| Lucretia (Massie) Johnson resided in the Southern Colonies in North America before 1776. Join: US Southern Colonies Project Discuss: southern_colonies |
This is the profile of Lucretia Massie, purported wife of John Johnson, of the Cedar Creek Monthly Meeting.
Contents |
Lucretia Massie is the purported wife of John Johnson. According to Hinshaw's abstract of the records of the Cedar Creek Monthy Meeting,[1] Ashley Johnson is the son of John Johnson and Lucretia Massie, and Ashley married Martha Wooday on 12 December 1734, in St. Peters Parish, New Kent County, Virginia. See Ashley Johnson & Martha Wooday Record for a discussion of this record.
John Johnson was purportedly married twice:
See Children for a list of John Johnson's children. None of the citations (as of 5 May 2024) for the children list their mother(s).
The Unsourced template has been added to this profile because while there are secondary sources listed, the dispute as to the number and name(s) of John Johnson's wives involves claims as to the accuracy of transcription(s) of primary records into these secondary sources. The primary sources need to be reviewed, cited and discussed. Spratlin-29 17:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
[review below; reformat into paragraphs; add reliable sources]
It should be noted that the Anglican Church tolerated dissidents (Quakers) as long as they continued to pay tithes to the established church. The Quaker records seem to indicate that John and Lucretia's last child was born about 1716. This might imply Lucretia died not long after this date because John had a wife named Elizabeth by 1721. One researcher surmised that John's conversion to Quakerism disrupted his marriage and that Lucretia returned to England but there is no proof of this as of yet. According to deed transcriptions by Weisiger John Johnson had land on both sides of the Chickahominy River. His house was on the New Kent Co. side with another tract on the Henrico Co. side. John Johnson married Elizabeth [before 1 Nov 1736].
The marriage record for Ashley Johnson and Martha Wooday (Woody) does not appear to list parents:
Copied verbatim[5]
by Linda Sparks Starr, April 2005
Those of you familiar with Hinshaw's compilation of the Quaker records know Douglas Summers Brown was given due credit for transcribing many of the Virginia Meetings. She donated all her papers to the Jones Memorial Library in Lynchburg. These are difficult to access (limited research hours, only pencil and paper allowed for note taking, etc.)
About five years ago, Suzanne Johnston approached the library board and then the department in Salt Lake City in charge of microfilming, patiently explaining to each the benefits to everyone if at least some of the Jones library holdings were microfilmed. The short story is they also filmed the papers Juliet Fauntleroy donated to the library. Both are wonderful collections and are now easy to access.
Most of you know the original Quaker records, located at Haverford or Swathmore College in Philadelphia, have been microfilmed. Film of various meetings are available in several places including the LDS Church and Library of Virginia. However, it appears one of the more important to us, Cedar Creek Meeting, is not included in the LDS holdings. We are looking into this, and hopefully it's a simple error of omission when cataloging the films. Cedar Creek records in other repositories appear to be transcriptions or abstracts, and not the originals themselves. Mary Stewart suggests looking closely at the Library of Virginia catalog under "Society of Friends". The Brock Collection lists some Cedar Creek items. She also suggests a little known collection of abstracts by Mary Marshall Brewer: "Quaker Records of Cedar Creek Monthly Meeting, Virginia, 1739-1793." There is also the standard work by J. P. Bell: "Our Quaker Friends of Ye Olden Time" which includes Cedar Creek and South River Meetings.
Most of us have thought Wade Hinshaw's six volume set of Quaker records were true, but frustratingly brief abstracts of the most relevant records from Quaker meetings. Most of us are guilty of using his work in lieu of the microfilmed copies of the records themselves. And for the most part, his work may still be useful. But, I'm sorry to say, we can no longer consider this work totally reliable. I will explain.
