What do we know about the wife or wives of William Flint of Salem?

Question

William Flint is first recorded in Salem in 1642, so he isn't profiled in Great Migration. He's mentioned in passing in Descendants of Thomas Flint (1860) pp. 4-5 with a widow Alice and six children including Alice Pickering (she being PGM-adjacent, as will be shown).

William's profile indicates some understandable (and well-sourced!) confusion about the identity of his wife or wives:

• At the 28: 12: [Feb] 1642[/43] court held at Salem: "William Flint presented for not living with his wife. Answer: 'his mother was not willing to Lett his wyfe come.' Quit." [EQC 1:50] This suggests William's then-wife was still in England.
• At the 27: 6: [Aug] 1644 court held at Salem: "Al[i]ce Williams fined 5li. and whipped for fornication with Wm. Flynt." [EQC 1:71]
• William's 15 Sep 1671 will, naming wife Al[i]ce.
• The 5 Oct 1700 death record of Alice Flint [SalemVR5:250].

Who was William's English wife, and did she ever make it to New England? Did he marry Alice Williams after 1644, as Perley's History of Salem (1926) 2:20 believed?

I think we find the answer to both questions in Pickering Genealogy (1897), which on pp. 33-8 offers proof for the marriages and parentage of Alice (Flint) Bullock Pickering:

• At the __: 10: [Dec] 1652 court held at Salem: "Alice, daughter of William Flint, presented for wearing a silk hood. He was proved to be worth over 200li., and she was discharged." [EQC 1:276]^*,**
• Administration granted 1 Jul 1657 on the estate of Henry Bullock to his widow Alice; they m. by 1654 (he a PGM minor child arr. 1635) [GM2:1:479]
• A 22th: 6th mo: 1657 deed signed by "Alice Bullock widdow with the consent of William Flint her father" selling land "wch did belong unto Henry Bullock Junr., late deceased"
• William Flint's aforementioned 1671 will and probate, naming "son John Pickeringe"

And finally, this deed signed 22 Aug 1696 which ties them all together:

"To all Christian People to whome These presents shall come I Alice Flintt relict widow of William Flintt late of Salem Decd Send Greeting Know ye that I ye said Alice Flintt for the loue & afection that I ye said Alice fflintt doe bear vnto my daughter Alice Pickering & more especialy for & in Consideration of her my said Dear daughters great Trouble cost & charge in keeping & maintaining me The sd Alice Flintt in my old age when I were not able to help my Selfe & for my said Daughters obligacon to me so to doe during my natural life I the said Alice Flintt haue giuen granted & confirmed & doe by these presents fully freely and absolutely giue grant & confirm vnto ye said Alice Pickering all and singular such Rents Arrearages of Rents goods Chattels personall Estate whatsover vtencills household stuffe Implements and all things Whatsoeuer of what nature kind or property soeuer ye same be or can be found To Have & to Hold Levy vse dispose of take & enjoy & all my said good Chattels personall estate household stuffe and Implements &c & all other the premises aforesaid vnto my said daughter Alice Pickering her hiers Executors admrs & assignes from henceforth & forever..."

Alice (Flint) Bullock Pickering was first married by 1654, indicating that she was born to William and his first wife in England, perhaps about 1634 and surely no later than 1636.

The wording of Alice (Unknown) Flint's 1696 deed seems clear that she was the biological mother, not stepmother, of Alice (Flint) Bullock Pickering.

Thus, William Flint had only one wife, named Alice. Since their unmarried daughter was in Salem by 1652, we can assume Alice and their children came to New England sometime between 1642 and 1652. Had she, perhaps, not yet arrived in 1644 when William got caught with poor Alice Williams? In any case, it's a coincidence that both women had the same name. Alice, the mother of his children, was his only wife and survived him.

Does this seem reasonable and/or have I missed anything?

---

* Pickering Gen pp. 35-6 references a secondary source which doesn't specify relationship and argues that this Alice was William's wife, but the EQC transcript states it was his daughter.

