Thomas Burnet, of Southampton
Sex: M
AKA: Thomas Burnett 4
Individual Information
Birth: 1612 - Braintree, Essex Co., , England 2 3 5 6
Baptism:
Death: Dec 1684 - Southampton, Long Island, Suffolk Co., New York 1 3
Burial:
Cause of Death:
Events
• Conflicting birth information suggests Abt 1612 in York, England. 1 3
• Conflicting birth information suggests "probably", Cir 1612 in Scotland. 3 7
• He immigrated from England in 1640 to Colonial Massachusetts. 3 8
• He emigrated according to an alternative source in 1643 from , , , England. 3 9
• He owned property on 13 Oct 1643 in Lynn, Essex Co., Massachusetts, British North America. 3 10 100 acres. "Thomas Burnet hath a lott granted unto him on the condition that hee stauye three years in the Towne to ymprove yt."
• He worked as a husbandman in Southampton, Long Island, NY. 3 11
• He signed a will on 10 Mar 1680 in Southampton's East Riding of Yorkshire on Long Island., Suffolk Co., New York, British North America. 3 11 Thomas Burnett's Will - 1689
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE SUFFOLK COUNTY SESSIONS, VOL. I, PAGE 161
WILL OF THOMAS BURNETT
In the name of God, Amen, I, Thomas Burnett, of Southampton, in ye east Riding of Yorkshire, in Long Island, husbandman, being sick of body but strong ye mercy of God, in perfect strength of memory, blessed be His name, for it and not knowing the day of my death doe make this my will and testament in manner and form following:
Imprimis, I give and bequeath my soul to Christ, my Redeemer, who by His blood hath purchased the same.
1stly: I give my body to ye earth from whence it was first taken after a decent burial to be made by my executrix and for my wordly estate I give it as hereafter mentioned.
2ndly: I give unto my six children, John, Joel, Lott, Hester, Merrium, Priscilla, each of them 5 shillings apiece, to be paid to them by my executrix.
3rdly: I give unto my son, Aaron Burnett, my house and home lot after my wife's decease, and my 3 acres on ye 10 acre lott.
4thly: And at my decease I give unto him my said son my ten acres lying at Meacoke Gate adjoining to ye land of Mr. Jonah Ffordham, all my ox pasture division, and 2 heifers and 2 steers, to be delivered to him by my executrix.
5th1y: I give unto my two sons, Moredecai and Dan Burnett, all my land att ye place called Cormerants Point, to be equally divided between them when they shall obtain to ye age of 1 and 20 years only they shall summer 6 cows during her life.
6thly: I give unto my son, Matthias, after my said wife's decease, my leaf in ye Great Plains in Halseyes Neck.
7thly: I give unto my daughter, Lois, at her day of Marriage, or at ye age of 18 which first happens, the sum of 10 pounds to be paid unto her by my executrix.
Lastly: I, by this my last will and testament, make my living wife, Mary Burnett sole executrix of this my last will and testament and to have all ye residue of my estate that is not disposed of, and to pay all my debts and legacies herein- after mentioned.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this the 10th day of March 1679-80.
(signed) Thomas Burnett (Seal)
Witness; John Hester John Laughton
A true copy - John How Clark Dec. 2, 1689
--------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
"Note: The hyphenated date above , 1679-80, is the O.S. versus N.S. dating system. O.S. (Old Style) was in effect until about 1753 when the American colonies along with England changed to the N.S. system. Under the O.S., the year ended on March 25th. Since the date in question falls within that time period when the two systems don't agree, it's hyphenated. It would read: March 16, 1680 N.S. (our current system where the year ends on Dec. 31st), OR March 16, 1679 O.S. (since under the Old System that date was 10 days short of 1780). One of history's more peculiar little tricks..."
-Jim Fina
"There are deeds on record from Thomas Burnet to several of his sons, showing that he had liberally provided for them, before making the bequest of five shillings to each." -Paul Burnet at www.garlic.com
• He has conflicting death information of 1689. 3 12
• He has conflicting death information of 26 May 1691 in Southampton, Long Island, Suffolk Co., New York. 3 13 "probably"
• He appeared on the census of 1683 in Southampton, Long Island, NY as Town assessment roll of inhabitants. 3 14 The list is printed in the second volume of the Documentary History of New York. New York Genealogical & Biographical Society Library, NY, NY. It was placed there by Martha M. Sharp.
