Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- book:001_richard [2007/01/26 19:14] – jims
+++ book:001_richard [2026/08/23 07:18] (current) – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[english_origin|(<-- The English Origin)]] [[start|(Back to Start)]] [[002_thomas|(2. Thomas(2) Seymour -->)]]
-====== 1. Richard Seymour ======
-. RICHARD<sup>1</sup> SEYMOUR, founder of the Connecticut family of the
-name, was baptized at Sawbridgeworth, co. Herts, England, 27 Jan.
-/5, the son of Robert and Elizabeth (Waller) and the grandson of
-John and Dyzory (Porter), and died at Norwalk, Conn., between 29 July
-, the date of his will, and 10 Oct. 1655, the date of the
-inventory of his estate. He married at Sawbridgeworth, 18 Apr. 1631,
-MERCY RUSCOE, born about 1610, daughter of Roger and Sarah of
-Sawbridgeworth. She married secondly, 25 Nov. 1655, as his second
-wife, John Steele of Farmington, Conn., who died there 27 Feb.
-/5.
-Richard Seymour came to this country in or slightly before 1639, bringing
-with him his wife Mercy Ruscoe, to whom he was married at
-Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, and their son
-[[002_Thomas|Thomas]], whose baptismal
-record was entered in the parish registers of Sawbridgeworth. It was
-this eldest son [[002_Thomas|Thomas]]
-who sealed his will in 1712 with the wings of
-the ancient family of the Seymours of Penhow.
-Richard Seymour,
-though not an original proprietor, was one of the early settlers of
-Hartford. Just when he joined the little settlement near "Dutch
-Point" on the Connecticut river we do not know, but probably in
-, when we find his name in the list of those "inhabitants
-who were granted lotts to have only at the town's courtesie with
-liberty to fetch woode and keep swine or coues on the common."
-His lot was No. 70, on the north side, near the "cow pasture."
-His house stood on what is now North Main street, near the Ely place.
-He also owned outlying pieces of land including a portion of the
-tract running westward from the bluffs of the Trinity College
-property to what is now West Hartford. In 1647 he was elected
-chimney-viewer, which calls to mind that the houses of the first
-settlers were thatched, as in the old England they had left behind
-them, and on that account were particularly exposed to fire loss, and
-all the more because built of wood rather than of masonry as most of
-the corresponding English houses of the period were. Richard's
-duties, then, as chimney-viewer, were allied to those of a building
-inspector and fire chief of our time.
-The fact that
-Richard received an allotment of land by the "courtesey of the
-town" shows that, with his family, he was judged to be an
-acceptable addition to the group of settlers forming the original
-proprietors, but his status was not equal to theirs, inasmuch as they
-were entitled, as he was not, to their proportional shares of the
-extensive areas of land held in common. Thus, every original
-proprietor might hope to secure as of right farm land for his sons.
-No such opportunity was open to settlers who were landholders by the
-"courtesey of the town." This situation may account for
-Richard's decision to cast his lot with the planters of Norwalk under
-Roger Ludlow. Whatever the reason (and doubtless there were many),
-Richard and his former Sawbridgeworth neighbors, the Ruscoes, removed
-about 1650 (perhaps a year or so later) to Norwalk, where he had the
-status of an original proprietor of the new plantation, in the
-allotment of which he had a most favorable location.
-We find his name
-among the number who made the agreement with Captain Patrick and the
-brilliant and restless Roger Ludlow "for the settlinge and
-plantinge of Norwalke," 19 June 1650. As one of the planters of
-Norwalk, Richard Seymour's name appears in the indenture dated 15
-Feb. 1651, between the Planters and Runckinheage and other Indians.
-The exact date of his removal from Hartford to Norwalk cannot be
-fixed, but he had undoubtedly taken up his residence there before the
-end of 1652, and perhaps earlier. His home-lot was well-situated,
-directly opposite the meeting house and Parade Ground, and on the
-highway leading from Stamford to Fairfield. His house was only a
-short distance from the present roadbed of the New York, New Haven
-& Hartford railroad. Many of his descendants have probably
-unconsciously viewed the spot where their ancestor lived, while being
-carried past the place in a manner of which he never dreamed. In the
-new plantation of Norwalk, Richard's abilities were fully recognized.
-On 29 Mar. 1655, he was elected townsman, or selectman, as we should
-now say. But Richard did not live to hold this office long, since in
-his will, which he executed 29 July 1655, he is described "very
-week & sike."
