Elizabeth Lawton (Salisbury) - Floating birthdate

Hello Justin. Findagrave states Thomas and Elizabeth were married May 29, 1635 Church of Saint Peter and Paul Cranfield, Bedfordshire. I don't have access to these records but possibly you do? There maybe information in the marriage record.
The above mentioned work by William Shurtleff says Elizabeth was daughter of John and Margaret Crowly Salisburye and born about 1616. If this is incorrect then this maybe the source of the misinformation.

It appears two families have been mashed together. I don't find the 1635 marriage record of Thomas Lawton and Elizabeth Salisbury, but it seems plausible.

It appears, however, that John Salisbury and Margaret Crowley are a different family -- from Denbighshire in Wales, not Cranfield in Bedfordshire. They are the parents of William Salisbury, the immigrant, who is from Denbighshire. On Geni John Salisbury is said to be from Cranfield but he is the son of a man from Denbighshire by his wife (a Tudor cousin). Not only that, John Salisbury is shown as the full brother of another John Salibsury, a member of Parliament, who is a generation older but just happened to also die in 1612.

FamilySearch appears to have indexed the Cranfield parish registers. The only Salisbury there is an Ann Salusburie who married Hen Eves in 1633. However, there are many Lawtons. George and Thomas Lawton are fathers of children born in the early 1600s. There is no baptism record for Elizabeth Salisbury and no marriage record for Thomas Lawton and Elizabeth Salisbury.

There is a baptism record 17 April 1614 at Cranfield for Thomas Lawton, son of George. This is the Thomas Lawton who married Elizabeth Elizabeth. It's striking that her birth date, (which is reported by Shurtleff as about 1614) ends up matching her husband's, but she is older by exactly two years (as she would need to be to be a daughter of a man who died in Wales in 1612).

I think this is enough to show that Elizabeth Salisbury should be disconnected from this set of parents, and her birth date changed to "about 1614". I suspect that John Salisbury and Margaret Crowley, parents of immigrant William, should also be researched with the idea that they probably did not live at Cranfield, and that John Salisbury was probably not the full brother of John the member of Parliament.

Erica, if you agree I'll leave the cleanup to you. There are curator notes and overview texts that need to be changed. Too much for me to figure out what you have there and how to change it all.

There are apparently some other problems in this area. Looking at the timeline for Elizabeth Salisbury, I see that she married Thomas Lawton in 1635, but in Rhode Island (not in Cranfield, as Steve says above).

Also, son William born in 1630 (before the marriage) in Lawton Church, Cheshire -- which is nowhere near either Cranfield in Bedfordshire or Portsmouth, Rhode Island. William is also not listed as a child in the overview, so perhaps he needs to be disconnected.

Then daughter Elizabeth born 1637 in Cranfield, then son Daniel in Portsmouth, then daughter Rebecca back in Cranfield, then daughter Ann back in Portsmouth.

The overview text says the family immigrated in 1638 so perhaps we just need a small change to daughter Rebecca.

Justin I think this needs a bit more research.

From http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=sharp...

Born 1616 in West Riding, Yorkshire, England

"Elizabeth was added to the Cranfield (England) Parish register on 10
Sept. 1637. She was with her parents when they came to America in
1638."

Parents are shown as John Salisbury & Margaret Crowley with no further information. BUT according to the note she emigrated with her parents.

"Thomas Lawton & his brother George emigrated on the ship Anne" but doesn't say which Anne & which year.

The marriage notes I see are:

=====

Spouse:  Elizabeth Salisbury
Birth:  17 Apr 1616 - Cranfield, Bedford, England
Death:  1681
Marriage:  20 May 1635
Millennium File
============

Name:  Thomas Lawton
Birth:  17 Apr 1614 - Cranfield, Bedford, England
Death:  Sep 1681
Marriage:  20 May 1635 - Cranfield, Bedford, England

===========

U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
Name: Elizabeth Salisbury
Gender: Female
Birth Place: EN
Birth Year: 1617
Spouse Name: Thomas Lawton
Spouse
Birth Place: EN
Spouse Birth Year: 1614
Marriage State: of RI
Number Pages: 4
Source Citation: Source number: ; Source type: Pedigree chart; Number of Pages: 4.