Recently a descendant of Benjamin Johnson "of Hanover County" and Mary Moorman, [daughter of Thomas and Rachel (Clark)] who married in 1748 (according to the minutes of the Camp Creek Meeting), had his DNA tested. He did the test, even though everyone was in agreement with Dr. Lorand, Hinshaw's work, etc. that this Benjamin was the son of John and Elizabeth (Massie) Johnson. Much to his amazement, and then dismay as the implications sunk in, his DNA proves this Benjamin is NOT related to John and Elizabeth. He wrote Suzanne Johnston, asking how this could be / what happened? She set to work, going over the transcriptions of Quaker records from microfilm she is working on, then turned to the Brown papers when she couldn't find this Benjamin in meeting records prior to his marriage.
Quoting Suzanne: I was very surprised to find that as she [Ms. Brown] went through the original records, she was working from charts which had been prepared by Lorand Johnson. Her marginal notes referred several times to Chart #1, Chart #5 etc. There were also notes along the way from Hinshaw, where he had directed her to a specific family chart when she raised questions about who is this?
Think about that a moment. Ms. Brown is transcribing records, while at the same time, referring to family relation charts made by Dr. Lorand Johnson. I'm sure some of you are wondering what the big deal is? Well, the deal is, the true transcription of the Quaker meeting records was altered to fit the theories of Lorand Johnson. We had already discovered Hinshaw records the name of John Johnson's wife as "Lucretia", while the original entries show her name to be "Elizabeth". "Lucretia" as John Johnson's wife makes a better case for a connection to Lord Shaftsbury than does "Elizabeth". How many other alterations are there? We know about one, but there is a strong probability there were many other "corrections" made along the way. And possibly other families (Clark, Moorman) are involved too. The bottom line is, IF your lineage is based on Hinshaw's records, you need to verify each and every generation against the original microfilm copies. At least this no longer involves a research trip to Philadelphia.
While we are discussing the John and "Elizabeth" (Massie) Johnson line, I should add John's brother Benjamin (who married Margery Massie) is NOT the Benjamin, son of Edward, born 1702. Benjamin and Margery had too many children before his death for him to be born in 1702; also he was doing things in the Quaker records only an older man would be entrusted with doing.
See also:
This week's featured connections are Redheads: Lucretia is 11 degrees from Catherine of Aragón, 15 degrees from Clara Bow, 24 degrees from Julia Gillard, 10 degrees from Nancy Hart, 12 degrees from Rutherford Hayes, 14 degrees from Rita Hayworth, 17 degrees from Leonard Kelly, 18 degrees from Rose Leslie, 16 degrees from Damian Lewis, 15 degrees from Maureen O'Hara, 22 degrees from Jopie Schaft and 28 degrees from Eirik Thorvaldsson on our single family tree. Login to see how you relate to 33 million family members.
M > Massie | J > Johnson > Lucretia (Massie) Johnson
Categories: Unsourced Profiles | US Southern Colonies, Unsourced Profiles | Virginia, Unsourced Profiles | Virginia Colonists
Thank you for your reply. Elizabeth Massie does exist, but not the name Lucretia. There is another opinion with out documented proof about this posted by a member.
However, it was Hinshaw + Dr. Lorand Johnson who made this error. See the article by Linda Sparks Starr and another further down by Suzanne Johnston. There never was a person named Lucretia Massie, only her name was Elizabeth, and there is nno ORIGINAL document with a name Lucretia for the wife of John Johnson.
People have proliferated this error.
See article: Any other thoughts? Caroline Reid
Problems with Hinshaw
by Linda Sparks Starr April 2005
Those of you familiar with Hinshaw's compilation of the Quaker records know Douglas Summers Brown was given due credit for transcribing many of the Virginia Meetings. She donated all her papers to the Jones Memorial Library in Lynchburg. These are difficult to access (limited research hours, only pencil and paper allowed for note taking, etc.)
About five years ago, Suzanne Johnston approached the library board and then the department in Salt Lake City in charge of microfilming, patiently explaining to each the benefits to everyone if at least some of the Jones library holdings were microfilmed. The short story is they also filmed the papers Juliet Fauntleroy donated to the library. Both are wonderful collections and are now easy to access.
