I can't think right now why I've thought the John Whitfield, (stonemason of Hexham, and born about 1655) why his Father was named John also. Very possible...maybe even likely....but what was my thinking or sources?
Oh, I know...the two most likely birthplaces/birthdates for John the
stonemason listed both fathers as a John also.
If John Whitfield, stonemason, is the one born 1655, Haydon Bridge....then his father was John.
That father-John, if born 24 years prior to John-(who became stonemason) was likely son of Thomas Whitfield and born either 1630 or
1631 at Whitfield.
__________________________________________________
Thomas Whitfield, born 1691 at Hexam, was the son of a John Whitfield.
I have found Thomas#831 Whitfield's brothers and sisters. Thomas was the eighth of ten children. All ten were born within ten years, between 1683 and 1693, and EIGHT of those TEN babies died, soon after they were born. Their mother, Emma, also died after the birth of her tenth child. I believe the ninth died also.
The Parish Church of Hexham's records checked by Lila (film #94997), and the IGI show the following:
BAPTISM BURIAL
John 12 Sep 1684 (probably d abt a year old)
Hannah17 Aug 16841680 "dau of John, freestone mason,sent certificate to minister by Elizabeth Stokoe@
affidavit Sept 7 (Minister confused?*
Burial date probably 1684. See*.
Robert 3 Sep 1685 28 Mar 1686 (d at 6 months)
William 21 Apr 1687 22 Mar 1688(d at 11 months)
Mary 13 Aug 1688 5 May 1688 (Minister confused?
wrong month. See*.)
Utrick 26 Sep 1689 15 Oct 1690(d at 1 yr & 3 weeks)
Mathias19 Mar 1691 12 Jun 1691(d at 3 months)
THOMAS19 Mar 1691 (He lived!)
Matthew 22 Jun 1692 2 Apr 1693(d at 9 months)
John 9 Oct 1693
Going down that list of burials is sad. It appears that the second baby, Hannah, died when three weeks old. A week later, the first child, John,
died. The third baby died at six months, the fourth at eleven months, the fifth at three months, the sixth child lived one year and three weeks, then came the twins. The oldest twin, Mathias, only lived for three months. How did our THOMAS, the other twin, escape?
After Thomas, came Matthew, and he lived for only nine months, and then came the baby, John, who was baptized on 9 October 1693. That was the same day his mother, Emma, was buried. How sad the father, JOHN
WHITFIELD, must have been. Ten children, eight gone, and now his wife. As far as I know, the baby, John, lived. (Later. I find "Burial, infant of John Whitfield, mason, 14 OCT 1694.)
________________________
All of those aforementioned burials are listed as: "Burials hereby in the 6th Register in Liberty of Hexham," and each child is listed as a son or
dau of "JOHN WHITFIELD, FREESTONE MASON." (film # 94997)
Emma, the wife of John Whitfield, mason, dies 9 Oct 1693. ??Infant of John, the mason buried 14 Oct 1694???
MARRIAGE: "John Whitfield, freestone mason, md. Mary Carrick, spinster, 3 Feb 1700." or 1701
Baptisms from IGI:
William son of John Whitfield, mason, Hexham. b. 20 Mar 1701
BURIAL: "JOHN WHITFIELD, FREESTONE MASON. 27 Feb1703-4."
Source: Hexham Register.
WILLS: Yorkshire wills: Whitfield, John Hexham 19 May 1705 A (= administration?)
19 May 1705 ad John Whitfield fr H to John Aynsley "L. H & John Aynsley princ ad." (film # 98554)
From the above, it appears that THOMAS WHITFIELD, b 1691, HEXHAM, was one child, out of ten, to survive infancy.** It also looks as if his Mother, Emma, died when he was 2 1/2 years old.
John, the freestone mason, married secondly Mary Carrick Feb 1700 or
1701. Hexham: "1700 Mar 20 William s of Jno Whitfield, Freestone mason. Wit: Amos Raw, Timothy Johnson, Ann Carricke." film # 94997
Then John Whitfield, the freestone mason, died and was buried 27 Feb l703.----------
John, the freestone mason, married secondly Mary Carrick Feb 1700, just before son, THOMAS had his 9th birthday. (Who took care of Thomas for those 6 1/2 years?)
Since Thomas#831 was md in Allendale and his children were born in East Allendale, it seems possible Thomas could have gone to live with
Whitfield rels in Allendale after his Mother died.*** Thus establishing a place where he would live after marriage.
