir Henry Lawson's "Catholic Families in England". Her husband is noted there as William Peter, with a reference to the Petre pedigree in Lawson's work. This is of course the baronial family of that name, and William Peter heads a very early junior line of that family.

I see no indication that this Johanna Arundell also married John Sydenham, and I can't immediately see any Arundell-Sydenham marriage in Lawson's Arundell pedigree - at least in the Lanherne segment.

Richardson's source for assigning Thomas Sydenham as a son of his father's 2nd marriage is likely the 1928 book "A History of The Sydenham Family" by G. F. Sydenham. On page 117 Thomas is said to be the 3rd son of the 2nd marriage of his father. On the same page the 2nd wife is identified as "Jane, daughter of ... Arundell of Lanhern [sic] and Chedeock [sic] of Caornwall, and relict of John St. Aubin [sic]". The last segment, about John St. Aubin, is dropped by Richardson in both editions of MCA with out any explanation. The St. Aybin reference is accurate in the Sydenham book, it might provide a clue as to the identity of Jane Arundell.

The line of Thomas Sydenham of Whetstow gets a fairly detailed treatment on pages 194-199 of the Sydenham book. Oddly, Thomas is mentioned here as the second [not third] son of his father, with no mention of a second marriage. The line to the New England immigrant Henry in shown as follows (summarized):

1. Thomas (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696

BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest...

[taf]

Post by John Higgins
Richardson's source for assigning Thomas Sydenham as a son of his father's
2nd marriage is likely the 1928 book "A History of The Sydenham Family" by
G. F. Sydenham. On page 117 Thomas is said to be the 3rd son of the 2nd
marriage of his father. On the same page the 2nd wife is identified as
"Jane, daughter of ... Arundell of Lanhern [sic] and Chedeock [sic] of
Cornwall, and relict of John St. Aubin [sic]".

The parentage assigned is impossible. John Arundell of Lanherne married Catherine Chideock, but he was born in 1418. Their grandson John Arundell was born in 1474. There is no way the Thomas Sydenham who was Joan's son and died in 1609 could also have been grandson of this marriage. Joan must have been at least two and more likely three generations later than the Arundell/Chideock marriage.

There was a St Aubin/Arundell marriage, but it is too late: 1604. This does not preclude an earlier intermarriage - Vivian does show a John St Aubin, son and heir of his mother in 1523 but dsp subsequently. He could have left a widow who remarried by 1530, as described for the second wife of John Sydenham. On the other hand, there is a St. Aubin family in Somerset that appears to be only distantly related, if at all.

Sidman-Sidnam Families of Upstate New York says that Thomas was son of the first wife, and that he was "age 40 at I. P.M. of stepmother in 158l" If anyone cares enough, that would likely be the definitive source with regard to his maternity, one way or the other.

taf

[taf]

I note that John Sidenham of Brempton was party to the marriage settlement of John Arundell and Elizabeth Dannet in 1525. This John is the great-grandson of the Arundell/Chideock marriage and appears to be of the same generation as the Joan in question. He even had a sister Joan but Vivian identifies her with the unmarried Joan who died in 1677 and named a whole host of nieces and nephews in her will, making the identification very likely. So, we are back to not knowing who she was.

taf

[John Higgins]

Post by taf

Post by John Higgins
Richardson's source for assigning Thomas Sydenham as a son of his father's
2nd marriage is likely the 1928 book "A History of The Sydenham Family" by
G. F. Sydenham. On page 117 Thomas is said to be the 3rd son of the 2nd
marriage of his father. On the same page the 2nd wife is identified as
"Jane, daughter of ... Arundell of Lanhern [sic] and Chedeock [sic] of
Cornwall, and relict of John St. Aubin [sic]".

The parentage assigned is impossible. John Arundell of Lanherne married Catherine Chideock, but he was born in 1418. Their grandson John Arundell was born in 1474. There is no way the Thomas Sydenham who was Joan's son and died in 1609 could also have been grandson of this marriage. Joan must have been at least two and more likely three generations later than the Arundell/Chideock marriage.
There was a St Aubin/Arundell marriage, but it is too late: 1604. This does not preclude an earlier intermarriage - Vivian does show a John St Aubin, son and heir of his mother in 1523 but dsp subsequently. He could have left a widow who remarried by 1530, as described for the second wife of John Sydenham. On the other hand, there is a St. Aubin family in Somerset that appears to be only distantly related, if at all.
Sidman-Sidnam Families of Upstate New York says that Thomas was son of the first wife, and that he was "age 40 at I. P.M. of stepmother in 158l" If anyone cares enough, that would likely be the definitive source with regard to his maternity, one way or the other.
taf

Te be clear, the Sydenham book does not say that Jane Arundell was a daughter of the Arundell-Chideock marriage - which, as you note, would be chronologically impossible. Instead it says that she was a daughter of an unnamed man in the family of Arundell of Lanherne and Chideock. The Arundells acquired the Chideock estate via the marriage of Katherine Chideock and retained it until 1802, when it was sold to Thomas Weld of Lulworth. So, the reference to "Arundell of Lanherne and Chideock" " in the Sydenham book certainly points to this family - even if we can't identify where exactly Jane fits in the family.