** Young Alice and her soon-to-be husband must have had similar tastes, for at the 30: 9: [Nov] 1652 court held at Salem: "Henrye Bullocke fined for excess in his apparel in boots, ribbons, gold and silver lace, etc." [EQC 1:274]

Answer 1

Summarizing what I think we have uncovered regarding the families of William Flint and Alice Williams.

• Alice Pickering was born in England before 1636 to William Flint and his English wife, and was in Salem by 1652.
• In a 1696 deed, widow Alice Flint called Alice Pickering her daughter and referenced her daughter's "obligation" to care for her. In recognition of this obligation, Alice Flint deeded both real and personal property to Alice Pickering. In a 1712/13 deed, Alice Pickering referred to the same "Land giuen me by my Mother."
• An Alice Williams was whipped in 1644 for fornication with William Flint. We don't know the nature or duration of that relationship.
• The only Alice Williams recorded in Salem prior to 1644 was the wife of William Williams, who was close in age to William Flint. The Williams family removed to Watertown by 1642, so we don't know why Alice was in Salem in 1644. She may have been widowed, though that isn't required for fornication. :)
• Widow Alice Williams was living with her son Abraham in Watertown in 1655, so she could not have have been the wife of William Flint at that time.

Based on these findings, I think we can say the Alice Williams with whom William Flint fornicated was the wife or widow of William Williams, and they did not marry afterward. I think we can say William Flint had just one wife, also named Alice, who came over from England with their children by 1652 and survived him. It's reasonably supported by our limited available evidence plus what we know about customs and laws of the period. Are alternative explanations possible? Yes, but they'd introduce... unusualness that we'd expect to see reflected in records somehow, which we don't.

I think this is enough to support the following changes (please assume beefy Research Notes and sources for each, not written yet but I definitely will):

• Unknown Unknown can be renamed Alice (Unknown) Flint.
• Alice (Williams) Flint can be detached as spouse from William Flint, with each one discussed and linked in each other's bios. She should be set as an Unmerged Match with the profile for William Williams' spouse Alice, who currently has a disputed surname and disputed parents and probably isn't ready for a merge yet.
• Children Thomas Flint and Hannah (Flint) Ward can be detached from Alice Williams and attached to Alice (Unknown) Flint.
• We might want to PPP William Flint and his wife Alice (Unknown) Flint to prevent Alice Williams being reintroduced. (They're parents of a PGM's spouse; is that PGM or Massachusetts Project?)

There's some robust discussion elsewhere in the comments, which I've appreciated as it pushed me to work much harder on this research. My feeling is that "can't be ruled out" is not the usual standard here on WikiTree - for any ancestor there are literally infinite possibilities that technically can't be ruled out, but we try to align our profiles with the most likely scenario. We can always change things if new evidence is found!

Thoughts?

Answer 2

I can't see anything in the phrasing of that deed that clearly makes Alice Pickering the biological daughter of Alice Flint. The word 'daughter' can be used in this period for a step-daughter, and there is nothing here to rule out that interpretation. I think there is still ambiguity about the number of wives of William Flint.

Comments

I think that's a fair point. My reasoning is more than just the word "daughter," which you are 100% correct to say could have other meanings. I've seen wills and deeds from that time period involving children and stepchildren, and they tended to be spoken about quite differently both legally and culturally.

It would be more expected for Alice Flint to describe Alice Pickering as her husband's daughter if that were the case.

Then the effusive language about love and affection from the mother toward her daughter, and most especially describing Alice Pickering's caregiving as an "obligation," fits better with a biological child. A stepchild would generally not have any legal obligation to care for an aging stepparent, especially not if that stepparent had biological children still living, which Alice Flint did. Alice Pickering might even have had a legal or financial claim against her half-siblings in that case. Alternately, her half-siblings could have contested the deed because Alice Flint, as a woman, didn't really have the legal ability to give their rightful inheritance to someone else. There's no indication of anything like that happening - and the Flint daughters, at least, were known to be litigious, as they contested William's will back in 1671.

