Some More Information on William Ives in England

Richard Ives continues do some great work on the origins of our William Ives in England. We know for sure he boarded the True Love at age 28 to sail to the New World.  There are various theories on what happen before then. Here is one post on it - New Clues on the Parents of William Ives (1607 – 1648).

Richard wrote me recently, “In a will made drawn up in 1628, Thomas Ives, a well to do inhabitant of Langham, Rutland, dispossessed his eldest son, Wiliam Ives, making a big deal of leaving him precisely one shilling in his will. To his other sons, Thomas left £15 a piece. This was seven years before "our" William Ives left England, but I think it is interesting to note that in 1628, the year William Ives of Rutland was dispossessed, "our" William was 21 years old - a fact that may have impelled to Thomas Ives of Rutland to make his intentions in regard to his estate clear. Are William Ives of Rutland and William Ives, Boston immigrant the same person?”  He added in, "The Parish Map of 1624," you will find the Thomas Ives ("Iues") residence smack in the middle of Langham, the location of which can still be pinpointed in the town today see below.

 

In a second message Richard found the baptismal records of Langham Parish and he was able to locate William's baptismal record. He was born March 21, 1607, which would make him 28 years old in 1635, the age of our William Ives.

The then picture clouds a bit as Richard added in a third message - David Ives, an expert genealogist, discovered in the Langham Parish Burial Records a record of a "William Ives" being buried at Rutland on September 10, 1639.  No age or family connection of the deceased is provided.

Although this certainly does complicate matters, David and I agree that, far from discarding the notion that William Ives of Rutland is "our" William Ives, we ought to continue looking into the case. There are several reasons why we have come to this conclusion.

The first is, simply, that as far as we know, after a century and a half of numerous American members of the Ives family examining original documents in England, William Ives of Rutland is (as far as we know) the first whose date of birth exactly matches the age given by "our" William Ives to the King's agent the day he boarded the "Truelove." It is, of course, entirely possible that there were two William Ives of the same age living in England at the time, but the fact that the date of birth of William Ives of Rutland perfectly matches that of  "our" William remains powerfully suggestive.

The second is that if the "William Ives" who was buried in Langham on September 10, 1639, is the son of Thomas Ives of Langham, then a curious picture emerges. Born in 1607, William Ives of Rutland is disinherited at age 21, left with only a shilling in his father's will. Despite this, he either goes on living in Langham (or returns there later in life) and dies in the village in 1639 at age 32. For us, this scenario is little short of bizarre. It is nearly impossible to imagine a disinherited and shamed son continuing to live in Langham for 11 years after his stunning disinheritance. For one thing, with no property or money inherited from his father, how would he have made a living? As for the possibility of William leaving Langham and returning later, the idea that William, the prodigal son, left Langham after his disinheritance at age 21, only to return later and die at age 32 (death bed reconciliations notwithstanding), seems pretty unlikely as well.

Our conclusion is that the September, 1639, William Ives burial record for Langham may well refer to a child (baptized because he has a name) who was a nephew or cousin of the William Ives of Langham, born in 1607. The problematic bit of this theory, of course, is that there is no surviving baptismal record from Langham that we have been able to find so far for any such  child.

Richard concluded - So, there you have it. Unfortunately, "our" William Ives still refuses to reveal his origins in a conclusive way and remains, as they say down South, "as slippery as an eel in a barrel of oil."

Thanks to Richard for this great work and I wanted to share it with you in this post. 

 

Comments

[Haz Meldrum]

Are you quite sure he was dis inherited some times a son had already received his portion to set up a business etc or debts had already paid for him.Is their any evidence of money or land gifts to William Ives of Rutland prior to his fathers death.

[Rod Lucas]

I think that it's just so great what these family name histories centers can do for people. It makes family history super easy.

[Joseph Maloney]

Dear Bill, you may have come across this information already, but reviewing the 17th Century Wills of Langham document provided by the Langham Village Historical Group website (see: http://www.langhaminrutland.org.uk/wills&inventories/17thc-wills.pdf), to me, suggests indeed that there were indeed two William Ives living in Langham between 1607 and 1635. The William that died in 1639 in Langham, in my estimation, must have been much older than our William, due to the fact that the former was listed as a witness for the Oct. 1607 will of Omphrey Seagrave of Langham (more clearly, surely a child less than 1 year in age could not have been a defensible witness to a Last Will and Testament). This would seem consistent with your later post, with further information from Richard, that more confidently posits William Ives of Langham (son of Thomas) is the same William Ives of New Haven.

Also, interestingly, either two separate men named "Thomas Ives" declared two separate wills (the first in 1589, the second in 1628), or the same man declared his will twice. Both list sons named William, however, the first references a wife name Jone, the second a wife named Susan). As we know there was a William Ives born to a Thomas Ives in Langham in 1607, this seems not only to suggest that there were two Williams, but indeed that there were two different men named Thomas.

FYI, despite the fact that the document covers wills through the remainder of the 17th century, the name "William Ives" does not occur after 1632.

[Joseph Maloney]

Regarding my last post above, I now see that this information has been documented separately here, by David (source: http://www.ivescentral.com/genealogy/William%20Ives%20Summary.pdf).

[Bill Ives]

Joseph Thanks so much for sharing this information. It is very helpful and most appreciated.