Did Henry Ewer (Ewer-1) exist?

Question

I think Ewer-1 and Ewer-92 should be merged based on the following:

 The primary source for Henry Ewer's existence is Otis p. 360, who lists 4 children of PGM parents Thomas  Ewer and Sarah Learned, including a “Henry,” b. Apr 1629, m. Mary __, who married John  Jenkins after “Henry” died in ~1652. Otis does not explain what source he was relying upon.

But the Great Migration profile for Thomas Ewer identifies the son who married Mary (Wallen) Jenkins and died bef. May 1652 as John, not Henry, based on probate records identifying Mary as John’s widow.  The other three children of Thomas Ewer that GM identifies roughly match what Otis says.  GM’s list is based on the Strood parish baptismal records transcribed here. There is no child of Thomas and Sarah Ewer named Henry in those records, which go back to 1589 and include the baptism of Thomas himself in March 1592/3.

I have looked and cannot find any Henry Ewer of an age like what Otis describes in New England.  There is a Henry Ewer who appears in Sandwich in 1638, mentioned in Deyo at p. 266, but he was already married in 1638 when the Henry that Otis describes would have been only 9. There is no GMB or GM profile for a Henry Ewer, so the married adult Henry Ewer who appears in Sandwich in 1638 likely emigrated after 1635; he might even have been the father of Thomas whom Otis says emigrated with Thomas’ two older children in 1638.  He could also have been an uncle, older brother, or cousin; or completely unrelated to Thomas.

Given that everything else Otis claims about the “Henry” Ewer who is profiled in Ewer-1 roughly matches John Ewer (Ewer-92), I think Otis just got the name wrong and these profiles should be merged.  Feedback?   

Answer 1

But, but, but .... A Henry Ewer did exist in Sandwich in 1638. Have we verified that there is already a profile for that person? 

"James Skiffe was ordered to carry out Henry Ewer and his wife and goods to the place from which he brought them. This was in 1638, and Ewer was still here for the meadow issue in 1640 when he was allowed one acre. the minimum, but he did disappear after this from the records." Sandwich, A Cape Cod Town, p. 27.

He is also listed, same book, p. 11, as being among the settlers in Sandwich of 1637-1640. 

So from these mentions (and I'll dig out the sources they cite for them), we do know that a Henry Ewer existed. I would not merge away the son of Thomas, but instead remove him as his son, and work on the sources that show he lived in Sandwich in the late 1630s.

Comments

I've added two mentions of Henry Ewer from the Plymouth court records in the research notes on the profile for Henry Ewer-1. I don't find another profile that represents this man who was "warned out" of Sandwich, yet received a one-acre allotment of land 3 years later. 

I do not agree that the Ewer-1 profile should be merged away.

---

There is a separate profile for a Henry Ewer (Ewer-56) - it is an unsourced profile which is currently attached as the father of Thomas Ewer (i.e., Ewer-1's grandfather), without any documentation for that connection.  Ewer-56 is an old GEDCOM import remnant that was abandoned until I adopted it a few days ago. It actually could be correct that the Henry Ewer in Sandwich in 1638 was the father of Thomas (Ewer-12); Otis says the grandfather of Thomas' children emigrated in 1638, which would fit  However, this is highly speculative.

An alternative to merging John & Henry would be to detach Ewer-1 as a son of Thomas and merge it with Ewer-56 instead, and then identify that Henry Ewer as the one who appears in Sandwich in 1638.

---

I would prefer not to merge Henry into John, since Henry did exist and did live in Plymouth Colony. We just don't know what his relationship was. Ewer-1 should probably stand alone, disconnected from the other Ewer family members. I find it interesting that he was mentioned in connection with James Skiff. That needs to be investigated further. Follow the "10 men of Saugus" and see if they were from the same area previously.

Answer 2

Hi Scott

I agree with you that given the lack of any serious information that names a Henry Ewer and with Anderson saying Mary Wallen Jenkins first husband was John Ewer, and he died young, etc., not Henry, that it is reasonable to merge Henry Ewer's profile into John Ewer's profile here on WikiTree.  

By merging them all information about Henry Ewer is still "saved" in the "changes" log, so, if some day others discover there really was a brother named Henry etc. etc., it can be recovered.

Thank you for notifying the profile managers about this.

Chet Snow-2128

Comments

merge Henry Ewer's profile into John Ewer's profile here on WikiTree.  

answered by Chet Snow

.

Wouldn't that go the other way -- merge John ( Ewer-92 ) into the lower number, ie Henry (Ewer-1 ) -- or so my understanding of merges would say.  As the last name is not in question, the end profile should be Ewer-1.

---

Point well taken and then the first or given name can simply be changed to John - I agree.

---

And all the correct / pertinent information from John should be retained during the merge (or added in afterwards).   First name change is easy, and even that can be done during the actual merge.

Answer 3

OK, thanks all.  I will detach the profile for Henry Ewer (Ewer-1) from his current relationships and edit his bio to conform to what we know about the Henry that appears in Sandwich in 1638.  Still interested in any feedback on whether to merge the free-floating Henry Ewer (Ewer-56 ) --the unsourced & highly speculative but possible father of Thomas (Ewer-12) -- to this Henry (Ewer-1). 

Comments

I've removed Henry Ewer-1 from his mother Sarah as well.

Were you planning to write a Disputed parents section for him (and his parents) and show the previous connections? Thanks in advance for this.

My opinion, and I won't be upset if I'm overruled by others, is that Ewer-56 should probably remain as the father of Thomas Ewer-12. We know that Thomas had a father, perhaps someone will publish more on this family and we can update what is currently an unsourced profile. And if we ever determine that Ewer-1 is actually the father of Thomas, we can merge.

---

Yes, I will add Disputed Parents/Child sections for Ewer-1 and the former parents & will also add appropriate caveats to Thomas (Ewer-12) and Henry (Ewer-56) but leave that father-son relationship in place for now.  Thanks all for the help in cleaning this up.

---

Thanks for all your hard work, Scott!