Parents
Father: Thomas Burnet, M.D. (Cir 1570- ) 15 16
Mother: Jane Foys (1581- ) 2 17
Spouses and Children
1. *Mary Cooper (1621 - 1706) 1 3 18
Marriage: Abt 1645 1 3
Children:
1. John Burnet (1645-1694) 2 3 19 20 21 22 23 24
2. Lot Burnet (Abt 1651-1702) 19
3. Hester Burnet (1653-1714) 25 26
4. Aaron Burnet (1655-1755) 2 20 22 27
5. Miriam Burnet (1656-1717) 3 19
6. Priscilla Burnet ( - ) 2 3 20 22
7. Joel Burnet (Abt 1659-Bef 1694) 3 19 28
8. Dan Burnet, (I) (Abt 1664-Bef 1710) 3 19 20 29 30
9. Lois Burnet (Cir 1669-1704) 2 3 20 22
10. Moredecai Burnet (1670-1716) 3 19
11. Capt. Mathias Burnet (1674-1745) 19
2. Mary Pierson ( - ) 1 12
Marriage: 3 Dec 1663 - Lynn, Essex Co., Massachusetts, British North America 1 4
Notes
General:
"Thomas Burnet...was a relative of Bishop Gilbert Burnet, whose son William, was Colonial Governor of New Jersey and New York from 1720-1727; and after that, Governor of Massachusetts until his death in 1729 From the Collection of Annie Mariah Burnet (1862-1968) currently maintained by Pat Johnson."Marriage Notes (Mary Cooper)
In a letter from M.L. Hawley, Genealogist of the Presbyterian Church of Morristown, NJ, and member of the New Jersey Historical Society, dated Feb .1, 1932, to a Mr. Eugene Bouton is the comment: 'I also found an account of the Burnet family in a History of Morris County which says they come from the L.I. Burnets and are descended from Dr. Thomas Burnet descended from a fine old Eng. family, giving the arms &c.' 2 11 31
According to James Fina, several things point to Mary Cooper being the wife of Thomas Burnet, of Southampton. As this is an important contribution that departs with the conventionally accepted account derived largely from Howell, his convincing expanation is included in full below:Marriage Notes (Mary Pierson)
"George Rogers Howell, in his book The Early History of Southampton, L.I., Albany NY, 1887, states that Thomas Burnet married: (1) Mary ____ and (2) Mary Pierson, daughter of John Pierson, in Lynn, MA on Dec 3, 1663. This is a mistake! A Mary Pierson did marry on that date, but to a Thomas Burnap, mistakenly recorded in the Lynn vital records as Thomas Burnit. So there are no indications of any second marriage for Thomas Burnet of Southampton. Another mention by Howell states "Mary ____, thought to be a Pierson." It seems Howell was trying very hard to connect Thomas Burnet of Southampton with a Mary Pierson. In a way, he actually may have been right...
"From Thomas Burnet's will, on file at Riverhead, Suffolk County, NY, we learn that Mary, his wife, survived him. She was named executrix of his will!
"In the October 1989 issue of The American Genealogist, the article The Cooper-Pierson-Griggs Connection, by Thomas W. Cooper, II points out another mistake by Howell in his same work. Howell had stated in his book that Henry Pierson was married to Mary Cooper, daughter of John Cooper and Wibroe Griggs. Thomas W. Cooper points out the mistake-that Henry Pierson would hardly marry his half-sister! A crime, by the way, punishable by death in Southampton at the time!
"Now, so far, Howell has made two errors concerning a Mary Pierson. The first Mary Pierson, in Lynn, MA, and a Mary Pierson (actually Cooper) in Southampton, half sister to Henry Pierson, not his wife!
"The American Genealogist article goes on to state that Mary Cooper seems to disappear after 1635 and that no mention is made of her in her father, John Cooper's will. Therefore, the author concludes she has died. Actually, there is another mention of her, not in her father's will (which is dated 6 may 1662), but in her brother John's inventory. John Jr. died intestate in 1677/78 and a curious entry appears in his inventory of goods:
"by one bed of Maryes given her by her father" (no value listed)
"This entry stands out for several reasons. One, it's one of only two items with no value placed on them (the other is a bed previously given the deceased's daughter). Secondly, it's the only item with a history. If Mary were dead, especially for over 40 years, why call it Mary's bed given her by her father?. Beds were valuable and were usually put to good use. And it she were dead, the bed would have belonged to John, and would have a value placed on it like everything else he owned. Lastly, the way it's worded indicates the bed is owned by Mary. Now if Mary were left out of her father's will, it stands to reason she might not want anything given her by her father. Her brother John could have been holding it for her, on the chance she might change her mind.
"Now, why would Mary be left out of her father's will? Two reasons come to mind, one, she was dead, or two, she may have married someone her father didn't approve of. Now who did her father really not approve of? The town records of Southampton provide an answer-Thomas Burnet!
"From The First Book of Records of the Town of Southampton with other Ancient Documents of Historic Value by Hedges, Pelletreau, & Foster, John H. Hunt Publisher, Sag Harbor, NY, 1874, we learn quite a bit about the behavior of the residents of Southampton and nearby communities. By today's standards, this was an extremely peaceful community. You have only to compare the court records of any community today, with these surviving records of court actions in Southampton (1639 to 1660). Now there are no less than three incidents of charges of Battery in these court records and they all involve Thomas Burnet, who was the plaintiff, and John Cooper the defendant! One even involved bloodshed-the only such account in the entire book! Now, why John Cooper would strike Thomas Burnet on three different occasions, each an unusual occurrence in those days, the book doesn't say. But John Cooper clearly had a problem with Thomas Burnet. If there were anyone his daughter could marry that John Cooper liked less, we'd be hard pressed to come close to Thomas Burnet. So that if this marriage had taken place, and it's quite likely it did, it takes no stretch of the imagination to see why John Cooper would leave his daughter Mary Burnet, out of his will.
"Lastly, and in it's simplicity, perhaps the most important point. Mary Cooper was in Southampton at the right time in history to be Mary Burnet, wife of Thomas Burnet. The other Mary, Mary Pierson of Lynn, lived out her life in Reading, MA with her husband Thomas Burnap. There's no evidence she was ever in Southampton, and her marriage took place nearly 20 years after the birth of John Burnet, Thomas and Mary's first child. She simply doesn't fit as Thomas' wife-Mary Cooper does. And remember, Howell had already confused Mary Cooper as being Mary Pierson! So she very likely was the Mary Pierson that George Rogers Howell was trying so hard to find." 32
The existence of the marriage between Thomas and Mary Pierson has been disproved by Jim Fina. 33
