Notes |
BIRTH: Also shown as Born of Puddington, , Nottinghamshire, England.
BIRTH: Also shown as Born Abt 1605
There is a book written about some men with the last name of Blood called "The story of the Bloods, including an account of the early generations" by Roger Deane Harris, which can be found online here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89084885870;view=1up;seq=20. It describes, on page 1, what the author believed about James Blood. According to this source, James came to New England no later than 1639, perhaps a little earlier. He was originally from Nottingham, where he married his wife Ellen Harrison 7 February 1630/1. He settled in that part of Concord which much later became Carlisle. [Carlisle became a district of Concord in 1780 and was officially incorporated as a town in 1805.] According to this source James had only two children - Mary and James Jr.
Mary's birth is listed in Concord vital records:
Bloud, Mary, d. James, 12: 5m: 1640.
She is the only child of James with a birth record in Concord vital records.
On page 143 of this same book there is a little more information about James, namely that he was born about 1605 or 6 (he gave a deposition in 1670 and gave his age then at 64) and left behind a will dated June 18, 1683.
So let's look at some of the above information. There does appear in Nottinghamshire, in St. Peter's parish records a marriage between James Bloud and Hellen Harrison (see link below to an ancestry.com indexed record) for 7 February 1630/[1?]. (In one indexed record his wife's name appears to be "Hellen" and in the other "Ellen.") James is listed as a "cordwayner" [shoemaker]. In Concord vital records, there is a death record for his wife:
Blood, Elen, w. James, Sr., Aug. 1, 1674.
She appears to have been a little older than James (according to page 143 she deposed in March of 1655/6 that she was then 55 years of age, which would give us a birth year estimate of about 1600.) If she had married at about age 31 that would be considered perhaps a little "older" for the times, and may help explain why they didn't appear to have a large family.
So while I wouldn't consider this to be conclusive proof that this marriage date belongs to THIS James Blood, it does seem to be at least consistent with the other information we have.
There were other men with the last name of "Blood" who lived in Massachusetts Bay Colony at roughly the same time as James. They are also mentioned in the "Story of the Bloods" discussed above - Richard, John, and Robert. Because they share a last name and a close geographical proximity for a period of time, they have been lumped in as "children" of James Blood by several authors. For example, "The history of Concord, Massachusetts. v. 1-" by Alfred Sereno Hudson, which can be found online here: https://archive.org/details/historyofconcord00huds. See especially page 488, which has some interesting, although probably incorrect, things to say about the Blood family, and I quote: "The American ancestor was James who went to Concord in 1639. James Blood is said to have been a brother Col. James Blood known in English history in connection with the reign of Charles II. [I think the author meant Col. Thomas Blood, but regardless I know of no proof of such a relation.] He died Nov. 17, 1683 leaving a large estate. His wife Ellen died in 1674. James and Ellen Blood had five children: Mary, Richard, John, James, and Robert. SO WE HAVE SOME CONFLICTING DATA here: The Story of the Bloods mentions two children, Mary and James, and this source adds three more, all who were mentioned in The Story of the Bloods, but none of whom were listed as children of James: Richard, John, and Robert. Robert is mentioned on page 144 (among others) of The Story of the Bloods. His birth year is estimated at 1626, since he gave a deposition in 1684 where he said he was 58 years old. This is several years before James Blood appears to have married Ellen Harrison, so it is unlikely that he is a son of James and Ellen. No previous marriage for James Blood has been found. Richard is mentioned on page 164 of The Story of the Bloods. According to The Story of the Bloods, Richard gave a deposition in 1660 that said he was 43 years old, so he was likely born about 1617, many years before James and Ellen were married. Biologically, it would be nearly impossible for Richard to be the son of James, as they are only about 12 years apart in age. Finally there is John, likely a brother to Robert, who together owned a large acreage of land outside of any city boundaries known as "Blood Farms." At one time, Blood Farms may have comprised as much as 3200 acres. It appears that John never married and died of an accidental gunshot wound. All of his land went to Robert's heirs. See page 5 of Story of the Bloods.
In short, there appears to be no evidence to support that Robert, John, or Richard were sons of James Blood. In fact, available evidence tends to disprove that they were his sons. Could they have been relatives? Certainly. But the fact that they seemed to take no part in his estate after his death, and that they were born before James married Ellen, is very troubling. The author of "The Story of the Bloods" writes: "The early writers claimed James came with his four sons James Jr., Richard, Robert, and John. This has since been discovered to be erroneous. Of the four only James Jr. is mentioned in his father's will and the ages of the various men as given in court depositions refute the statement." (See page 142).
James has a death record in Concord vital records:
Blood, James, 17: 9m: 1683.
No headstone remains for James and his place of burial is unknown.
The area which became the town of Concord was originally known as "Musketaquid", situated at the confluence of the Sudbury and Assabet rivers. The name Musketaquid was an Algonquian word for "grassy plain", fitting the area's low-lying marshes and kettle holes. The area was largely depopulated by the smallpox plague that swept across the Americas after the arrival of Europeans. In 1635, a group of settlers from Britain led by Rev . Peter Bulkley and Major Simon Willard negotiated a land purchase with the remnants of the local tribe. Bulkley was an influential religious leader who "carried a good number of planters with him into the woods"; Willard was a canny trader who spoke the Algonquian language and had gained the trust of Native Americans. They exchanged wampum, hatchets, knives, cloth, and other useful items for the six-square-mile purchase which formed the basis of the new town, called "Concord" in appreciation of the peaceful acquisition.
While James may have been there from the beginning of the town in 1635, the first evidence we have of him is apparently 1639. This is according to the book, "A History of the Town of Concord, Middlesex County, Massachusetts: From Its Earliest Settlement to 1832" by Lemuel Shattuck, which can be found online here :https://books.google.com/books/reader?id=2bsTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PA364. See page 364. Shattuck was one of those early writers who claimed James was the father of Richard, Robert, and John.
See also the book, "A genealogical dictionary of the first settlers of New England showing three generations of those who came before May, 1692, on the basis of Farmer's Register" by James Savage, page 205. He labels the previously-mentioned rumor that James was related to Colonel Blood as "idly reputed" "solely from similar surname." Savage also mentions Robert, James, Richard, and John.
See also the book, "Genealogies of some old families of Concord, Mass. and their descendants in part to the present generation" (volume 1) by Charles Edward Potter that can be found online here:https://archive.org/details/genealogiesofsom00pott. See page 6. Potter also mentions James, Richard, John, and Robert.
I am not sure what proof Shattuck had that James was in Concord in 1639, but certainly by 1640 when his daughter was born. Mary's birth record is one of the earliest births recorded in Concord.
James had no male grandchildren who lived long enough to carry on the Blood name.
|