-It is significant, on the social side of the picture, that Richard's son
-[[002_Thomas|Thomas]] was married after the arrival of the family in Norwalk, to
-Hannah Marvin, the sixteen year old daughter of Matthew Marvin, Sr.,
-"one of the most distinguished of the Norwalk fathers," who
-had also removed to Norwalk with his family from Hartford, where our
-[[002_Thomas|Thomas]] and his Hannah had doubtless been acquainted. Matthew Marvin,
-Sr., was born in England in 1600 and died in Norwalk in 1680.
-On coming to Norwalk (he had, as well as Richard Seymour, signed the
-Agreement with Ludlow) Marvin was assigned to what might be regarded
-as the "home-lot (No. 10) of honor" in the social system of
-the day, i.e., the lot next to the meetinghouse, and his estate was
-the second largest of the Norwalk settlers. To Richard Seymour was
-assigned a scarcely less desirable and honorable home-lot (No. 11) of
-four acres facing the "Town Street" and opposite the Parade
-Ground, a corner lot, and near lot No. 10 assigned to Matthew Marvin,
-Sr. So [[002_Thomas|Thomas]] and Hannah, even before their marriage, were near
-neighbors in Norwalk.
-It thus appears that Richard and his family were well placed in Norwalk.
-On 29 March
-, he was chosen one of the two townsmen, as we have seen. He was
-now about fifty years old, in the full tide of life, with a family of
-four boys, and one of the chief figures in the community. What was it
-that overtook him then? No record, alas, answers this question. All
-that we know is that at the end of July of this year he was "very
-week & sike" and making his will, which he was unable to
-sign save by a mark. In this brief document he refers twice to "my
-loving wife Mercy" and once to "my loving wife,"
-suggesting at least a happy relationship to his wife, to whom he had
-been married twenty-four years before, in Sawbridgeworth in Old
-England. The original will, after being duly recorded, was doubtless
-returned to his executors, as was the custom of the time; it has long
-since disappeared. The record book in which the will was copied had a
-quantity of ink spilled upon it, and so it happened that the copy of
-the will, with many others, was made in part unreadable. Did Richard,
-in executing his will, use the seal used by his eldest son,
-[[002_Thomas|Thomas]],
-in executing his will in 1712? The will itself seemingly answers the
-question in the negative in its concluding words, viz., "to this
-my will and Testament I have set my hand this 29th July 1655."
-The common language, "my hand and seal," is here contracted
-to "my hand." In a time of stress such as that under which
-the will was drawn, the common phrasing "hand and seal" may
-have been contracted to //hand, //so
-the omission of "and seal" is by no means conclusive
-evidence that Richard's //mark //on
-his will was not supplemented by a seal. One of the two witnesses to
-the will was John Ruscoe, a faithful friend over many years, of
-England, of Hartford, of Norwalk, probably a cousin of his "loving
-wife Mercy," born a Ruscoe. The date of Richard's untimely death
-is not known, but it seems reasonable to suppose that it took
-place soon after the execution of his will, 29 July 1655, when he was
-"very week & sike" and unable to do more than make his
-mark upon it.
-His estate, inventoried 10 Oct. 1655, was valued at £255-09-00 - not a
-large, but a fair estate. Considering that Richard died at the age of
-about fifty years and the circumstances of his short life, the value
-of his estate is well above the majority of estates inventoried in
-or thereabout. The inventory was recorded in the same volume as
-his will and met with the same disaster of an overflow of ink and its
-top section is illegible. The only item worthy of note is "bookes"
-valued at £1. Comparatively few inventories of the period list
-any books at all. The use of the plural shows that at least there was
-something more than a Bible in the house. Indeed, the sum of one
-pound in 1655 indicates that Richard had several books, and
-inferentially that he could both read and write.
-The next chapter in our history opens with the surprising record at
-Farmington of the
-marriage on 25 Nov. 1655, of the widow to the Hon. John Steele, who
-recorded the marriage in his own hand. But this does not show that
-the marriage took place in Farmington, rather than in Norwalk, where
-Mercy lived. It was very common then for the man to record his
-marriage where //he //lived, for
-obvious reasons connected with inheritance. The apparent precipitancy
-of the marriage of Richard's widow to John Steele may be remarked
-upon here. Steele undoubtedly knew Richard Seymour and his wife and
-family before they removed to Norwalk a few years earlier. Mercy, the
-widow, was no longer young, she had but moderate means and had four
-sons, of whom three were minors. She was no great "catch,"
-it would seem, for one of the foremost men of the Colony. Must she
-not have been uncommonly engaging or possessed of rare qualities of
-mind and heart to have led the Hon. John, even in those days of
-dearth of available women, to marry her and bring her back from
-Norwalk and her Ruscoe relatives there, with her three younger sons?
