The Daughters of Roger Porter (PGM)

Question

Sometime ago there was a G2G thread suggesting identities of the daughters of Roger Porter, a PGM immigrant who arrived in 1638 on the ship Confidence with his 4 daughters, Joan, Rose, Mary, and Susanna. His profile was added to PGM, but I don't think anyone followed up on the daughters. After discovering that one of the possible daughter is my direct ancestor I spent some time tonight doing my best to decipher the estate settlement for Roger Porter. From what I can see, besides the widow, five men made claims on the Porter estate, Daniel Smith, Thomas Doggett, John Waterbury, Nathan Fiske, and John Dunham. Daniel Smith (Smith-2914) is known to have married Roger Porter's step daughter, Elizabeth Rogers. The other four men are all married to women of unknown origin with names that match the daughters of Roger Porter listed on the Manifest for the ship Confience. Thomas Doggett (Doggett-444) married in 1654 a woman named Joan (Unknown-326157), John Waterbury (Waterbury-109) married a woman named Rose (Unknown-334672). Nathan Fiske (Fiske-253) married a woman named Susanna (Browne-629) [no evidence for the last name of Browne]. John Dunham (Dunham-463) married a woman named Mary (Unknown-485634).

Based on the estate record and the fact that their names match Roger Porter's known daughters, I am pretty well convinced that those four women are the daughters of Roger Porter and should have their LNAB changed to Porter and be connected. However, these are under the PGM and will affect a large number of trees so I am posting this to reach out to the PGM project to see if this change will be allowed. I added this theory as a research not to Roger Porter's profile, but have not changed any of the potential daughter's profiles.

Comments

That looks pretty convincing to me.

---

Looking at Torrey, he makes no claim for the spouse names of Doggett & Dunham he speculates that Waterbury's spouse Rose was Taylor or Lockwood (I haven't gone through Torrey's original sources) and he doesn't seem to have an entry for this Nathan Fiske.  Have you had a chance to look deeper into Waterbury?  His profile mentions a testimony by Waterbury that seems to indicate a more possible Taylor parentage for Rose based on location of the death of her parents (or adoptive parents?) of Stamford vs. Waterbury where Roger Porter & Grace Ravens died.  That's the only real fly in the ointment I see initially with your recommendations and it's definitely speculative, not proven.

---

Thanks for checking! I just spent some time looking into John Waterbury and I am pretty sure that the confusion is caused by the fact that Gregory Taylor was his step father and at that time the word "in-law" was also used to notate step relationships, in addition to actual "in-law" relationships like we use it today. In his disposition John states that his "his father in law and mother are both dead lately at Stamford,". I think he is refering to Alice Taylor as his mother, and Gregory Taylor as his father in law (really his step father). His role in Gregory Taylor's estate can also be explained by the step parent relationship.

---

Janelle, please make this easier for me (Carol) to understand. You are suggesting that there are four women who are likely daughter of Roger Porter, correct?

But these daughters might be married and have different surnames, right?

Please just send me the four WT profiles for the husbands of EACH of the daughters (Joane, Susan, Mary and Rose) so I can take a look at them. When you write about John Waterbury and Gregory Taylor, it just confuses me. Again, just send me the WT profiles for the women (or to whom they are related. Thank you!

Sorry, I should have responded to your post to my Answer below. I'm doing some major Wiki clean up and trying to check on and off before we have another major rainstorm and I lose connectivity like I did last night!

---

Carol,

In the orginal post I listed all the possible daughters and their spouses. I will repeat the information below. My reply about Gregory Taylor and John Waterbury was specifically a reply to Brad's question above.

Thomas Doggett (Doggett-444) and Joan (Unknown-326157), John Waterbury (Waterbury-109) and Rose (Unknown-334672). Nathan Fiske (Fiske-253) and Susanna (Browne-629) [no evidence for the last name of Browne]. John Dunham (Dunham-463) and Mary (Unknown-485634).

Thanks for your help!

