Francis Purdy (1587 - bef. 1658) - Straightening out some of the conflict

Question

Francis Purdy (1587-bef.1658) needs some work. He is currently listed as PGM but I can’t find any data to back that up. There are also some problems with his children and his parents. The book Allied families of Purdy, Fauconnier, Archer, Perrin, published in 1911 has been declared a work largely of fiction so won’t be used at all. The problem areas and proposed remedies follow.

Francis’s Birth and Parents

Starting with his birth in 1587 to John Purdy and Alice Tayler, there are problems that show up. The Nutmegger article used to support this just mentions that there was a Francis Purdy born to them and that there was a brother John born shortly before.^[1] It is a one paragraph type of entry that just throws the possibility into the mix offering no evidence other than there is a name that matches and speculating that a 50-sotmthing he wouldn't really be too old.  It gets the mother’s name wrong (it is Avice/Avys not Alice) and birth order. That might just be a typo. 

John Purdy and Avice Tayler married 3 Jan 1582 in Brundall, Norfolk, England.^[2] They had the following children:

• Robert baptised 20 Mar 1584
• Fraunces baptised  20 Apr 1587
• John baptised 1 May 1590, buried 2 Aug 1590

The children’s entries are on the same page as parents marriage and the following page. Avice was buried 8 Oct 1615. John appears to have remarried a month later (29 Nov 1615). These are just a few pages after the first marriage. The family disappears from the records that I can find at this point. There is an “F” Purdy who died in Norwich in 1603.^[3] Norwich is relatively close to Brundall. Probably not Francis but would need to be verified. 

The only thing tying this Francis to the one in the Connecticut Colony is a name. While this might be his birth family, the data doesn’t really fit with other information.

That Mary would marry a gentleman in his 50s as a first wife seems like a stretch. The earlier speculation by FOOF of a Francis born about 1610 in York makes more sense.

I propose that Francis be disconnected from the current parents until there is documentary evidence                .

Francis’s PGM Status

To date, there are no records that place Francis in North America before 1640. The earliest is the estate of his father-in-law of 1645.^[4]  Even assuming that the above Francis married Mary sometime before 1645 (not 1642 as mentioned in the current Profile) she would have been about 16 which is more reasonable age than 13. The argument in Francis’s Profile that he must have been in the Colony at least 4 years wouldn’t make him present before 1640. The 4 years seemed more like a stretch to qualify for PGM. Looking at the records, Mary was not married when her mother settled her deceased husband’s estate in 1641. Jacobus and the FOOF both mention that Francis and Mary were married by 1645. The erroneous 1642 in the profile was used as the basis to claim he had been in the Colony by 1640. Since that argument doesn’t hold,

I propose removing PGM status from Francis until such time as records are found to place him in the Colonies in the appropriate timeframe or a solid Genealogical Proof Statement is presented.

Francis’s Children

I have not been able to find any documentary evidence that a son Thomas or a daughter Elizabeth existed. All records enumerate  John, Francis, Joseph, Mary and Daniel. John gets a double portion of Francis’s estate naming him the eldest. No Thomas or Elizabeth.

I propose detaching those two children unless supporting documentation can be found.

Once these are done, work on the biography can be made.

Sources:

1. Purdy Family Association, “Francis Purdy,” The Connecticut Nutmegger, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 308, (Connecticut Society of Genealogists, Inc, June 1989); American Ancestors, online (https://www.americanancestors.org/databases/connecticut-nutmegger/image?volumeId=11800&pageName=308&rId=134689406 : accessed 8 January 2024).
2. "Norfolk Banns And Marriages," database with images and transcription, (https://www.findmypast.com/transcript?id=GBPRS%2FNORFOLK%2FMAR%2F300200994%2F1 : accessed 9 January 2024), John Purdy marriage to Avice Tayler on 3 Jan 1582 in Brundall, Norfolk, England; citing Archive Norfolk Record Office, Reference PD 453/1.
3. "England Deaths & Burials 1538-1991," database, ([https://www.findmypast.com/transcript?id=R_267225155 FindMyPast Transcription] : accessed 8 January 2024), F Purdy burial on 25 Aug 1603 in Norwich, Norfolk, England.
4. Fairfield, CT: Families of Old Fairfield. (Online database. AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2008.) Originally published as History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield. Compiled and edited by Donald Lines Jacobus. 2 vols. New Haven: The Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor Company, 1930-1932.; pages 107-108; page 495; Referred to as FOOF.

Comments

Hi Doug, I'm just going to address the PGM status.  We've flagged this profile as "PGM Other Head of Household" which means that we are aware that it is not in the Directory.  The plan is to review these profiles as a group and consider in which cases we might be more flexible (i.e. areas where early records are known to not be available, etc), and then make a plan for the best way to handle them.  We appreciate your patience, as we have a couple of other projects we need to finish first.

---

Since there is no objection to removing the parents and the two questionable children, I will do that later today. I'll also add the appropriate Research Note Box and update the profile Research Notes.

Answer 1

Hi Doug, I totally agree with disconnecting the parents and undocumented children.  I did a fair amount of (re)work on this profile and I could find nothing regarding his arrival year.  His probable marriage year, while indirectly documented, is an oddity, as my research note tries to explore.   He should not be PGM until proven otherwise, but you may want to retain some profile protection, given the amount of disinformation for him.  

Gregg

Comments

Thanks you, Gregg. There definitely needs to be retention of the disinformation information. That is important for maintaining the profile. Research Notes would start with clear warning about what should not be updated without solid sources and perhaps a Research Note template like {{Disputed Parents}} to make it obvious that the Research Notes need to be looked at.

---

Just a thought about the "protection" aspect of the changes. He could be made an "adjunct" to PGM in order to keep him from gaining back his disputed connections. 

I'm fully in support of removing the disputed parents (the Disputes RNB is the best solution for documenting this problem), as well as the two unsupported children. Research notes can contain the link to them so that they can be reviewed at a later date should someone find some additional sources. 

---

I would still rather keep this profile under PGM and look at this type of profiles collectively, so we can determine if we want them to be PGM, PGM Adjunct or managed by the respective state projects...or maybe something else entirely.

Answer 2

I agree that there is not enough evidence to claim that "John Purdy and Avice Tayler married 3 Jan 1582 in Brundall," were the parents of Francis Purdy.

The 1642 date is the date of an agreement between Anthony Wilson and Rachel (widow of John Brundish). It is not the date of the document that mentions Mary (Brundish), wife of Francis Purdy. That document does not have a date, but seems to be about 1648? after the death of Rachel (Hubbard) (Brundish) Wilson, since Anthony Wilson is being given a homelot. So that document does not claim that Francis Purdy was married by 1642 to Mary Brundish. Mary may well have been named by her maiden name in the 1642 document, that no longer exists. They were married by 6 January 1644/5 when they witnessed the will of William Frost.

So we do not know that Francis is eligible for PGM, but it's probably ok if he maintains pgm until the project wants to look at all those cases together. If at some future time you think he needs the umbrella of a project, he can be added to Connecticut.

Those two extra children may also be figments or Internet imagination.