-Can she be blamed if it be considered who he was -"his place in
-the sun" - to have made a "marriage of convenience,"
-if such it was, though we can only speculate on that matter.
-John Steele was one of the eight Magistrates appointed in 1636 by the
-Colony of Massachusetts Bay to govern Connecticut, before that Colony
-had established a jurisdiction of its own. From then until
-he served without intermission in the General Court or Assembly,
-as an elected Deputy for Hartford through the year 1645, and
-thereafter for Farmington. For nearly twenty years he was recorder
-[Town Clerk] of Hartford, and served for a time in the same capacity
-for Farmington, after his removal to that town. His time and energies
-were thus largely devoted to the public service for nearly a quarter
-of a century. The young Seymours, under his tutelage, must have met
-many of the leading men of the colony, and have acquired a
-considerable knowledge of public affairs.
-Mercy's remarriage seems to have been a happy one. The date of her death is not known,
-but she survived her able and distinguished husband, who died 27 Feb.
-/5. In his will, dated 30 Jan. 1664, he bequeathed to his "dear
-and loving wife Mercy Steele the house wherein I now dwell and the
-appurtenances belonging to it.".
-On Mercy's marriage to the Hon. John Steele, her three minor children,
-[[003_John|John]],
-[[004_Zachariah|Zachariah]]
-and Richard, became members of his household in Farmington. They
-could hardly have been better placed in any Connecticut household of
-the time. It is a pleasure to record that the interests of Richard
-Seymour's minor children were safeguarded. We quote from Selleck's
-"Norwalk," p. 154:
-Richard Seymour<sup>1st.</sup>
-executed his will July 29, 1655, and died within the next three
-months. He had appointed his wife and his "faithful friend"
-Richard Olmsted administrators, leaving everything to his
-aforementioned children, and commissioning his wife to take charge of
-the estates of the three younger boys "until such time as they
-shall be fit to receive and dispose of" the same. Mrs. Steele
-sought the welfare of her Seymour offspring, as did also her second
-husband. On Oct. 13,((Error for 30 Oct.)) 1668, thirteen years after the decease of Mr.
-Seymour and four years after that of Mr. Steele, the three lads, now
-arrived at majority, were paid the "full and just" amount
-due them, and acknowledged before Samuel Steele and their brother
-Thomas that they were "fully satisfied." From the first
-[John] of this trio of youths, bereft at an age when they most needed
-it, of a father's counsel, but still judiciously cared for, have
-descended well-known New England and New York families.
-The mutilated first
-volume of Fairfield Probate Records (page 6) contains the recorded
-copy of Richard Seymour's will; the original is not in the files. We
-have no autograph of Richard Seymour and hence we do not know his own
-spelling of his name. The surname is diversely spelled in various
-records pertaining to him and his sons, but in those days spelling
-was largely phonetic and hence the spelling employed by the early
-scribes is not significant. By the time of his grandsons, the
-standard spelling of the name seems to have been generally accepted.
-<file>
-         [The will of Richar]d Semer (1655)
-         [             ] being very week & sike [           ] gods pon[?]
-      mercy in [           ] doe leve this as my [             ] doe first
-      will and [  ] dust of w<sup>eh</sup> it was [//made //and my soul into the]
-      hands of God that gave it [and I doe will and] bequeath unto my Loving wife
-      Mercy [Seamor] my whole Estate: viz: my house & Lands Cattle and [all]
-      my moveables: Except that it is my Will that [my] Eldest sonn Thomas should
-      have two steeres [  ] year old and upward and my best cartt:
-      thease [to] receive soen after my decease:
-         It is alsoe my will that my other three sons John & Zachary [and] Richard
-      receive out of this Totall estate the sum of forty pounds each of them viz:
-      fourty pounds to John and fourty pounds to Zachary and forty pounds to
-      Richard: duly and faythiully to be payd to them severally at the age of twenty-
-      one years: Unles the Executo<sup>rs</sup> of this my Will shall see cause to doe it soener:
-      It is alsoe my Will that my loving wife should have the dispose of my three
-      sons John Zachary & Richard untill such time as they shall be fit to receive and
-      dispose of ther Estate: It is alsoe my will and apoyntment that my loving Wife
-      Mercy: togather with my faythfull freind Richard Olmsted be the sole Executo<sup>rs</sup>
-      and Administrato<sup>rs</sup> of this my Last Will and Testament the aforesaid Legasies
-      and all Lawfull debts and demands duly discharged by my loving wife Mercy:
-      It is my will that shee posses and enioy all the rest of my Estate. to this my
-      will and Testament I have set to my hand this 29th July 1655:
-         In the presence of us
-      Thomas Handford                              the marke of Richard //f// Seamer
-      Jno Rescoe
-octobar 1655
-         The Court haveing examined the will of Richard Seamor they doe approve
-      therof
-                                                   William Hill: Secretary
-</file>
-The top section of
-the inventory also has suffered and is partly illegible.
