Harrison Genealogy Repository

Notes

HISTORY AND GENEALOGY OF THE MAYFLOWER PLANTERS AND FIRST COMERS TO YE

OLDE COLONIE by Leon Clark Hills, Gen. Pub. Co., Inc., Baltimore, Md.,

1975, p. 70.

Children are not necessarily in birth order. Not all verified. Some

Winslow brothers came (one being Edward). Said to be brothers of

Margaret in above book.

SAINTS AND STRANGERS by Geo. F. Willison, 1946, p. 95 states that

there were five brothers and three sisters. One brother came with

Edward on the Mayflower (Gilbert [who he says returned to England and

stayed there]) and the others followed. One is said to have stayed

behind in England (or was it Gilbert who returned?) to father progeny

there.

Dates of birth and death and location and marriage from ahnentafel of

Frederick Wm. Griebel, Jr., by Dorothea Griebel, Lynnfield, Mass.

(1994) his ancestor.

Information about marriage to Eleanor Pelham bef. birth of Margaret

not proven. It was posted on FidoNet by Pat Fite (Mrs. Lloyd), 11938

Longleaf, Houston, Tx. 77024 in May 1995. There may have been more

children by this wife. The reference cited by Pat Fite was the WINSLOW

MEMORIAL. (see following)

WINSLOW MEMORIAL, p. 20 - (cited by Pat Fite on FidoNet, May 1995)

Edward (A) Winslow, the only son of Kenelm (B) of whom we have any

knowledge, is supposed to have married for his first wife, Eleanor

Pelham, daughter of Sir Herbert Pelham of Droitwich, by whom he had a

son Richard, born about 1585, and who died 20th May 1659.

From St. Peter's Parish Register, Droitwich, England, we obtain the

following:

Nov. 1628, buried John Winsmore Dec. 1628, buried Jane Winsmore wife

of John [This name though spelt Winsmore, is supposed by the clerk to

be Winslow]

From St. Andrew's Parish Register we have the following:

21st Feb. 1601, Baptized John, son of Philip Winslow Sept. 1597,

Edward Winslow was buried Mar. 1577, Alexander, son of Richard

Wendslow, was baptized, or buried Nov. 1628, John Winsmore

buried under this stone

From the above we find that there were residing in the vicinity a

Richard and Philip Winslow, who might have been sons of Kenelm (B)

Winslow, and, if so, Richard would have been older than Edward (who

was born 1560) as he had a child baptized, or buried, Mar. 1577, and

might have been at that time twenty years old.

Now Richard may have been a son of the eldest son of Kenelm (B),

spoken of in the will, instead of the son of Edward (A), who was

probably a younger son of Kenelm (B), as he went to Droitwich to live

instead of remaining on the estate at Kempsey, or Clerkenleap. The

last named estate was sold by Richard, grandson of Kenelm (B), in

1650, which shows that the family estates were in possession of that

branch of the Winslow family.

Edward (A) Winslow, son of Kenelm (B) and Katherine, born 17 Oct 1560,

died before 1631; married (second) at St. Brides, London, 4th Nov

1594, Magdalene Ollyver, as the name is still seen upon the Parish

Register. Subsequently, in the Register at his new home, Droitwich,

six miles north-east of Worcester, this marriage was interlined in the

proper place:

1594 Nov. 3d Edw. Wynsloe & Magdalen married at London.

This last date is evidently a day too soon. The London Clerk also

writes Winslow. The characteristic carelessness of the age as to

orthography is further shown by the Parish Clerk at St. Peters,

Droitwich, whre he writes Kenelme wynsloe sonne of Edward Wynslowe.

His father, in the body of his will, wrote his name Kenelme Wynslowe,

and signed it - if indeed we have there a completed signature - Kenelm

Wynslo.

The American Genealogist, Vol. 42, #1, Jan. 1966, p. 56 'The Winslow

`Royal Line'' by Meredith B. Colket, Jr.:

'High commendation is due John G. Hunt, Esq., for his superb

discoveries in the field of pre-American ancestry, particulary his

article on the Griswold family (TAG, supra, 40:43 f.) and, more

recently, that on the Winslows (supra, 41:168-175)' [I do not have -

BP].

'The ancestry of the Mayflower Pilgrim, Governor Edward Winslow

(1595-1655), and of his brothers, has been a matter of research for a

long time. Mr. Hunt presents a tentative royal pedigree which looks

plausible but in part he has accepted a suppostion and, in doing so,

has had to reject a long-accepted birth record. If we reject the

supposition and accept the birth record, however, it is possible to

set forth a solution that does not disprove the royal claim, but

rather strengthens it.

Mr. Hunt supposes that Governor Winslow and his brother Kenelm were

descendants of Kenelm Winslow (ca. 1551-1607), making their father,

Edward Winslow, Sr., a son of the said Kenelm who died in 1607. Now

the birth date of Edward Winslow, Sr., has long been recognized as 17

Oct 1560 (see, e.g., L. Effingham de Forest, Moore and Allied Families

[1938], p . 631). To make the claimed relationship fit

chronologically, the compiler has had to reject the 1560 birth date

and assume a later date of birth, i.e. ca. 1572.