***Could Thomas Whitfield#831 have been raised by John Whitfield and Jane of Midlup and Scotts Meadow?
The first child for John & Jane Whitfield-listed in the parish register-
-is a son named John b 9 Oct 1690, of Midlup. Evidently this son died because they named a 2nd son "John" also, b 6 Apr 1693.
The father, John Whitfield, husband of Jane, died in 1709. And he left a will naming the first son "Thomas." Yet there is no record of Thomas's
birth in Allendale PR. It's possible that John and Jane Whitfield were the relatives who raised
the orphan, Thomas Whitfield #831-,in place of their son, John, that died- and treated Thomas#831 as if he was one of their own.
________________________________________________________
QUESTION - How do I decide which JOHN WHITFIELD is father of THOMAS
b 1691, at Hexham Parish Church?
When I first started out, all I had was Thomas. I reasoned that "If Thomas was b 1691 (in Hexham), then his father was born at least 20
years prior (= 1671), and maybe as much as 50 years prior (=1641) to his son's birth." So I looked on the IGI for a John Whitfield born between 1641-1671, probably at Hexham or Allendale.
There are four JOHN WHITFIELDS listed on the NBL IGI that were born within the 1641-1671 time span. They are:
1.) John, son of John Whitfield, b 5 Dec l658, Newcastle Upon Tyne, All Saints.
2.) John, son of John Whitfield, b 15 Mar 1655, Haydon Bridge
3.) John, son of Richard Whitfeild, b 22 Oct 1671, Allenton, Allendale Town.
4.) John, son of Jo Whitfeild/Ann, b 14 Dec 1647, Newcastle Upon Tyne, St. Nicholas Parish Rec and Nonconf.
But how do I know which JOHN WHITFIELD is father of THOMAS b 1691, at Hexham?
My first task was to check the IGI for all children born in Hexham, to a John, for the periods 1670 to 1711, which I did. I found the children of
John Whitfield and all born in Hexham, as is Thomas, and he fits, (as you can see at the beginning of these notes.) His twin brother makes an obvious connection in itself. But I still don't know which JOHN WHITFIELD was the father.
--------------------
From the IGI, I extracted 12 or 13 names of children that looked like they belonged to John Whitfield of Hexham. They begin with 1684, 85,
87, 88, 89, My THOMAS & his twin MATTHEW in 1691, and (the last) in 1693. Then there are three more, sons of John Whitfield of Hexham, b
1701, 1705 and 1707. And an "ANNE, dau of John, b. 8 OCT 1713."
AND THE NAMES DO CLOSELY RESEMBLE THE THREE GENERATIONS OF THE LATER DESCENDANTS OF THOMAS & MARGARET (TEASDALE) WHITFIELD.
But the problem still remains as to WHICH John is the father of those 10-13 children.
#4.) John, son of Jo Whitfeild/Ann, b 14 Dec 1647, Newcastle Upon Tyne, St. Nicholas Parish Rec and Nonconf." has been ruled out because
this John was born 1647. He's not at all likely to have been the father of 9 children, starting in 1684 when he would have been 43 years old.
So I've discounted this John.
____________________
#3.) JOHN WHITFIELD, son of Richard #3 (above), apparently died, age 6. Source, p 22 Lila: " 22 October 1671, John Whitfield, s of Richard of Allenton was Bp Allendale Town Church." and p 71 Lila: "28 Feb 1678,
John W s o Richard bd in Ch. --Allendale Burials Parish Church and St. Peters Chapel." Dr. Young substantiates both the baptism and burial p 1 of her letter #3. So this John has been ruled out.
_______________________
#1.) JOHN WHITFIELD, son of JOHN, b 1658 at Newcastle does fit. (assuming that this was the John that moved to Hexham:) An educated guess of the marriage date for John would be 1683 which would be one year prior to the first child and John's age would be 25 at the time of his marriage, which is very reasonable.
#2.) John, son of John Whitfield, b 15 Mar 1655, Haydon Bridge" may even be a better possibility because Haydon Bridge is very close to Hexham. He would have been about 28 when he married.
______________
--------------------------------------------------------------- I
April 1, 1991:
I still don't know which John Whitfield is the father of Thomas b 1691 at Hexham. The John Whitfield, born 1655, son of John, at Haydon Bridge would fit; also the John Whitfield, born 1658, son of John, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, would also fit. Since Haydon Bridge is closer to
Hexham and Allendale, that John seems most likely. Another fact seems to exclude the "John from Newcastle." I've found the father and brothers and sisters of "John from Newcastle."