=========

Torrey's New England marriages doesn't have the marriage. I haven't checked the Great Migration project yet.

(At least) one child was born in England I read the records as saying "of" Rhode Island, and that they were married there.

Banks has George Lawton (brother of Thomas) without year emigrating to Newport

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015000663701;skin=mobil...

If that was a ship named Anne in 1638 (1638 is the emigration year given) then it should be searched for Salisbury's.

I'll check on the children & make sure the older were born in England. :)

A nice compilation with details here

http://www.caskey-family.com/genealogy/ThomasLawton3.htm

OK I think I understand the parent problem for Elizabeth. Mother is correct, father is a confabulation with a "same name" John Salisbury of Wales.

This is the marriage record for Margaret Crowley & John Salisbury:

John married Margaret Crowley on 8 Apr 1611 in Cranfield, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England. (Margaret Crowley was born on 21 Jun 1592 in Wavedon, Buckinghamshire, England and died in 1655 in , , England.)

From

Sorry - ref is here. http://www.willisolandergenealogy.com/8066.htm

So - I propose

1) keep Margaret, lose John Salisbury of Wales. All we know so far is his name & that (reportedly) he & Margaret accompanied their daughter to RI on a ship Anne in 1638
2) adjust Elizabeth to the 1617 birth date, and "of" Cranfield

Sound OK?

Ummm, no. Or maybe, kind of.

I'm still seeing substantial problems, particularly with that last link. It manages to keep the parents and place of birth for John Salusbury the MP, while substituting other dates and relationships for a different John.

I've very wary of sources like U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900 and Millennium File. These are just compiled from user-submitted information over the years. The quality varies dramatically.

I'm willing, provisionally, to accept that John Salisbury, of Cranfield married Margaret Crowley on 8 Apr 1611 in Cranfield, and that she was born on 21 Jun 1592 in Wavedon, Buckinghamshire. But, I wonder -- why does FamilySearch have Lawton marriages at Cranfield but not this one for Salisbury.

I'm curious about the statement repeated across so many of these websites, "Elizabeth was added to the Cranfield (England) Parish register on 10 Sept. 1637." What does that mean? It seems to be attached always to Elizabeth Salisbury.

But if her marriage was recorded at Cranfield two years earlier, why doesn't that count as being added to the parish register?

And -- notice that her daughter Elizabeth Lawton was actually christened at Cranfield on that date. Why doesn't the note apply to her? And if it does, how is "being added" different than just being entered at a christening??

I suspect this note is being spread without anyone taking time to understand what it means. Attached to Elizabeth the mother it's nonsensical. Attached to Elizabeth the daughter it's pointless.

OK you have to go slower for me. :(

1) the Shurtlief book seems good and conservative. I am using this for "sourced citations.". It's going to take me some time to attach it to the profiles in question. I thank you, Mr. ellipsis, for this find.

2) I think I've just tracked the confabulation of "John Salibury died 1675 in Swansea" (here: http://www.willisolandergenealogy.com/8066.htm)

There was a son of WILLIAM, named John, who died in King Philip's War - same date as the site. This is noted in this thread:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GenConnecticut/2007-0...

I am not very comfortable with researching English primary records. May I beg off that task?

My proposal was to make a new John Salisbury, married to Margaret Crowley, as we have ample citations on that marriage. Is that OK?

I see three families, arranged as follows.

1st Family
1. John Salusbury, of Lleweny, married Catrin o Berain/ Kathryn of Berain, parents of
2. Sir John Salusbury, III, "The Strong", MP.

2nd Family
1. John Salisbury of Llanrhaidr, Denbighsire, Wales, could be the same as #2 above, father of
2. William Salisbury, of Swansea

3rd Family
1. John Salisbury, married Margaret Salisbury, with the dates you've uncovered, parents of.
2. Elizabeth Lawton, married Thomas Lawton, of Cranfield & Portsmouth.

On the 2nd family, we should check with Kris Hewitt 🧬 to make sure that's her understanding of the family. It's possible that John Salisbury and Margaret Salisbury are the displaced parents of immigrant William.