With respect to the 1581 IPM, the Sydenham book says that the IPM was "held at Ilcombe in 1581 on Joan Courtney [sic], relict of John Sydenham of Combe Sydenham, gent. The heir, a son of John Sydenham and nearest heir of Joan Courtney [sic] was Thomas Sydenham aged 40 and more."

The wording is interesting. Should this be read to mean that Thomas was NOT the son of Joan Courtney [Courtenay?]? And does the Courtney reference indicate that Joan was married a third time - after John Sydenham died?

[taf]

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:54:38 PM UTC-7,

Post by John Higgins
Te be clear, the Sydenham book does not say that Jane
Arundell was a daughter of the Arundell-Chideock marriage -
which, as you note, would be chronologically impossible.
Instead it says that she was a daughter of an unnamed man
in the family of Arundell of Lanherne and Chideock.

Thanks for the clarification - I had misunderstood what you said earlier. It is hard to find a place to put her in the family, though. Given how long she lived, I think she had to have been born in the early 16th century, and that puts her firmly in the generation of John Arundell, husband of Elizabeth Donet, great-grandson of the Arundell-Chideock marriage, but Vivian shows this generation to be reasonably well documented with wills and ipms. I think we have to consider the possibility that she was kin of the Arundells but not born to an Arundell father.

Post by John Higgins
With respect to the 1581 IPM, the Sydenham book says that
the IPM was "held at Ilcombe in 1581 on Joan Courtney
[sic], relict of John Sydenham of Combe Sydenham, gent.
The heir, a son of John Sydenham and nearest heir of
Joan Courtney [sic] was Thomas Sydenham aged 40 and
more."
The wording is interesting. Should this be read to mean
that Thomas was NOT the son of Joan Courtney [Courtenay?]?
And does the Courtney reference indicate that Joan was
married a third time - after John Sydenham died?

Hard to say. Yes, it does in all likelihood mean that this 1581 Joan married a Courtney, but as to the relationships, the precise language of the original is important and this summary may not do it justice.

It is either reporting Thomas as heir directly to Joan, or as heir to the lands Joan had been holding as dower rights, and the distinction is important. Were it the former, it would be a little surprising were the document to only call him son of John, and not son of Joan, but he would not be heir were he only Joan's step-son, as the author would have it. Were it the latter, the heir to the dower rights would have been John's heir-general, which would not have been younger son Thomas. (And for both, this is unless there had been a specific transfer of the reversion rights.) It even makes me ask on what basis this Joan is identified as John Sydenham's widow - is this explicit in the original ipm (of which, I note, both Chancery and Wards copies survive, catalogued under Courteney).

taf

[JBrand]

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:38:2

Post by John Higgins
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696
BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest...

Interestingly, the statement about George returning to England ca. 1696 is borne out in Evelyn Wachter's original TAG article. She states he must have returned to England after only a year or two of army service in North America. While in England he petitioned further on his army grievances, originally raised in New York, but did not get anywhere with his English complaints and later went back to New York.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by JBrand
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:38:2

Post by John Higgins
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696
BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest...

Interestingly, the statement about George returning to England ca. 1696 is borne out in Evelyn Wachter's original TAG article. She states he must have returned to England after only a year or two of army service in North America. While in England he petitioned further on his army grievances, originally raised in New York, but did not get anywhere with his English complaints and later went back to New York.

Mrs. Wachter writes, "Late in 1696, Lt. Sydenham resigned from Capt. Weems' company and went to New York [from Albany or Schenectady] where in December of that year he testified against his former captain and against Capt. Hide, before the Governor and Council of New York ... The Governor told him that 'it was not the part of a gentleman to inform against his officers.' The lieutenant then returned to England and on 26 Jan. 1697 'informed Mr. Blathwayt [British Sec. of War] that he had raised 50 men and ought to have L2 per man' and that he had come to England for justice. ... [Other of his petitions apparently ignored.] In 1698 Lord Bellomont was sent out to the colonies to replace Governor Fletcher as Governor of New York and New England, and on 9 June George Sydenham, who had obviously returned to America, was awarded a commission as escheator, and official responsible for the administration of intestate estates on behalf of the Crown (_Coll. N.-Y. Hist. Soc. 7:5). With such a position he was now ready to contemplate matrimony and on 4 Nov. 1698 George Sydenham and Elizabeth Stuyvesant obtained a New York marriage license." (_TAG_, 45:193-94).

