Legend of Katherine Brent Marsham

Question

For more than 80 years a debate has raged between those who believed Giles Brent and his Indian wife Mary Kittamaquund had three children or six.  One of the disputed children, Katherine Brent, was said to have married Richard Marsham, who is the ancestor of thousands of descendants (including myself), all of whom would love to be descended from a Magna Carta surety and an Indian Princess.  Unfortunately, the facts do not support this;  wills of Giles, his sister Margaret, and his son Giles, Jr, all affirm that there were only three children, not including Katherine.

The most recent expression of this legend is a popular booklet by Lois and Shawn Potter on Princess Kittamaquund's Daughters which attempts to use DNA analysis to prove what written documents do not.  

I have prepared a summary of the facts in a free space profile, http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:The_Legend_of_Katherine_Brent_Marsham .  

I think making the necessary corrections on WikiTree to affirm that Giles and Mary had only three children, and that Richard Marsham's wife Katherine was not one of them, will be unpopular.  Therefore before proceeding, I would appreciate feedback on whether the analysis that is laid out in The Legend of Katherine Brent Marsham is sufficiently persuasive to move forward.  Thanks.

Comments

I'm not sure if I'm proceeding correctly on this site. I am very new here and very much a novice.

I find your analysis very compelling.

I was convinced that Katherine ? was the servant of the Brooke Family, and then today I came across these (undated) notations on the Queen Family that are held in the Brooke-Queen Family collection at Catholic University.

http://cuislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/achc-brooksqueen%3A3198#page/1/mode/1up

which state that Samuel Queen married Katherine, daughter of Giles Brent Sr.

This is obviously wrong.

Samuel Queen married Katherine Marsham, who was the daughter of Richard Marsham and Katherine ?. Why is she identified as the daughter of Giles Brent Sr.? Could Brent have had another daughter other than his children with Mary Kittamaquund?

Are these notations simply wrong? Or has the "controversy" been fueled for a very long time. This undated list of descendants was created sometime after 1913, and has obvious errors (like that Samuel Queen came from England in 1637 and married the daughter of Giles Brent Sr., not mentioning Mary Kittamaquund.

There is a page # listed in the Vickers abridged Compendium of American Genaelogists - Could that shed some light?

Thank you.

---

They might have been thinking that Queen married Marsham's widow.  But of course she never was a widow - Marsham outlived her.

---

Yes. They completely missed the generation of Richard Marsham. There appears to be a very close relationship between the Brooke and the Queen families through the generations, with many of the Queens marrying Brookes.

I am wondering if this Katherine ? might have been related to Henry Brent, the 2nd husband of Anne Calvert. Her 1st husband was Baker Broooke 1, then 2nd husband was Henry Brent, then 3rd husband was Richard Marsham. Marsham's land was adjacent to the Brooke's land. This is the middle of the 1600s. Marsham married a woman - Katherine - who was somehow connected with the Brooke family. Servant, perhaps, who came over from England with the Brookes. But the Brents also were a close family to the Brookes/Calverts. Why and how did Katherine get the name "Brent" associated with her? And from so far back, before there were amateur geneologists wanting to write her into a more prominent family.

---

Our profile says Katherine Marsham married 1 Baker Brooke 2 Samuel Queen.  Was there a Henry Brent in the middle?

If there was, that would explain the origin of the error, because she'd have been called "Katherine Brent" when she married Queen.

---

RJ, it was Anne Calvert-603, step mother of Katherine Marsham, born about 1644,  who first married Baker Brooke, Sr, then married Henry Brent, and then married Richard Marsham.  Anne would have been aged about 51 when she married Richard, who would have been about 57 at the time, so one would not expect to see any children of this marriage.  

To my knowledge, Anne Calvert had children by her first husband Baker Brooke Sr, but not by her second Henry Brent or third husband Richard Marsham.

Katherine Marsham, Marsham--8, daughter of Richard Marsham and his first wife Katherine (probably nee Fisher) became the stepdaughter of Anne Calvert Brooke Brent Marsham, and married Baker Brooke, Jr, son of Anne Calvert's first marriage to Baker Brooke, Sr, and then after his death married Samuel Queen.  Katherine Marsham-8, born in 1669, had children by both Brooke, Jr. and Queen.

---

Very nice work.  Thank you for sharing that.

---

Now my brain hurts

Answer 1

I agree that it's very important to correct these errors. Your write up certainly convinced me!

Answer 2

Jack -

Great summary of the Legends.

Let me just jump right into the deep end.

The Potters analysis leaves me with many questions.

Why would they not mention John Dynel when proposing Legend #2? I didn't see him mentioned in their analysis. Their entries from 1659, 1662, and 1664 in Legend #2... what evidence is there that this Katherine married Richard Marsham?

In Legend #3, why would they suggest a researcher's notes are "on the basis of information gleaned from provincial court records, probate records, and quitrent rolls, identify six children of Mary and Giles, including Katherine Brent (who married Richard Marsham)" when she doesn't cite a source? I think you are correct in challenging this portrayal.

You have highlighted several large issues in their analysis. To omit conflicting information in one case and present an unpublished secondary source as 'gleaned' from primary sources in another, doesn't help their credibility.

So... I'd say even if Legend 2 and 3 are possibly true, they haven't been presented well by the Potters.

Back to Legend #1, your 'expert conclusions' are a strong challenge to the earlier work. Short of finding something in the Maryland Archives, I'm not sure we'll see someone be able to prove this connection.

Answer 3

Very nice work, Jack.  Add some more citations and this is publishable.