Most of you know the original Quaker records, located at Haverford or Swathmore College in Philadelphia, have been microfilmed. Film of various meetings are available in several places including the LDS Church and Library of Virginia. However, it appears one of the more important to us, Cedar Creek Meeting, is not included in the LDS holdings. We are looking into this, and hopefully it's a simple error of omission when cataloging the films. Cedar Creek records in other repositories appear to be transcriptions or abstracts, and not the originals themselves. Mary Stewart suggests looking closely at the Library of Virginia catalog under "Society of Friends". The Brock Collection lists some Cedar Creek items. She also suggests a little known collection of abstracts by Mary Marshall Brewer: "Quaker Records of Cedar Creek Monthly Meeting, Virginia,
1739-1793." There is also the standard work by J. P. Bell: "Our Quaker Friends of Ye Olden Time" which includes Cedar Creek and South River Meetings.
Most of us have thought Wade Hinshaw's six volume set of Quaker records were true, but frustratingly brief abstracts of the most relevant records from Quaker meetings. Most of us are guilty of using his work in lieu of the microfilmed copies of the records themselves. And for the most part, his work may still be useful. But, I'm sorry to say, we can no longer consider this work totally reliable. I will explain.
Recently a descendant of Benjamin Johnson "of Hanover County" and Mary Moorman, [daughter of Thomas and Rachel (Clark)] who married in 1748 (according to the minutes of the Camp Creek Meeting), had his DNA tested. He did the test, even though everyone was in agreement with Dr. Lorand, Hinshaw's work, etc. that this Benjamin was the son of John and Elizabeth (Massie) Johnson. Much to his amazement, and then dismay as the implications sunk in, his DNA proves this Benjamin is NOT related to John and Elizabeth. He wrote Suzanne Johnston, asking how this could be / what happened? She set to work, going over the transcriptions of Quaker records from microfilm she is working on, then turned to the Brown papers when she couldn't find this Benjamin in meeting records prior to his marriage.
Quoting Suzanne: I was very surprised to find that as she [Ms. Brown] went through the original records, she was working from charts which had been prepared by Lorand Johnson. Her marginal notes referred several times to Chart #1, Chart #5 etc. There were also notes along the way from Hinshaw, where he had directed her to a specific family chart when she raised questions about who is this?
Think about that a moment. Ms. Brown is transcribing records, while at the same time, referring to family relation charts made by Dr. Lorand Johnson. I'm sure some of you are wondering what the big deal is? Well, the deal is, the true transcription of the Quaker meeting records was altered to fit the theories of Lorand Johnson. We had already discovered Hinshaw records the name of John Johnson's wife as "Lucretia", while the original entries show her name to be "Elizabeth". "Lucretia" as John Johnson's wife makes a better case for a connection to Lord Shaftsbury than does "Elizabeth". How many other alterations are there? We know about one, but there is a strong probability there were many other "corrections" made along the way. And possibly other families (Clark, Moorman) are involved too. The bottom line is, IF your lineage is based on Hinshaw's records, you need to verify each and every generation against the original microfilm copies. At least this no longer involves a research trip to Philadelphia.
While we are discussing the John and "Elizabeth" (Massie) Johnson line, I should add John's brother Benjamin (who married Margery Massie) is NOT the Benjamin, son of Edward, born 1702. Benjamin and Margery had too many children before his death for him to be born in 1702; also he was doing things in the Quaker records only an older man would be entrusted with doing.
What Suzanne learned is a clear warning for all of us to heed one of the basic rules of genealogy: ALWAYS go to the original source. Now a big thanks to Mary Stewart for providing the website listing the current Standards For Sound Genealogical Research, as recommended by the National Genealogical Society:
http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/comstandsound.htm
In my opinion these should be taped to every genealogist's filing cabinet:
"Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently-
a.. record the source for each item of information they collect.
b.. test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and reject those that are not supported by the evidence.
c.. seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions.
d.. use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or
electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original
records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them.
e.. state something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others.
f.. limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for concluding that it is probable or possible.
g.. avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information.
h.. state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers' work.
i.. recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making their work available to others through publication, or by placing copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming critical comment.
j.. consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on their work and the conclusions they have reached.