Only three of the names of his eleven siblings are used with the siblings of Thomas. And those three names are common names: "John, Robert and William." It seems the "John from Newcastle" is not the same "JOHN who
moved to HEXHAM." This makes the "John from Haydon Bridge" even more likely.
What do we do next?
_________________________________________________________
HISTORY:
The 1608 Survey*, pages 86-104, lists no WHITFIELDS in Hexhamshire or
Hexham town. It does list a "Francis Whitfielde and ELIZABETH STOCOE with a tenement called Corry Hill in Ninebankes, Westalwentdale" on pg 98, also a "George Whitfielde at Turner Sheele [and] Francis Whitfielde at Hartopley," same page.
There is as a detailed list of Ninebanks place names on pg 98 without inhabitants names; East Allendale is to be found on 95-98 and "Matthew Whitfield, with a tenement called Hollinclose" is on pg 95.
______________
"In 1632 the connection with the Crown (for Hexhamshire) ceased entirely" and it appears that almost all of the land and appurtenances
went to Sir John Fenwick, by letters patent.
"This grant comprised East and West Allendale, . . .Hexhamshire. . . all lead mines and lead ore to be obtained within the liberty, . . .the market
and tolls of Hexham, . . .with all courts, and rents and services of the manor, . . .
In spite of the privileges of the Hexham opyholders, and notwithstanding the fact that they paid no heriots, and had almost complete liberty in the disposal of their lands, they were miserably poor, and were always in difficulties. " (59*)
"The Hexham estate remained in the hands of the Fenwick family until the end of the year 1689. At that time, Sir John Fenwick, sold the whole
of the property to SIR WILLIAM BLACKETT of Wallington and Newcastle-upon-Tyne." (62)
*Hinds, Allen B., History of Northumberland Hexhamshire Part I Vol. III, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Reid & Co, 1896.
on right shoulder + first letter of parish. (repealed 1782) 1698 TAXES IMPOSED ON ENTRIES IN REGISTERS
1702 William III dies; succeeded by Anne. War with France again.
1703 TAXES ON REGISTER-ENTRIES REPEALED.
1707 Scottish Parliament end. England and Scotland united 1 kingdom.
1714 Queen Anne Dies, George I.
1715 Jacobite Rebellion in Scotland. Hexhamshire feeling was the
strongest. Govt harsh on copyholders in Hexhamshire.
1733 "No more Latin in registers."
1739 John Wesley begins Methodist revival.
1756 Bad harvest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Or did the minister make a mistake? He said at beginning of his parish records: "Note: Ye Wm L______, minister of St. John Lee did marry and
baptize all applicants............even though severly threatened by soldiers who with cocked pistols.............besides being extremely confused."
I have found enough substantiating records to be convinced THE MINISTER WAS CONFUSED, or a drinker or careless. His records were helpful, but full of mistakes. _
_________________________________________________________
**What caused so many infant deaths in this family? Plague or Those diseases would have wiped out the family in a year or two. However, John Whitfield lost his children one per year.
The following excerpt from "Cleanliness is a Recent Virtue" by Jay Stuller, Smithsonian, Feb 91: pg132, sheds light on the likely cause. of
those infant's deaths: "People always talk about the good old days, before pesticides and pollution," says Greene. (V. W. Greene, professor of epidemiology at the Ben Gurion Medical School in Beersheva, Israel. 127) "But in the good old days of Europe and the U.S., people lived in filth, with human and animal
fecal matter all around. The rivers were filthy. Clothing was infested with vermin." (132) "there was no running water, streams were cold and
polluted, heating fuel was expensive, and soap was hard to get. There just weren't facilities for personal hygiene. Cleanliness wasn't a part of
the folk culture." (127) Disease ran rampant. Scholars point to advances in medical science,
such as vaccines and antibiotics, as the major factors in turning the tide. Credited, too, are nutritional improvements and milk pasteurization. Improved public sanitation, garbage collection, sewers and delivery of potable water played a major role. Often overlooked, however, are changes in personal and domestic hygiene, the benefits of which, claims Green, cannot be overestimated. "For one thing, Green explains, "pasturization and vaccines didn't really come along until the mortality decline was well established. That's not to say vaccines weren't important. But nearly 40 diseases are transmitted by feces, urine and other secretions on contaminated hands or other objects. The greatest cause of fatal infant diarrhea came from
mothers who didn't wash their hands and passed along intestinal bacteria to their babies." (127)