---

Janelle, thanks for the work you've done.  I've asked PGM leadership to review this and recommended that we un-PPP the three daughters that are PGM-managed, change their name and link them to Porter

Answer 1

I am responding to the request that the daughters of Roger Porter be made PGM. I did not see any daughters or children listed for Roger Porter when I just looked 5 minutes ago, so I am assuming that whichever children were connected are no longer connected. I checked the source  NEHGR Vol 14 p334 American Ancestors Link. I am writing directly from this source:

..."The list of the Names of the Passeng(re suprascript) Intended for New England in the good shipp the Conficence of London of C C. tonnes, John Jobson, Mr And thus by vertue of the lord Treas(re suprascript) warr(t suprascript) of the xj(th suprascript) of Aprill, 1638. Southampton, 24 Aprill, 1638." List includes:

Roger Porter of Long Sutton in the County of South- [sic] Husbandman 55 (years of age) and }his daughters

Joane Porter, Susan Porter, Mary Porter, Rose Porter

Given this information and the citation, I would suggest adding these for daughters as children of Roger Porter and the unknown spouse and making the daughters PGM with the LNAB Porter using the NEHGR reference listed above. Once this is done, then searching for more information on the daughters and any spouses can then be undertaken. 

Please advise if you want me to add these daughters with the reference as indicated. Thank you!

Comments

Thanks for your reply! There have never been children connected to Roger Porter. My request was for the PGM project to look into the possibility that four women with existing profiles might be the four known daughters of Roger Porter based on the primary sources I have added to Roger Porter's profile. If the project's process for doing that involves adding the Porter profiles first that's fine, but I think they are likely duplicates of the existing unknown profiles.

---

I concur with Janelle; we should not be making new profiles; instead we should be looking at the existing profiles and see if they are indeed daughters of Roger Porter.

---

@Jillaine @Janelle

I am not disagreeing with Janelle, I could not figure out what went with which daughter, or if there was confusions about daughters, etc. With Janelle's latest email, I now understand that all four daughters appear to be listed as 'Unknown' when they should be listed with LNAB 'Porter'. Now I understand the situation.

So the next step, correct me if I am wrong, Jillaine, would be for Janelle, IF she is the PM for these four women, to change their LNAB from Unknown to Porter and connect them to their father Roger Porter so that they can then be listed as PGM with the above NEHGS source.

If Janelle is NOT the PM for these four women, then she needs to contact the PM for each of the daughters, explain their relationship to father, Roger Porter, and request that the PM(s) change the LNAB from Unknown to Porter so that each Porter daughter can then be PGM.

PLUS make sure that Joane, Susan, Mary and Rose married to these various men are, indeed, the daughters of Roger Porter.

Thank you for the clarification.

---

Carol,

Out of the four daughters I am proposing, three of them are already managed by the PGM project and are project protected. I thought the purposed of projects on wikitree was so that big changes like this could be discussed and verified by the project rather than just worked out between PMs.

Joan (Unknown-326157), Rose (Unknown-334672), and Mary (Unknown-485634)

---

I will start the process you suggest on the Susanna Fiske profile since she is not currently project protected.

---

Janelle, you're doing the right thing for project-protected profiles by bringing your suggestions, theory and evidence here. If you haven't already, you might also want to post a link to this g2g thread from each of the daughter's profiles.

Brad Stauf may very well be representing the PGM project on this thread.

Answer 2

I worked on the transcription some for you. (didn't finish, I got tired of looking at old script.) But I agree that this looks pretty convincing. The unknown women's estimated births are all reasonably close to each other, and several of the husbands have connections to Watertown. I'm a manager on the Dunham wife's profile, so can make changes.

Comments

thanks so much for the transcription help! I am not very good with old script.

---

@Anne B  @ Janelle Thanks for your help! Always appreciated. Both of you please let me know if I can help in some way. Please know that I am working the Thon, though, and won't be available until Monday. I can help some with reading old script.

---

Carol,

Thanks! If you get a chance feel free to look over the transcription on Roger Porter's page. Anne improve it a lot, but I think it could still use some more help.

Answer 3

Congratulations Janelle on solving the parentage of 4 different unknowns. I would say the evidence is conclusive and we need to move forward with making the connections and correcting the biographies.

Answer 4

The three daughters who are already managed by PGM have now been connected to their father. For the fourth daughter, it would probably be best to collaborate with the current PM before making the change. If the PM is not responsive, please let me know and PGM will assist.

Jen, PGM leader

Comments

Thank you! I have added the last daughter as well since the PM added me to the trusted list.