(c) 1997, 2002 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its entirety, including this notice."
edited by Kenneth Milton Spratlin (1962-2024)
"I was very fortunate in the very beginning in that Mr. Thomas W. Marshall of Washington, DC volunteered to help me...he has aided me in so many ways and always with devotion to truth...always on the look-out for errors, omissions, etc.,...The extracting of the data from the original books of the meetings." He goes on to thank many other people, all of them from professional backgrounds. Now, are the vols perfect? Of course not. There are some dating errors. But this does not warrant the charge of "unreliable". I have never seen a book perfection. As I noted the work was never completed. The entire collection of -thousands- of type-written index cards is at Swarthmore College, PA. At last report the card file covers a 20-foot long wall. Microfilm first came out as a novelty in banks in the 1920's. It did not start appearing in libraries until the late 1950's when Hinshaw had been dead some 10 years. In Hinshaw Vol. VI, p. 251, it has Ashley Johnson married Martha Wooday Oct. 12, or 10 Dec. ? 1734 of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent Co. VA. The same entry gives Ashley's parents as John Johnson & Lucretia Massie. Ashley was a younger child. Both of his parents were already dead before 1734. The marriage was recorded in the Cedar Creek MM. A Suzanne Johnson found on microfilm that John Johnson had a wife Elizabeth by 1721 in the Henrico MM. Ms. Johnson's husband's ancestor Joe W. Johnson kept a book that was passed down on the family tree dating from c1882. She only found the name Elizabeth. It could be family Lore only remembered the later wife trying to recall events of 165 years before. As David Douglas pointed out "Lucretia" is an uncommon name. No one will accidentally write down that name. It's also interesting to note that John Johnson, Sr. apparently never named -any- daughter Elizabeth or Lucretia after the mother (unless they died young). John's girls were Agnes, Massie & Margery. There is evidence that John & Elizabeth moved to St. Paul's Parish in Hanover Co. VA. (Chamberlayne). Procession records imply John Johnson, Sr. was dead by 1731 at St. Paul's. "Widow Johnson" (I think Elizabeth) had died by c1751 inferring she was a younger 2nd wife of John, Sr. John Johnson, Jr. had moved to Amelia Co. VA. and likely would not have left his bio mother but may have moved away from a step mother (Elizabeth). The Amelia Co. deeds style John Johnson, Jr. as of St. Paul's Parish Hanover Co. VA. His wife was also Elizabeth (Ellyson) so a source of confusion at times. The only way to stump the two wives position is to prove that John was married to Elizabeth early, as in c1714. This has not been established. A brief comment on DNA. It was stated that John Johnson & Benj. Johnson were not kin because some descendants from both lines did not match. That is not necessarily proof they were not related. There could have been a break in a -later- generation, adoption or marital infidelity which had no bearing on John's link to Benj., called a "Non-Paternal Event" (NPE). So, all this being said, I would like to edit the profiles showing that John Johnson was twice wed, first to Lucretia, second to Elizabeth.
"John and Lucretia Johnson appear in the St. Peter's Parish Register at the beginning. For a time, they appear in both the St. Peter's Parish Register and the Quaker records, and then they just appear in the Quaker records."
Please read what I wrote more carefully. Note the full text of what I wrote: (FROM MY PREVIOUS EMAIL OF MAY 24,2022 IN WHICH I PASTED THE TEXT OF SUZANNE JOHNSON'S "NEW FINDINGS IN JOHNSON FAMILY RESEARCH BY SUZANNE JOHNSON. Re-read: "See research below: New Findings In Johnson Family Research By Suzanne Johnston [email address removed] May 2002
My husband's great grandfather Joseph Watkins Johnson kept a book, in which in the year 1882, he wrote the names of all his known ancestors. I have looked at this book many times, but several years ago I looked carefully at the book in an attempt to get some inspiration for the brick walls we had been facing in our research.