-Anno Dom[ini]
-\\
-\\
-Octob<sup>r</sup> 10[th]
-\\
-Imprim[is]
-\\
-| [--- | ---] |
-| [--- | ---] |
-| In w[earing apparel] | [08-05-00] |
-| In Chest[s, wooden ware and] other mov[eables] | [06-05-00] |
-| In Iron Tools and nayles | [03-02-00] |
-| In hempe and flaxe | [02-10-00] |
-| In butter and cheese | [02-10-00] |
-| In a Cart plowe & dr[ag]get tackling | [05]-03-00 |
-| In Corn | [16-02-00] |
-| In hay | [08-00-00] |
-| In oxen | [33-00-00] |
-| In Cowes and Calves | [35-00-00] |
-| In steeres and heifers | [21-00-00] |
-| In a mare and fole & a yong hors | [28-00-00] |
-| In sort hoggs | [17-00-00] |
-| In smaller hoggs and Piggs | [20-05-00] |
-| In debts | [11-00-00] |
-| In bookes | [01-00-00] |
-| In armes and ammunition | [03-02-00] |
-| |  ----  |
-| Totall | [255-09-00] |
-Apprised by us
-Mathew Campfeild
-Richard Olmsteed
-Octob<sup>r</sup> 1655
-William Hill Secretary
-The Court haveing examined this Inventory of Richard Seamors they doe approve therof.
-The receipt of the three younger sons reads as follows [Fairfield Probate
-Records, vol. 2, p. 33] :
-Octobr 30: 1668
-Received by vs John
-Semer Zackery Semer Richard Semer of M<sup>r</sup> John Steele
-deceased the full and Just sum of sixscore pounds sterling: that is
-to say forty pounds each of vs vpon the Ac<sup>o</sup> of ye legasies
-due to vs by the last will of o<sup>r</sup> Honored father Richard
-Semer deceased and we doe acknowledg that it is a full and compleat
-acomplishment of ye aforesaid will Respecting our selues and doe by
-these presents fully wholy compleatly acquit and discharge ye
-aforsaid Steele and alsoe ye Executor and ye Executrix of ye estate
-of ye aforesaid Semer all and every of them ther heirs Executors
-Administrators and assignes from any or all demands from or by our
-selues our heirs Executors Administrators & assignes respecting
-the premises or from any person from by or vnder vs aknowlidging that
-we are fully satisiyed as aforesaid and doe by these p<sup>r</sup>sents
-wholly discharge ye aforesaid persons respecting ye p<sup>r</sup>mises
-- as witnes or hands
-| Witnes hearof | Zackery Semer |
-| Samuell Steele | Richard Semer |
-| Tho: Semer | John Semer |
-This is a True Coppy acording to ye origenall Transcribed p me
-Will<sup>m</sup> Hill Clarke
-That
-the four sons of Richard Seymour made a place for themselves in their
-respective communities, may be gauged by the fact that their combined
-inventories at death amounted to well over £2,000, which of
-course makes no allowance for property bestowed on the children of
-some of them before they died.
-Children:
-| 2. | i. | [[002_Thomas|THOMAS]]<sup>2</sup>, bapt. at Sawbridgeworth, co. Herts, Eng., 15 July 1632. |
-|  | ii. | MARY, bapt. at Sawbridgeworth, co. Herts, Eng., 9 Jan 1634/5; bur. there 3 Apr. 1635. |
-|  | iii. | MERCY, bapt. at Sawbridgeworth, co. Herts, Eng., 8 July 1636; no further record of her has been found. |
-| 3. | iv. | [[003_John|JOHN]]<sup>2</sup>, b. probably at Hartford, Conn. |
-| 4. | v. | [[004_Zachariah|ZACHARIAH]], b. at Hartford, Conn., abt. 1642. |
-| 5. | vi. | [[005_Richard|RICHARD]], b. at Hartford, Conn. |
-\\
-[[english_origin|(<-- The English Origin)]] [[start|(Back to Start)]] [[002_thomas|(2. Thomas(2) Seymour -->)]]