There is a lot of erroneous information on the Internet. That's no surprise to any experienced web-surfer. But I was shocked to discover how much of the information on genealogical web sites is erroneous. Fortunately, it was a shock I received early in my exploits as a family tree researcher, so it didn't do nearly as much damage as it could have done.
As I've mentioned in earlier posts, much of my early research focused on the Jenner branch of my family, because I was originally searching only for my immigrant ancestors. My mother was an immigrant, so no search was needed there. I quickly hit a dead end on the
Pellman lineage (see
The Major Branches and others). So the
Jenners had proven to be the easiest to trace at first. That is, until I reached
Samuel Jenner I.
Two years ago, all the online genealogical sites that came up on the first few pages of a Google search listed the same information for Samuel Jenner I: He had been born in
Charlestown, Massachusetts on 21 March 1669** to
Capt. Thomas Jenner III and his wife
Rebecca Trerice. This included what I took to be the authoritative sites, including the
LDS,
RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, and Genealogy.com. With a little more digging, I was able to find information on
Thomas Jenner II and the
Rev. Thomas Jenner I. By all available accounts, the Rev. Thomas Jenner I had been the immigrant Jenner ancestor -- a Puritan minister who had arrived at the
Saybrook colony in 1636. I still recall the excitement I felt when I emailed this information to my family and closest friends. We were
descendants of the Puritans! Our family was among the first to colonize America!
**before 1752 events occurring prior to March 25th are usually recorded with a dual date, because prior to the Calendar Act of 1750 the calendar year began March 25th rather than January 1st throughout the British Empire. So 21 March 1669 (by current reckoning) would have been 21 March 1668 at the time. Such dates are now typically recorded in historical references in the format, 21 March 1668/69.
I was a little troubled by this, since it didn't concur with the notation in my grandmother's Bible that Samuel Jenner had been born -- and his father, unnamed, had died -- on the passage to America. But, when I learned that Capt. Thomas Jenner III had died at sea during a voyage back to England sometime between 2 November 1685, when the vessel sailed, and 12 December 1686, when the news of his death reached the Colonies, I chalked the difference up to faulty memories and word-of-mouth. But with each new bit of information I gleaned about Samuel Jenner I, I became increasingly suspicious of this account.
My suspicions became outright doubts when I finally got my hands on a
PDF copy of "the
Cothren." The
Cothren, as genealogists are fond of calling it, is the
History of Ancient Woodbury, Connecticut, from the first Indian deed in 1659 ... including the present towns of Washington, Southbury, Bethlem, Roxbury, and a part of Oxford and Middlebury, by William
Cothren, published in 1854. William
Cothren was the Town Clerk and Town Historian of
Woodbury in the mid-19
th century, and his book was a narrative presentation of the town's records of births, marriages, deaths, wills, trials, and land transactions.
Reading the
Cothren I learned that Samuel Jenner I had purchased land and settled in
Woodbury not later than 1682. If he was the Samuel Jenner born in 1669, then he would have been no more than 13 when he ventured off on a life of his own! This might have been feasible if he had been orphaned, but Capt. Thomas Jenner III and
Rebecca (
Trerice) Jenner were both still living in 1682. He married Hannah
Hinman around 1684 and the two had their first child, Sarah, in 1685. That would have made him 15 at marriage and only 16 at the birth of their first child, which would only have been possible in a "shotgun wedding" -- a scenario that seems extremely unlikely given that Hannah
Hinman was not only the daughter of one of
Woodbury's most prominent citizens, Sgt. Edward
Hinman, but would have been three years older than Samuel. Even if, despite the strictures of 17
th century Puritan society, Samuel and Hannah could have found a way to sneak off together, what 16-year-old girl would have any interest in a 13-year-old boy?
The real nail in the coffin of this scenario, however, is the
Woodbury Town Charter, which was also recorded in the
Cothren. The charter states that
only members of the local congregation were permitted to own land in the township. And only adults, aged 21 or over, could be members of the congregation! When I read that I knew that
my Samuel Jenner I could not have been born in 1669 -- and that meant that someone other than Capt. Thomas Jenner III must be his father. So, now what?
For several months, I had been spending a couple of nights per week tracking down various leads and posting messages on Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, and other ancestry message boards. One night I got a reply. Another
descendant of Samuel Jenner I had seen one of my inquiries and checked her Jenner family Bible -- one that had been passed down through a different line of descent -- and it contained a notation that Samuel's father had been a
Richard Jenner. Not only did it name the father, but mentioned that Samuel's mother had been
Hannah Barrett, that Richard had been killed "in a foreign adventure" shortly after Samuel's birth, and that Hannah had remarried after coming to America -- to
Capt. John Coe.
It took several more months and numerous emails between myself and members of the
Coe and
Hinman families to finally piece the evidence together. And it was during this process that I came to realize that real genealogy was a forensic science; not merely a record-keeping process. It requires extensive research, collection and examination of clues and evidence, evaluating each piece of evidence to determine its authenticity and credibility, and arriving at a well-reasoned conclusion.
In the matter of Samuel Jenner's paternity, I was able to piece together the following evidence in favor of Richard Jenner and Hannah Barrett:
- The recently widowed Hannah (Barrett) Jenner arrived in America sometime after 1650 with her infant son, Samuel
- She initially stayed with her brother, Samuel Barrett, in Newtown, New York
- The will of Samuel Barrett's brother, probated in London in 1666, mentions a nephew, Samuel Jenner
- Hannah had two children by John Coe: a daughter, Hannah, born in 1654, and a son, Andrew, born in 1655 or 1656.
- Samuel Jenner eventually married Hannah Hinman, and Hannah Coe married Hannah Hinman's brother, Capt. Titus Hinman.
This Samuel Jenner would have have to have been born around 1650, making him about age 30 at the time he bought property in
Woodbury, Connecticut, and eligible for membership in the
Woodbury congregation. This Samuel would have known the
Hinman family, since his half-sister married his brother-in-law. The
Hinmans were among the founders of the
Woodbury township, so it would have been natural for Samuel to have been one of the township's earliest landowners. And the Samuel Jenner born in 1669 could not possibly have been mentioned in a 1666 will. It is not proof, but it is certainly a compelling amount of circumstantial evidence.
I will not consider the mystery of Samuel Jenner's parents conclusively resolved until I secure
incontrovertible evidence, such as a birth record. But for the time being, the extant evidence makes it all but certain that the 1669 Samuel Jenner of
Charlestown is
not my Samuel Jenner and makes a strongly convincing case that the son of Richard and Hannah
is my 7x-great-grandfather.