On the 3rd family, we should get rid of the 1612 death date for John Salisbury. All children of Thomas Lawton, except the oldest Elizabeth, should probably be born in America (after the 1638 immigration.)

Also, on the 3rd family, we should cut son William Layton, of Monmouth. He has clearly been misplaced.

We don't have to research English primary records. The goal at this first level is to arrange the families in a way that makes sense based on what we've seen so far. There's always someone else to come along and make it better.

And, we can go as slowly as you'd like. I'm trying to pack in a lot of information only to cut down on the back and forth.

I last looked at this family in the mid 90s. I've been over some of this before, but much of it is new to me. The only reason I saw it now is that I was working on something else when I found Geni had me as a descendant of Kathryn of Berain. I was skeptical, and started investigating.

Back then I came to the conclusion that there was no christening record for Elizabeth Salisbury, that the best guess about her birth was 1614 or 1616, but probably not at Cranfield, and that the only evidence of her father was someone's unsourced claim she was daughter of a Thomas Salisbury. More records are available now, and someday I'd like to see them.

Unless seen otherwise I would think

"John married Margaret Crowley on 8 Apr 1611 in Cranfield, Bedford, Bedfordshire, England"

is an actual record & eager compilers have placed this pair in the 2 other families.

One thing to look at is Lawton family affiliations as I believe their pedigree is proven?

But I can leave that to others I hope?

"Elizabeth was added to the Cranfield (England) Parish register on 10
Sept. 1637. She was with her parents when they came to America in
1638."

This has to refer to daughter Elizabeth Lawton, not mother Elizabeth Salisbury.

Therefore we can say comfortably that Margaret Crowley & John Salisbury lived & died in England.

I have not looked up how close Cranfield & the West Riding of Yorkshire are to each other.

If the William Salisbury family is indeed of Denbigh I do not think it belongs with any of the John Salisbury families.

There are some issues to resolve on the dates and data for 2nd wife Grace (Parsons) Bailey Lawson.

Grace Lawton

Marriage & death date are seen as 1677 (Shurtleff has 1674 for the marriage which makes more sense).Can anyone find put who probated Thomas's estate in 1681 and if his widow was surviving?

The estate was substantial & step sons (both families) cut deals.

Also Shurtleff suggests Grace's 1676 application for relief from the town was a result of Thomas being away / disabled in King Philip's War.

Lastly, there was a confusion on Isaac Lawton that was resolved a couple of months ago BUT there is still an issue about his 3rd wife.

Shurtleff has her name as Mrs. Naomi Bartholomew Hunt. She seems to have been a widow of George Lawson as well.

Tim Kilburn - yes, Shurleff is using Austen's Dictionary as a source, as well as VR of Rhode Island.

Note: compilation that includes this Parsons family here

http://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000010950882254

Austin's Dictionary has no information as to Thomas's birth, his first wife or when, they together or seperately, may have arrived in this country. Torrey gives no name for first wife and says they were married "ca. 1637; Portsmouth, R.I."
My experience leads me to agree with Justin, U.S. and International Marriage Records 1560-1900 are not reliable.

Thanks Tim, I added the exact Torrey phrasing to the "sources" section of Elizabeth's profile.

This page is "clean" (that is, directly lifted from Shurtleff)

http://greenerpasture.com/Ancestors/Details/8383

I have platform difficulties with FamilySearch.org. To me though a chase up there for the record

"Elizabeth Salisbury married Thomas Lawton 29 May 1635 in , England"

To establish name would be in order.

Oh! And page I just referenced has the father Justin mentioned:

THOMAS Salisbury

"Daughter of Thomas Salisbury and Frances Parsons"

But what i find interesting is the PARSONS name, as we see that name with the misbehaving 2nd wife.

I know I've said this a million times, but it always annoys me that people confuse the Salusburys, Salesburys, and Salisburys of Denbighshire. The three branches started with the same family (Salisbury). But the different spellings are not (as one might expect) random spelllings, like William Shakspear/Shakespeare. They are a consistent and early attempt to differentiate themselves from other families with the same basic name

Mark

Luckily I'm far more related to the Parsons. :):)

This Grace was a bundle of trouble.