I suppose the last appointment, as escheator, means he was still in "good graces" with someone.

The interesting thing is that the timing of his return to England matches exactly with the statement you noted in the Sydenham book.

David Selleck and Susanna Kibby had a son David whose marriage (if any) isn't given in the TAG article. Do you think it is possible he was the one who may have married Dorothy Sydenham, granddaughter of the Thomas Sydenham who died 1635?

[taf]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
David Selleck and Susanna Kibby had a son David whose marriage (if any)
isn't given in the TAG article. Do you think it is possible he was the
one who may have married Dorothy Sydenham, granddaughter of the Thomas
Sydenham who died 1635?

In what context is this marriage said to have taken place? David and Susanna left for America immediately after their marriage. Is there any reason to think that Thomas or his daughter crossed?

taf

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
David Selleck and Susanna Kibby had a son David whose marriage (if any)
isn't given in the TAG article. Do you think it is possible he was the
one who may have married Dorothy Sydenham, granddaughter of the Thomas
Sydenham who died 1635?

In what context is this marriage said to have taken place? David and Susanna left for America immediately after their marriage. Is there any reason to think that Thomas or his daughter crossed?
taf

Oh, maybe I was misreading what John Higgins wrote:

"Thoms (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696

BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest..."

I understood this to mean:

Thomas Sydenham, d. 1635
(son) Thomas Sydenham
(dau.) Dorothy Sydenham = a man named David Sellick

But maybe he was just saying the name "Dorothy" was used in later generations.

[John Higgins]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
David Selleck and Susanna Kibby had a son David whose marriage (if any)
isn't given in the TAG article. Do you think it is possible he was the
one who may have married Dorothy Sydenham, granddaughter of the Thomas
Sydenham who died 1635?

In what context is this marriage said to have taken place? David and Susanna left for America immediately after their marriage. Is there any reason to think that Thomas or his daughter crossed?
taf

"Thoms (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696
BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest..."
Thomas Sydenham, d. 1635
(son) Thomas Sydenham
(dau.) Dorothy Sydenham = a man named David Sellick
But maybe he was just saying the name "Dorothy" was used in later generations.

John, you've accurately reported what I said above in my original post. But in double-checking it now, I see that I omitted a generation. Dorothy Sydenham who married David Sellick was the granddaughter, not daughter, of the third Thomas Sydenham. For the sake of clarity, here is the entire descent starting with the first Thomas:

1. Thomas (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [2nd son] Thomas (d. 1662; m. Marjorie Cridland (d. 1702)
4. John (born 1653, d. 1737); m. Dorothy Venne
5. Dorothy; m. David Sellick

Sorry for any confusion. David Sellick is identified solely because he is mentioned in his father-in-law John's will (dated 10 Apr 1735, proved 1737). No other information is given for him, and no mention is made of New England for this family.

3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696

[JBrand]

Post by John Higgins

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
David Selleck and Susanna Kibby had a son David whose marriage (if any)
isn't given in the TAG article. Do you think it is possible he was the
one who may have married Dorothy Sydenham, granddaughter of the Thomas
Sydenham who died 1635?

In what context is this marriage said to have taken place? David and Susanna left for America immediately after their marriage. Is there any reason to think that Thomas or his daughter crossed?
taf

"Thoms (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696
BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest..."
Thomas Sydenham, d. 1635
(son) Thomas Sydenham
(dau.) Dorothy Sydenham = a man named David Sellick
But maybe he was just saying the name "Dorothy" was used in later generations.

1. Thomas (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [2nd son] Thomas (d. 1662; m. Marjorie Cridland (d. 1702)
4. John (born 1653, d. 1737); m. Dorothy Venne
5. Dorothy; m. David Sellick
Sorry for any confusion. David Sellick is identified solely because he is mentioned in his father-in-law John's will (dated 10 Apr 1735, proved 1737). No other information is given for him, and no mention is made of New England for this family.
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696

I agree that a David Sellick this late (living 1735 in England) would most likely have no connection to the New England & Virginia people.

The _TAG_ Selleck article from 2006 shows there was another David Selleck more or less contemporary with the one who went to New England, and he might well be the ancestor of the David living in England in 1735 (married Dorothy Sydenham).