So I think the context points strongly to a biological relationship. Other explanations are possible, but less likely, and I'd really expect to see different language in the deed in those cases. What do you think?

---

I support Cheryl's conclusion in top presentation and in the 2nd paragraph of her reply. I urge Cheryl to incorporate several of those points (the litigious sisters etc.) into the body of the main reasoning. They reinforce the main conclusion. They are part of the weave.

ALSO, another possible support would be to identify Alice Williams and what happened to her. Don't know its impossible until you try.

I have a research case in which a prominent genealogist's judgement, made without suporting evidence, has warped the use of "father" into "step-father," making the woman the only child of an unknown 1st marriage by her mother. And now it is in "official" print. * Sigh. *

Well over 75% of the time in colonial documents, the straight forward Merriam-Webster meaning of words IS what the word means. ("Cozen" will always be immediately suspect, however.) Unless there is something else that gives pause, father=father, mother=mother.

---

That's why I like posting to G2G first - it's good to have more folks weigh in and the very valid questions prompt me to sharpen my arguments. Thanks both of you.

I agree it could be useful to see if anyone knows what became of Alice Williams. I'll see if I can find more.

---

The love and affection language just indicates a gift rather than a sale, but I agree the language about trouble and obligation goes beyond what would normally be seen in a deed of gift.

If Alice Flint were the only wife of William, then the whole thing makes sense, and 'daughter' has its primary meaning. However, all her children would have an equal obligation to support her, not just Alice, and the litigious sisters would have an interest in the land she was giving away.

If she was Alice Williams, then the date of marriage is unknown though after 1644. The dates of birth of William's children seem to be estimated from their marriage dates and might be a bit earlier, so Alice (Williams) Flint might not be the mother of any of them. In that case none of her step-children would have a direct obligation to support her, or an interest in her estate, and gifting her estate to Alice Pickering for her support would be a way to create an obligation. Again, however, the wording is not quite what might be expected for that.

I agree the one-wife scenario is more likely, but I don't think the alternative can be ruled out. On Robert's probabilities there is up to a 25% chance the deed could mean step-daughter, and there is evidence that gives pause: solid evidence for William's involvement with an Alice who was not his first wife. Misreading the evidence either way can warp the result.

If Alice Williams can be ruled out, there is no alternative candidate, and then the one wife scenario is the only one supported by the evidence.

---

Did a bit of looking for Alice Williams. No records under her name in any volume of Vital Records of Salem (no births, no marriages, no deaths) which isn't surprising for that period.

A few Williams migrants to Salem before 1640 are listed in Great Migration Directory: Ann, Elizabeth, and Eleazer, 1637/1639 passenger lists/church admissions only, nothing further known; George, profiled in GMB:2002-5, no Alice in his family; Roger, profiled in GMB:2007-10, removed to Providence 1636, no Alice in his family; and William Williams, who with his wife Alice and two unnamed children arrived in Salem about 1637 (thus not yet fully profiled in Great Migration; what's known is summarized with sources in a 1987 book). Alice was 38 at time of sailing, placing her birth around 1599—about William Flint's age.

The two Williams children can be identified through later records as sons Abraham and Thomas, meaning there wasn't any younger daughter Alice as of 1637.

This would seem to make Mrs. Alice at least a reasonable candidate for transgressing with William Flint in 1644.

Complicating this hypothesis, Anderson and others believe William Williams removed to Watertown by 1641 or 1642. There's no record of William Williams anywhere in New England after 1643, no record of his death, no probate.

Could William Williams have maintained two households in Salem and Watertown? Or, had he died by 1644? Might his widow have lived with another family in Salem until their sons reached majority? We'd be wildly speculating here.

A 1655 Watertown record stating that Abraham Williams, "his mother, his brother and brother's wife were notified in Watertown, Mass. concerning Swine" would seem to indicate that Alice was living with him, William was not, and no other spouse is indicated. Seems most likely she was widowed and not remarried. In any case, in 1655 she definitely wasn't Alice Flint of Salem.

