BELLOWS Errors and Questions
Benjamin Bellows, born 18 Jan 1676/77, is usually documented as the
10th and last child of the immigrant John Bellows and his wife Mary Wood,
but is this really the case? The Bellows Genealogy by Peck lists
Benjamin as the 10th child of John Bellows and Mary, saying "The date and
place of his birth were not known to his descendants until discovered by
Prof. H. B. Hill, of Cambridge, MA, in the recently printed records of
Concord". ("recently printed" is of course relative to Peck's work on his
book, which began in 1892). It is not clear exactly what Prof. Hill may
have communicated to Peck, or if Peck ever actually looked at the printed
records of Concord himself. These records are far more available to us
nowadays than in Peck's time, and as I live quite close to Concord center,
it was easy for me to stop at the library's genealogy room and examine
the records myself. All the entries for the births of the children of John
Bellows and Mary Wood in the vital records of Concord are similar (in format)
to the following example, which is for their son Nathaniel:
"Nathaniel, son of John Bellows and his wife Mary,
born April 3, 1676"
The birth record for Benjamin Bellows, however, simply says:
"Benjamin, son of Mary Bellows, born January 18, 1676/77"
This is distinctly different from the records of the other nine children,
which all clearly mention "John Bellows and his wife Mary" as the parents.
The format of Benjamin's records, listing just a mother, is generally used
for unwed mothers. It might also indicate that the father had died, although
we know that is not the case here.
Note also that Benjamin's date of birth makes it nearly impossible for
him to be the brother of Nathaniel (John and Mary's 9th child). Benjamin
was born just about 9½ months after Nathaniel. Not completely impossible,
I suppose, but certainly unlikely given that Mary Wood was in her 40's
and certainly at the end of her child-bearing years. Peck himself seemed
to think something was fishy about the dates, as he goes to the trouble
of adding a footnote to Benjamin's birthdate where he explains how the
calendar year used to start March 25, and that "the Concord records ...
apparently make Benjamin 9 months older than his brother Nathaniel". Peck
either miswrote, or was wrong in his thinking; the date either makes Benjamin
appear 3 months older, or 9 months younger.
What most people seem to have overlooked, however, is that there was
another
Mary Bellows in the area. This is of course John Bellows and Mary Wood's
first child, Mary, born 26 Apr 1657. She would have been almost 20 when
Benjamin was born. It is my belief that this Mary Bellows is really the
mother of Benjamin, and she was unmarried at the time of the birth! If
this is true, then the birth record makes perfect sense:
"Benjamin, son of Mary Bellows, born January 18, 1676/77"
Let's consider some other information which may further support this theory:
From Savage's Genealogical Dictionary of New England:
John's will, made 19 Jun 1683, proved 2 Oct of the same year, names
wife, 5 sons, and 2 daughters; omits the son Benjamin who had been adopted
by a rich man.
The omision of Benjamin from the will, and the mention of his adoption,
further supports my theory that Benjamin was not really John's son at all.
Why would someone be adopted while their parents were still living, and
with plenty of other children? Could the "rich man" who adopted Benjamin
be his real father? Why would John mention all of his children (that
were still living), but not Benjamin?
The following is from the Peck book:
Benjamin Bellows, the youngest of the ten children of John and Mary
(Wood) Bellows, was born in Concord, MA, 18 Jan 1676-77. The date and place
of his birth were not known to his descendants until discovered by Prof.
H. B. Hill, of Cambridge, MA, in the recently printed records of Concord.
Scarcely anything is known of his early life. Traditions says that he was
adopted at an early age by one Benjamin Moore, of Lancaster, but investigation
shows this tradition to be more than doubtful. John B. Moore, Esq., of
Concord, who is thoroughly informed in regard to the Moore family, finds
no evidence of the existance of Benjamin Moore in Lancaster at that period.
Benjamin Bellows was, however, administrator of the estate of Ensign John
Moore, who died in Lancaster in 1703. Mr. Moore thinks it possible that
he was a member of John Moore's family, but thinks it improbable that he
was a legally adopted son, as he was not an heir to his estate. He may
have removed to Lancaster at an early age, but the first positive proof
of his residence there is his purchase of a fertile farm near the center
of the town on 18 Aug 1698, when he was a little more than twenty-one years
old.
This is probably the land which was deeded to him by John Moore, of
Lancaster, "in consideration of considerable quantities of fence made"
for him. On 13 Apr 1700, John Moore deeded to him the rest of his real
estate in Lancaster for the consideration of a life support for himself
and wife. As he reserved a right to half his house, garden and orchard,
and as he died in Lancaster in 1703, it seems very likely that Bellows
lived in his family during part at least of this period. (see "History
of Harvard" by Henry S. Nourse, p. 32-33).
After reading this passage from the Peck book, I feel even more strongly
that Benjamin was a child of Mary Bellows (b. 1657). I would further guess
that his father might have been either some Benjamin Moore or perhaps even
Ensign John Moore (it would make sense that he be named Benjamin if his
father was also named Benjamin, but apparently no record of a Benjamin
Moore in Lancaster has been found). This might explain why Benjamin was
so close with the family of John Moore (there is no other explanation given
by Peck).
While there may not be a Benjamin Moore of Lancaster, there is one of
Sudbury, MA, who is son of John Moore and his second wife Elizabeth Rice
(usually she is shown as Elizabeth Whale from her stepfather's name).
He was born in 1652 and died in 1729, which is the right time frame.
©1998 by Bruce C.
Kinmonth
This page
is still under construction.