Lucretia (Massie) Johnson (abt. 1683 - aft. 1716)

PS The Encyclopedia of Quaker Genealogy by Hinshaw is not a primary source.

Hi Ken,

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."

If genealogies report John's wife was named Lucretia, and it is believed this person did not exist, then it should become Uncertain Existence, and then later Disproven Existence if proven to not exist. The identity of this profile should not be changed to that of a different person (Elizabeth). There seems to be disagreement on whether this person existed, and whether this person married John Johnson. That needs to be discussed first.

Is there a primary, original source for the first name Lucretia? John's profile says "The first wife was Lucretia Massie according to the Cedar Creek MM as found in vol. VI, p. 251 of the "Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy", by Hinshaw." Is the Cedar Creek MM available?

There has been controversy regarding the given name of John Johnson's wife--Lucretia or Elizabeth. I think they are both right. I think he was married twice, 1st to Lucretia Massie 2nd to Elizabeth unknown. But before I explain I would like to say some words in defense of Wade Hinshaw. In more recent times some have considered his work as "unreliable" and some have even gone so far as to question his integrity by implying he falsified records. Yet no one has produced any solid evidence for this charge beyond careless speculation. It originated when a researcher could not find a certain source and so assumed error. This is not the case. Though Hinshaw is presented as the "main" author it was actually a whole team of people that were assembled for the massive undertaking. 6 volumes were completed under the title, "Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy". However, the project was never completed. They started in 1923 and when Hinshaw died in 1947 the work was still on-going. Read the following what Hinshaw himself wrote in the Forward of Vol. I,

"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.

Quaker record on LDS Microfilm has her as still alive in 1721.

The death date data field and biography list 11 Nov 1711, and cite Find a Grave. Find a Grave however lists 23 Nov 1716. Should the date be changed, or the citation removed? Is there another source for her death date?

Sorry for my misunderstanding. It was Suzanne Johnston whose had the old family history text. The following is a quote from Suzanne Johnston, dated Oct. 1998, title, "Johns(T)on Clarification",

"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."

I have thoroughly read the St. Peter's vestry register by Chamberlayne.

I suggest that you read the originals of St. Peter's Parish and the Quaker documents yourself rather than try to defend Hinshaw and Lorand Johnson. That way you can answer your questions.

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."

You are entitled to your opinion about Hinshaw and Lorand Johnson, but it must be backed up by original data.

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

Hinshaw's Quaker transcriptions are not perfect but can be generally trusted.

Massee-17 and Massie-73 appear to represent the same person because: dups with same husband and same 2 sons. Final maiden surname should be spelled the same as her father.

HINSHAW IS VERY SUSPECT. i WONDER IF WE SHOULD TAKE IT OFF AS A SOURCE OR MARK WITH A CAVEAT?

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~lksstarr/html/johnson.html

See NewFindings on this website for research mentioned by Suzanne Johnston.

Please note there is NO name of Lucretia for Elizabeth Massie. I propose to delete the name Lucretia. It is Elizabeth.

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.

Massie-720 and Massie-73 appear to represent the same person because: based on the biography on -720, these are intended to be the same person. The mother is actually Unknown if you read through the biographies. Her father is the same, but, his wife is still a mystery.

What new evidence has been discovered to substantiate that Penelope ever existed, not to mention sources that verify she is the mother of Lucretia?

Massie-461 and Massie-73 appear to represent the same person because: Same given name, same LNAB, same married name, same DOB, same DOD, same location

looking at my 2003 project I found this posted from Scott Belle shared Jun 21, 2009. I am search further....

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.

Thank you, David! That is a very helpful summary. The information in the bio which you provided is also very helpful. We will see if possibly Eric can find a marriage record in England.

The only basis for Lucretia Ashley's questionable status is that at this time there is no solid evidence to support her as Peter Massie's spouse or the mother of Lucretia. Although unproved, Peter Massie is said to have been married at least twice. Several women have been linked to him as his spouse, including Penelope Ashley-Cooper, Lucretia Cooper, Lucelia Poindexter and Lucretia Ashley. Since his children's dates of birth are thought to predate his immigration it would make sense that he was probably married in England. But to date his wife or wives are not definitively known Further investigation may provide that information. New Kent, VA colonial records are scarce however English records are much easier to find.

I have project protected the profile until further research can be performed. Most of the records that we find for profiles from this time period do not pop up easily on a database search.

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.

If there sources to show it is someone else is the mother no, removal for personal reasons Yes

Does anyone have any objections to the removal of Lucretia Ashley as the mother of Lucretia Massie Johnson ?

Massu-1 and Massie-73 appear to represent the same person because: same given name, incorrect LNAB, correct is Massie, similar dates, places, child