[taf]

Post by JBrand
I agree that a David Sellick this late (living 1735 in England) would
most likely have no connection to the New England & Virginia people.
The _TAG_ Selleck article from 2006 shows there was another David
Selleck more or less contemporary with the one who went to New England,
and he might well be the ancestor of the David living in England in 1735
(married Dorothy Sydenham).

A David and Dorothy Selleck had daughters Hannah and Elizabeth at Wiveliscombe, Somerset in 1740 & 1741/2. It is unclear if he was a native of the parish. There was a David, son of Marcell Selleck bapt there 1708, but there was also a second David having children in the same parish, such that you have Hannah, daughter of David and Dorothy bapt January 1741/2, then Hannah, daughter of David and Martha bapt February 1741/2. That David married Martha at Spaxton in 1731. The same year, a David (wife not named) had a daughter Dorothy at Lydeard St Lawrence, and given the relative rarity of the name Dorothy, perhaps this child was her mother's namesake, but then on the other hand it could reflect periodic usage in the Sellicks dating back to the 15th century, and have nothing to do with this Dorothy (Sidenham) Selleck.

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

Post by JBrand

Post by John Higgins

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by r***@yahoo.com
David Selleck and Susanna Kibby had a son David whose marriage (if any)
isn't given in the TAG article. Do you think it is possible he was the
one who may have married Dorothy Sydenham, granddaughter of the Thomas
Sydenham who died 1635?

In what context is this marriage said to have taken place? David and Susanna left for America immediately after their marriage. Is there any reason to think that Thomas or his daughter crossed?
taf

"Thoms (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696
BTY a granddaughter of the younger Thomas (#2) above was Dorothy (daughter of another Thomas, son of the younger Thomas, who is stated to have married David Sellick. Might be of interest..."
Thomas Sydenham, d. 1635
(son) Thomas Sydenham
(dau.) Dorothy Sydenham = a man named David Sellick
But maybe he was just saying the name "Dorothy" was used in later generations.

1. Thomas (d. 22 Mar 1609, IPM 11 Sept. 1609); m. Elizabeth, dau. of William Cross of Charlinch
2. [eldest son] Thomas (b. 1578, d. 1635); m. 20 May 1607 Dorothy, dau. of David Sellick of Morebath, Devon
3. [2nd son] Thomas (d. 1662; m. Marjorie Cridland (d. 1702)
4. John (born 1653, d. 1737); m. Dorothy Venne
5. Dorothy; m. David Sellick
Sorry for any confusion. David Sellick is identified solely because he is mentioned in his father-in-law John's will (dated 10 Apr 1735, proved 1737). No other information is given for him, and no mention is made of New England for this family.
3. [4th son] George (d. 1695); m. Mary Hill of Bampton
4. [eldest son] George "of New England", returned to England in December 1696

I agree that a David Sellick this late (living 1735 in England) would most likely have no connection to the New England & Virginia people.
The _TAG_ Selleck article from 2006 shows there was another David Selleck more or less contemporary with the one who went to New England, and he might well be the ancestor of the David living in England in 1735 (married Dorothy Sydenham).

Evelyn Wachter's book is apparently available online ...

https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~wachter/people/book.ocr.pdf

[taf]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
https://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA3-PA158&dq=%22sir+humphrey+audley%22+sydenham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ3dbuhOvdAhXJdN8KHZGyDssQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20humphrey%20audley%22%20sydenham&f=false

There seems to be a royal descent. There is conflicting information about the maternity of the Thomas Sydenham who gave rise to the Westow branch, but Elizabeth Audley descends from Edward III, and though Joan Arundell of Lanherne is harder to place, if she was really 'of Lanherne' she would seem to descend from Sir Thomas (d. 1485) and his wife Catherine Dinham, who if I tracked it right has a Longespee descent, and hence Henry II.

taf

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by taf

Post by r***@yahoo.com
https://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA3-PA158&dq=%22sir+humphrey+audley%22+sydenham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQ3dbuhOvdAhXJdN8KHZGyDssQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20humphrey%20audley%22%20sydenham&f=false

There seems to be a royal descent. There is conflicting information about the maternity of the Thomas Sydenham who gave rise to the Westow branch, but Elizabeth Audley descends from Edward III, and though Joan Arundell of Lanherne is harder to place, if she was really 'of Lanherne' she would seem to descend from Sir Thomas (d. 1485) and his wife Catherine Dinham, who if I tracked it right has a Longespee descent, and hence Henry II.
taf

Oh, I didn't realize there was doubt about Elizabeth Audley being the ancestress.

Anyway, the Father's mother's line (Margaret Harcourt, wife of Walter Sydenham) seems to descend, perhaps multiple ways, from either Henry II or John (? both).