What I found in his writings was unexpected. I was unable to find the name Lucretia Massie Johnson in the book as I had expected, but I did find the name Elizabeth Massie Johnson. This surprised me. My goal in the last several years has been to find an original source of information that would tell us what her name was. I have also been searching for some verification about the time that the Johnson's became Quakers, since they do appear early on in the St. Peter's Parish records.
I recently learned from Swarthmore College, that the records of some of the Virginia meetings had been microfilmed many years ago and were available at local Family History Centers. So, after a search, I ordered into our local FHC film #0031762, the Henrico County, Virginia Friends Records 1699-1757. .......................ETC."
I have no confusion about John Johnson who married Elizabeth Massie (daughter Massie Johnson 1704-1750 married Joseph Crew 1698-1759, my ancestors) and his son John Johnson 1702-1783 who married Elizabeth Ellyson 1700-1783 and had a daughter Massie Johnson 1736-1798.
I do not know if you me me by saying that there is Ms. Reid's husbands documents". These documents are from professional, well-known genealogists Linda Sparks Starr and Suzanne Johnson and have nothing to do with me nor my first husband who was Jewish. Caroline Reid
deleted by Dennis Stewart
_______________________________________________________ I will paste here a quote from the document mentioned: _________________________Problems with Hinshaw by Linda Sparks Starr April 2005 " Most of us have thought Wade Hinshaw's six volume set of Quaker records were true, but frustratingly brief abstracts of the most relevant records from Quaker meetings. Most of us are guilty of using his work in lieu of the microfilmed copies of the records themselves. And for the most part, his work may still be useful. But, I'm sorry to say, we can no longer consider this work totally reliable. I will explain. ____ Recently a descendant of Benjamin Johnson "of Hanover County" and Mary Moorman, [daughter of Thomas and Rachel (Clark)] who married in 1748 (according to the minutes of the Camp Creek Meeting), had his DNA tested. He did the test, even though everyone was in agreement with Dr. Lorand, Hinshaw's work, etc. that this Benjamin was the son of John and Elizabeth (Massie) Johnson. Much to his amazement, and then dismay as the implications sunk in, his DNA proves this Benjamin is NOT related to John and Elizabeth. He wrote Suzanne Johnston, asking how this could be / what happened? She set to work, going over the transcriptions of Quaker records from microfilm she is working on, then turned to the Brown papers when she couldn't find this Benjamin in meeting records prior to his marriage. ____ I was very surprised to find that as she [Ms. Brown] went through the original records, she was working from charts which had been prepared by Lorand Johnson. Her marginal notes referred several times to Chart #1, Chart #5 etc. There were also notes along the way from Hinshaw, where he had directed her to a specific family chart when she raised questions about who is this? ____ Think about that a moment. Ms. Brown is transcribing records, while at the same time, referring to family relation charts made by Dr. Lorand Johnson. I'm sure some of you are wondering what the big deal is? Well, the deal is, the true transcription of the Quaker meeting records was altered to fit the theories of Lorand Johnson. We had already discovered Hinshaw records the name of John Johnson's wife as "Lucretia", while the original entries show her name to be "Elizabeth". "Lucretia" as John Johnson's wife makes a better case for a connection to Lord Shaftsbury than does "Elizabeth". How many other alterations are there? We know about one, but there is a strong probability there were many other "corrections" made along the way. And possibly other families (Clark, Moorman) are involved too. The bottom line is, IF your lineage is based on Hinshaw's records, you need to verify each and every generation against the original microfilm copies. At least this no longer involves a research trip to Philadelphia. While we are discussing the John and "Elizabeth" (Massie) Johnson line, I should add John's brother Benjamin (who married Margery Massie) is NOT the Benjamin, son of Edward, born 1702. Benjamin and Margery had too many children before his death for him to be born in 1702; also he was doing things in the Quaker records only an older man would be entrusted with doing. ____ Quoting Suzanne (Johnson): What Suzanne learned is a clear warning for all of us to heed one of the basic rules of genealogy: ALWAYS go to the original source. Now a big thanks to Mary Stewart for providing the website listing the current Standards For Sound Genealogical Research, as recommended by the National Genealogical Society: http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/comstandsound.htm." GO TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE_____________________________________________________ In addition, Dennis: You have added sources ahead of mine which makes the the sources numbers for my documents incorrect. there were 3,4,5, but now are 13, 14, 15. Please correct. Thank you, Caroline Reid
edited by Caroline Reid
See NewFindings on this website for research mentioned by Suzanne Johnston.