So if William Flint married Alice Williams soon after 1644, presumably to legitimize their relationship, there would have to have been a different, unrecorded Alice Williams in Salem—he couldn't have married this one.

---

You have two families that overlap in Time in Salem. Both have women named Alice associated with each. One Alice stays put, the other moves with family at An UKNOWN time to Watertown. NOTE: Unless there's specific evidence in the upcoming Williams GM profile (in say 2029) re the dates 1641 or 1642, then Anderson is just guessing about that move. (Yes, Robert C. Anderson guesses -- he usually says "say" or admits he can't solve something and gives a range.)  A RANGE of the Williams' moving really should be 1641-1645, i.e. there's evidence William is in Salem during 1640, then later ("say" 1645 & after) he's in Watertown.  If only Mr. Flint & Mrs. Williams had gotten more frisky, there'd be witnesses & depositions, revealing much more.

Cheryl: I wouuld recommend creating a Pro-Con format under Research Notes for both couples, note the upcoming GM article, and move on.

As to the will, please note that AW is giving AP ONLY her personal estate. The phraseology is a bit more florid than I've seen but its just for the stuff. She might have a little cash out as a loan from her widow's thirds. But LAND? No.The use of word "property" here is just another word for stuff. Real property would have had to have been spelled out: "the Mill and the meadow next to it," for instance.  And then there's the negative evidence re AW not having any land -- the dog in the night that did not bark, i.e. the sisters.

Very likely, the family members had previously agreed among themselves that AP would be Mom's caretaker and would inherit whatever she had at the end. A significant illness must have jolted AW into finally making a written will rather than a nuncupative one. And then she survives more than a few years. (This is similar to the agreement among my mother and her sisters about their Mom after their father, her husband, died in 1944. There was no property at all; they were always renters. So the younger sister with a toddler was designated as the care-taker and did so for another 28 years with the other two sisters kicking in $ every month and doing relief duty. )  

So - Occam's Razor & The Dog That Didn't Bark.

---

1641 is somewhat a guess; it's based on a record at the Boston court in which William Williams is named along with several other Watertown men, which Anderson and others say they presume means he was also of Watertown. 1642, however, isn't a guess at all; William Williams is listed as a proprietor at Watertown at that date, meaning he had removed "by" then, perhaps earlier. His latest records at Salem had been in 1640.

Alice Flint's 1696 document wasn't a will, it was a deed. The quoted portion of the deed is just an excerpt; it goes on for another full page and a half and includes land, along with a statement that Alice Flint was the true owner fully empowered by her late husband William to transact the land (which answers a question I had about her right to do so). It can be read in full at the link in the original post above.

Overall yes, I agree Occam's Razor and Dog That Didn't Bark apply here. I'll try to summarize the points separately in another answer.

---

I hope this didn't come across as argumentative, Andrew. I still think your points are strong and appreciate you holding us to a high standard of research.

In terms of what state we should leave the WikiTree profiles in - do you think there's enough here to justify the suggestions I made (see other Answer to this post), with all the uncertainties noted in Research Notes etc.? Or would you want to see the profiles arranged differently from that?

---

By no means is this argumentative. It is good exploration of the evidence. Alice wife of William Williams seems the only known candidate for the prosecution. Normally a charge of fornication means that the woman is single, with the charge being adultery for a married woman. With no record of William after 1643, Alice could have been a widow at this point and thus subject to a fornication charge. And while William is unlikely to have maintained a household in Salem after moving to Watertown, that does not preclude him and/or his widow retaining interests there. As there is no other Alice Williams documented, I think that is a convincing explanation. The later records of her with her son indicate that she is not the widow of William Flint.

We've also rehearsed the wording and interpretation of Alice Flint's deed, with stronger arguments about the likelihood of a biological relationship.

Overall I think we have probably reached the level of 'reasonable certainty' referred to in the Genealogical Proof Standard. I'd be happy with what you propose in the other answer.