But why do the colonists have to descend from Kenelm Winslow? If we

accept the evidence that Kenlem was the given name of Kenelm Winslow's

maternal grandfather then Kenelm was already a family name in the

Winslow family. If Kenelm Winslow, born ca. 1551, and Edward Winslow,

born 17 Oct. 1560 (father of the colonists), his brother Kenelm or his

grandfather Kenelm. We not only have a chronology that harmonizes with

hitherto accepted data, but the colonist Eedward becomes one

generation closer to his relatives, the Grevilles.'

The American Genealogist, Vol. 42, #3, July 1966, 'A Note on the

Winslow Births in England' by John G. Hunt:

'Meredith B. Colket Jr. has pointed out (supra 42:56) that the birth

date of Edward Winslow Sr. has long been recognized as 17 Oct. 1560.

As far as can be learned, this date first sprang out `from under a

rock' so to speak, in D.P. Holton's Winslow Memorial (1877). National

Biography, accordingly, accepts this as gospel, and the date is again

accepted in 1925 in Americana Illustrated 19:534, which solemnly

assures us that Governor Winslow's father was Edward, born in 1560 `in

the parish of St. Andrew, Worcester,' who first married `Lady Elenor,

a dau. of sir Jerbert (sic) Pelham of Droitwich' (evidently referring

to Sir Herbert Pelham, a personage who cannot, so far as can be

discovered, have lived at Droitwich. Indeed, we can find no record

attesting the existence in Worcestershire of any Pelham family at that

or any related era. Other compilers, including the one cited by Mr.

Colket, have swallowed this date and the Pelham marriage without

apparently troubling themselves to ask what is the basis for this

`family record.'

But surely not everyone has accepted this date of 1560, or believed in

the soi disant Pelham marriage. When, in 1915, Maria Whitman Bryant

published her 'Genealogy of Edward Winslow and his Descendatns from

1620 to 1865' she wisely forbore even to quote the Holton reference to

1560 or allude to the `Lady Eleanor Pelham marriage.' Supposedly, she

had the benefit of noting in Holton (op. cit., 4) that the parish

register of St. Ancrew's does NOT support the claim concerning 1560.

Additinally, she doubtless knew that when the `Winslow Family Record'

was first printed in the New England Historical and Genealogical

Register in 1850 (4:298), no reference was made to any Winslow record

dated in 1560. Additinally, she doubtless knew that when the `Winslow

Family Record' is a series of memorande written down long after the

persons whose births it recorded had passed away.

Until 1929 it was generally accepted that Kenelm Winslow who died in

1607 was the grandfather of Gov. Edward Winslow, but when in that year

Charles Edward Banks published his The English Ancestry and Homes of

the Pilgrim Fathers, he states (p. 98): `It is highly probable that

this Edward, Sr., was the son of a Kenelm WInslow of Kempsey, or of a

contemporary RIchard Winslow of the same parish. Kenelm Winslow,

probably a brother of Edward, Sr., born in 1551, was called a resident

of Worcester, yeoman, in 1605, and is probably the one whose will of

1607 bequeaths property to his eldest son, other children and

grandchildren, without naming them.'

Banks implies that there may have been more than one adult Kenelm

Winslow before 1600. With this I disagree, for Thomas Habington who

died in 1647, the great antiquary of Worcestershire, was the son of

the man who built the parish church in Droitwich, i.e. John Habington

(see N.Y. Gen. and Biogr. Rec. 31:?35) and therefore Habington is

likely to have known the Winslows well. Speaking of Kerswell in

Kempsey, Thomas Habington states: `The heirs of John Clopton held in

the same manor and these three last I think were several tenants of

the same landes the inheritance as I have heard of Sir Richard Newport

[d. 1571] and soulde by him to Kenelme Winslowe and by Winslow to Sir

John Bucke.' Had there been two or more contemporary Kenlem WInslows,

I feel sure that Habnigton would have distinguished this one as Sr. or

Jr., in accordance with the custom of the day.

To go back to Richard Winslow's will dated 7 Oct. Hen. VIII and

probated at Worcester 21 Jan. 1546/7, in 1957 D. Kenelm Winslow of

London, in his Mayflower Heritage, asserted (pp. 22 f.): `Through this

will and manorial records we can trace how his youngest son, Thomas,

moved to nearby Kerswell, a hamlet withing the parish of Kempsey. . .

. Kenelm Winslow, son of THomas of Kerswell, sold the farm and moved

north to Worcester CIty. Kenlem's son Edward moved farther north,

where he set up in business extracting the famous Droitwich salt . .

.'

In other words, from a study of manorial records, Mr. D. Kenelm

Winslow was satisfied that Kenelm Winslow who lived in Worcester was,

indeed, grandfather of Gov. Edward Winslow. We think this reasonable

and must reject the supposed `family record' of a birth in 1560 for

Edward Winslow Sr. If, as, and when the original of this so-called

record can be produced for examination, or of(sic) it can be

substantiated by any parish entry or bishop's transcript entry, we may

change our supsicion about the date of 1560 in connection with Edward

Winslow, Sr., but until such time, we view this as an invented record

of no value whatever.'