'The only thing that could make sense is the 1652 birth in New Amsterdam, if that record can be tracked down. An Isle of Jersey origin without family doesn’t make any sense if you still think the children were born here.'
I find mention of four Carteret births in New York in 1640 and 1650, from the IGI, not direct sources: Frances, James, Philip, and Elizabeth. Father is unknown, presumably an immigrant. No mention of Catherine, but once again Philip would absolutely have to be a sibling, not a father, because the dates are impossible. If this is one family, and was headed by a Philip b. 1630, I would strongly suggest that the family's origins were indeed in Jersey. The place is overflowing with Philips.
But if we believe Catherine's name was indeed de Carteret, we *do* have family already - known immigrants to New Jersey too - namely the provincial governor, Philip de Carteret, whose family was granted lands in East Jersey, and who came to New York on the ship "Philip" in 1665, along with at least two brothers, no mention of women. Isn't that "family"? I'd say so.
And yes, I'm pretty convinced that all of Edward's children were born in the New World. As I said, early evidence of Edward's presence can be found starting with the 1684 cattle brand, and the 1685 land purchase, and the 1686 land purchase. 1684 predates the birth of most of his children; first one supposedly was born in 1678, and the marriage was supposedly in 1677. So unless Edward was popping onto a ship repeatedly and going back to England, at least four of his children were provably born in New Jersey. I'd argue that is sufficient evidence to believe the rest of the account. The "English family" stuff clearly came from attempts in the 1800's to come up with a plausible reason why noble Edward would get himself off to the New World, and that centered around the death of Matthew in 1688. If Edward immigrated because of Matthew's will, English births were necessary. In other words, it was all part of the bogusing.