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Grace_Parsons_%281%29

"  -Oct. 18, 1671 Upon an Indictment by the Grand Jury against Grace Lawton the wife of Thomas Lawton formerly the wife of William Baily for comitting Adulterie with Thomas Lawton. The said Grace beinge Mandamassed (commanded), Enters Traverce pleads Not Guilty and Refers her selfe for Tryall to god and the cuntry. The Jurrys Verdict in Not Guilty. [RI General Court of Trials 1671-1704, Jane Fletcher Fiske, 1998, p. 10]"

I think this indicates -

- Her Bailey husband died between 1668 & 1671, not 1676, death date for his father ... Except ... "1676" suggests a casualty of King Philip's War, and that is far more likely for Jr than Sr.

Erica, you said: I have platform difficulties with FamilySearch.org. To me though a chase up there for the record "Elizabeth Salisbury married Thomas Lawton 29 May 1635 in , England" To establish name would be in order.

This part is getting lost in the many details. I've said twice now that I looked for this record on FamilySearch. It's not there -- even though there are other marriages for this period in the same parish.

There might be good reasons why it is missing, but my innate conservatism with things like this leads me to suspect the data is bogus. Same with the 1614 baptism date for Elizabeth Salisbury. No matter how many secondary sources repeat it, I can't accept it myself until someone checks the original records.

So my question is back to you. There are located records (regardless of quality) for John Salisbury & Margaret Crowley as parents. As curator that makes me uncomfortable when I have that (regardless of quality & made by a compiler of worth) to do anything other than what I've now completed: separated John Salisbury & Margaret Crowley profiles which are sourced & referenced.

I looks like the claim for Thomas (not John) & Margaret Crowley as parents comes from a particular researcher

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dwahr...

Abbrev: Rootsweb
Title: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [LDS], "Ancestral File, " database, RootsWeb World Connect Project (http://wc.rootsweb.a ncestry.com : accessed ), . " Database. RootsWeb World Connect Project. http://wc.rootsweb.a ncestry.com : .
Name: WebsiteTitle
Name: URL
Page: accesses; 13 October 2009; Elizabeth Salisburie (Salisbury); Shela Kries

I can only tell you what I do. I'm willing to accept a quality secondary source at face value -- until I find a contradiction. Then, I hunker down and document everything.

If some sources say Thomas and some say John, and I haven't seen the primary source, then I say that. "Source 1 citing Source 2 calls him Thomas, relying on the research of Person A. Source 3 calls him John but does not cite a source. The primary record has not been checked." (Or something like that.)

On a date, I might use the date I'm seeing but say, "They were apparently married about 1636. Source 1, a notoriously unreliable source, gives a date of 29 May 1635 at Cranfield. However, the marriage is not indexed by FamilySearch.org even though FamilySearch includes other marriages in the same place for the same time period." (Or something like that.)

No one can expect more. The point of collaboration is that we give the next person enough information to avoid retracing the same steps. Anyone can come along, check the original records, and (potentially) change the text to say, "He is called John by Source 3, but his name appears as Thomas in the baptism record of daughter Elizabeth."

I think I've done a reasonable curating disambiguation & added the sources & language I can find. Of course anyone is more then welcome to continue to contribute, and I will add text suggested to the curator box.

Tendinitis has acted up so I need to limit typing now.

Good job, Erica. I'll make some time in the next few days to go over it in detail but I don't expect to find anything I want to be changed.

., you can go down to your local Family History Library (FHL) and get them to order a copy of the microfilm from the main library in Salt Lake. They'll call you when it comes in, then you go down and look through it. Easy, easy, but it takes some focus.

Yes, but you don't find it on FamilySearch that doesn't mean it isn't there.

There's quite a bit on the Lawton family in England put there.

I'm progressing to the Parsons horror show. Geni has 3 wives & many children of a man documented, correctly or not, with one wife, 3 children, & raising the grandchildren of "bad wife" Grace. Who probably died from shame of being publicly humiliated in Thomas Lawton's will after having to "beg" the town to support her 6 children & his 6 children when he had disappeared.

I don't believe he went back to England. I believe he was a casualty of King Philip's War, as hinted a few places.

No worries. It's a confusing family that is not well documented but George's family is better known than brother Thomas'. I added a link to Austin's Dictionary of RI; he covers George petty well.