---

A further thought: While I second Andrew's summation, especially "Normally .... to a fornication charge," I am left wondering: Where is the similar charge against William Flint? Sexist as was the whole culture, men were not exempted from fornication charges and punishment, especially with them being seen and his name stated. Just not copied into the record? I can think of no other explanation.

---

I had a look at other fornication sentences in that volume of court records and their seems to be no pattern as to whether one or both of the parties are listed as punished, though more often it is both and the usual evidence is a pregnancy.

---

I recall seeing two different ones (in passing as I was looking at other records) where a newly-married couple was fined specifically for having fornicated prior to marriage; apparently no one was whipped. Marriage date wasn't mentioned in the court record. I wonder if the evidence was a too-quick pregnancy or birth. I also wonder if the punishment was different since those couples had already legitimized their relationship - which I'm just making up, but would support the idea that William and Alice didn't do so.

---

I can't discern anything like this in the Massachusetts records, and my searching for articles about it was fruitless, but in Plymouth Colony the law explicitly had a lower fine if the fornication was after the couple were contracted to marry. In the Massachusetts examples I looked at there are some where the time between marriage and birth is mentioned. If there was a pregnancy, and the couple were not free to marry, the man would have to pay maintenance for the child, so that is clearly not the case for William and Alice.

---

Thank you to Cheryl and Andrew for further searching. I am used to the recording pattern of Bristol County (Mass.)  which always has information on the man if he is named [see Helen Ullman's transcripts of the county's General Sessions records in MQ and her book on same as an AA db]. Andrew's last line just above is the standard Bristol Co. pattern of ajudication.

I have concluded that -- as printed -- the Essex clerk's original record was incomplete in a LOT of instances. As example, the third item below "Alce Williams" is about a jury of inquest on the body of a servant of Ralph Elwood who was found dead. 1st, the servant is not named (???!!), 2nd the names of all 12 jurors, the governor and two magistrates are given in full, but 3rd, the jury's conclusion, re how he dies, is NOT given, which is THE purpose of such a jury!!!!!!  Such reportage patterns repeat throughout the volume.

Perhaps that information is in FILE PAPERS that were not transcribed for this volume. This is MORE likely the case as the next item is the inventory of Margery Walthin which, in the footnote to the docket entry, appears to be given in FULL.  Only by checking with the Essex Institute where the originals are housed can this question be answered. But the over all conclusion is that the ECQ transcription is at least incomplete. NOT flawed, INCOMPLETE.

Another example is the entry for Alice and William; "Alce Williams fined 5li and whipped for fornication with Wm. Flynt. Mr. Downing security." Security means ED has put up $ for bond for good behavior for Some One. Alice? No, she's already been punished. The bond must then be for William's good behavior. Which means William was ADMONISHED by the court, not fined or otherwise punished. [Well, now.]  

Why would ED do this? Ah, see the index and go to page 213 to read "William Flynt v. Edmond Farrington. Review." This entry is footnoted. Copying from the file papers, it summarizes the several depositions there, one of which says "Mathew Farrington and two others with him come to William Flynt's yard at Mr. Dowingne's farm when he lived there...." At the least, William leased from ED. The footnote extends onto p. 214 where we learn that William in turn had his own man to help with the farming.  The 1st deposition is dated "26 [day]. 10 [month]. 1648" & that's the one which uses the phrase "when he lived there." By 26 Dec. 1648 William Flynt was no longer living on ED's farm.

It may be that there is NO further information about Alice & William in the ORIGINAL Essex County files. But we can't conclusively say that, given the voluminous material that fills so many footnotes in this printed version of EQC. Odds are there is stuff there that might answer all of the questions posed above. That possibility has just not been eliminated yet.

I urge Cheryl to contact the EI directly.  We should all do that with source-holding institutions if such questions arise during out researchs. Please let us know what transpires, Cheryl.

P.S. I call this "Interrogating The Document" -- and everything is a document.