See research below: New Findings In Johnson Family Research By Suzanne Johnston [email address removed] May 2002
My husband's great grandfather Joseph Watkins Johnson kept a book, in which in the year 1882, he wrote the names of all his known ancestors. I have looked at this book many times, but several years ago I looked carefully at the book in an attempt to get some inspiration for the brick walls we had been facing in our research.
What I found in his writings was unexpected. I was unable to find the name Lucretia Massie Johnson in the book as I had expected, but I did find the name Elizabeth Massie Johnson. This surprised me. My goal in the last several years has been to find an original source of information that would tell us what her name was. I have also been searching for some verification about the time that the Johnson's became Quakers, since they do appear early on in the St. Peter's Parish records.
I recently learned from Swarthmore College, that the records of some of the Virginia meetings had been microfilmed many years ago and were available at local Family History Centers. So, after a search, I ordered into our local FHC film #0031762, the Henrico County, Virginia Friends Records 1699-1757.
The records of Henrico MM were abstracted by Hinshaw, but I was interested in what the original records said. The Henrico meeting was a monthly meeting for business that had jurisdiction over the meetings held at Curles, New Kent and James Howard's. These were the meetings that existed at the time.
According to Swarthmore College, "Non-Quakers attended and signed Quaker marriage certificates - marriage took place within the context of a meeting for worship, generally at the bride's meeting house; usually close family members signed the certificate directly below the bride and groom."
So, I began to go through the Henrico MM records, in search of Johnson's. The first Johnson I located was Michal and Sarah Jonson who witnessed the marriage of Thomas Lankford and Martha West. Since they did not appear again in the records for many many years, I assume that they were non-Quakers who attended the wedding.
In a meeting held the 6th day of ye 1st mo 1719, the minutes say, "This meeting thinks proper to appoynt John Jonson overseer for the Swamp Meeting and for Curles Meeting they appoynt Robert Hunnicutt and for Curles Meeting in the home of Nicholas Hutchins.
At a meeting held the 2nd day of the 2nd mo 1720 Andrew Crew and Hanah Elyson announced their intentions of marriage and Benjamin Jonson and Wm Lead were appointed to attend the marig. Benjamin Jonson signed as a witness to the marriage.
On the 11th day of 1 mo 1720 John Jonson was appointed Oversear for the meeting at the Swamp.
In a meeting held the 6th day of 11th mo 1721, James Magehay and Rebeckah Prist did propose their intentions of taking each other in marig. The meeting appoints Margaray Johnson and Elizabeth Johnson to inquire into the young woman's orderly walking among friends as also in that of her clearness in relation to marig with any other. At the same meeting, John Johnson & Benja Johnson are appoynted to inspect into the young man's clearness in relation of marig with any other as also his being in unity with friends.
At a meeting held the 8th day of the 9th mo 1721, John Johnson and Benja Johnson reported that they had inquired into the young man's clearness, which was satisfactory. In the same meeting Elizabeth Johnson and Margary Jonson who had been apoynted to inquired into the young woman's clearness and not being there, their husbands also named did in their behalf give a satisfactory out coming her. John Johnson and Garret Robt Elyson were apoynted to attend the marige. The marriage took place on the 9th day of the 10th mo 1721 and signing as witnesses were John Johnson, Agnes Jonson and Margery Johnson
At a meeting held on the 3rd of 6th mo following, Samuel Magahe and Mary Lead published their intentions of marig and John and Benjamin Johnson were apoynted to make inquiries into the clearness and conversation of the young man in relation to marig with another. They reported their findings ye 7th day of ye 2 mo 1722, that the young man's clearness was satisfactory.
In a meeting held the 8th of 2 mo 1722, Wm Elyson son of G. Robt Elyson and Agnis Johnson daughter of John Johnson did at this meeting publish their intentions of taking each other in marig. Wm Lead and Robt Crew were apoynted to inspect into the clearness of the young man in relation to marig with any other and help as to his life and conversation. Mary Magahe and Margery Johnson were apoynted on behalf of the young woman as like.
The minutes go on recounting until 1757 the Henrico Monthly Meeting, and the activities of the Johnson family among others. Going back over what we have found, however, has revealed some very important things, that will change our Johnson researching. Two astounding new facts are now known, which are:
1. It is unlikely that any of the Johnson's were Quakers before about 1719 when John and Benjamin were first mentioned in the Henrico MM business, as it included all of the Quaker meetings in the area. Had they been members, they would surely have been mentioned as others were.
2. The name of John Johnson's wife was not Lucretia Massie as it was said to be, but her name was Elizabeth, and from what I read in the book of my husband's great grandfather, her name was Elizabeth Massie. She has been mistakenly called Lucretia, probably in confusion or attempting to make some sense of the Ashley Cooper story. Never in the Henrico MM minutes is a Lucretia mentioned. but it is clear from the Henrico records that John and Elizabeth Johnson were husband and wife, and Benjamin and Margery Johnson were husband and wife.
In addition, reading through the minutes gives one the distinct impression that John and Benjamin Johnson are very closely related since their names are often contained in the same sentence, with activities in which they are engaged. Likewise, their families are often witnesses at each others weddings etc. The results suggest to me that Benjamin Johnson who married Margery Massie is not the same Benjamin born to Edward Johnson in 1702. The DNA tests also agree with this, showing a close relationship between the line of John and Benjamin.
And finally, there appears to be no evidence that Edward Johnson or William Johnson and his wife Sarah Massie were ever Quakers. William and Sarah Massie Johnson had both died by the time the Johnson name appears in any records, and the first of their children to appear in the Henrico MM is Cecelia at her marriage. Edward's family is absent from the records for many years after that.
In closing, let me say that any research we do in the future, must include our looking carefully into the original Quaker records. They contain much more information about the family than the Hinshaw abstractions do. In fact, I don't know why we haven't known about the original records, but now that we do, perhaps we can make some progress.
The First Earl of Shaftsbury, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, started his tirade of denial of complicity...when a reported servant in his parent's estate came up pregnant. This servant delivered a set of twin girls, Lucretia and Penelope.
As non-inheriting children...their legal name was probably COOPER, as only the inheritor of the Titles and Lands.... actually carries the full ASHLEY-COOPER name. Without both surnames...the Scottish estates of Ann Ashley would have gone to another of her line long ago. For the purposes of genealogy...I do list Penelope and Lucretia as....Ashley-Cooper and not Cooper.
There are reports of a Church record...when the girls were baptized...that lists the mother as (unnamed) MASSIE, daughter of Thomas Andrew MASSIE of Edinburgh Scotland, and the father as Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftsbury. I have a transcription of the Church record...but I no longer have the name of the Church in question.
Anthony Ashley-Cooper....went to his grave....still denying his involvement with the mother of these twins.
Several years ago, in about 1998, I wrote to the current Earl of Shaftsbury...holder of the Titles and Lands....and asked the question that has come down to me...as a descendant of Peter Massie and Penelope Ashley-Cooper.
Lucretia is reported to have married Peter's brother....and I believe that his name was John MASSIE (MASSEY).
These twins, Lucretia and Penelope, are the supposed illigitimate first born children of Anthony Ashley-Cooper.
My question was simple. Was Anthony Ashley-Cooper...actually the father of Lucretia and Penelope??
The reply was.....again, an echo of Anthony Ashley-Cooper's own denial.
Alas...both twins are long gone, and even DNA won't be able to sort out truth from...the continuing denial.
That being said, experts on this line feel strongly that the continued search is justified and worth their time. This relationship will be maintained while we search.