I may be related to two Mayflower passengers

Kricket · February 11, 2003, 10:05pm

I’m related to Miles Standish.
Not really a pilgrim right? But helped them make safe passage? From what I have heard kind of jerky?

I usually tell people about my relation to the Hatfields before Standish since I know more about them than him.

ftg · February 11, 2003, 10:28pm

Abraham Lincoln has no living descendents. The last living descendent was guy who died childless a few years back.

99% of people’s claims to relations to famous people are bogus.

(Here’s a link but the url tags don’t work, the apostrophe? So copy and paste it.)

http://www.nps.gov/libo/Lincoln’s%20Descendents2.htm

Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas · February 12, 2003, 4:40pm

Standish was an English soldier hired by the Pilgrims as a military advisor. He organised the murder of two local Indians because they were “heathens”, the ones, according to the fake Thanksgiving story every American kid hears, portrays as friends of the Pilgrims forever.

UnuMondo

IThinkNot · February 12, 2003, 11:36pm

I am not related to any famous people, but I still find the concept of ancestry interesting.

When you think about it, no matter what source you believe (evolution vs. creation), we are all related.

Scary thought, hmm?

This also gives way to the small world theory, commonly known as Six Degrees of Separation. But while that is fascinating, it’s also a hijack, so I’m signing because I have nothing to say.

Fern_Forest · February 12, 2003, 11:50pm

You know, I always forget these things. My 10th great grandfather was the last person to whom the Pilgrims owed money to since he invested money through the shady Mr. Sherley. Here’s the account I wrote up.

Before 1625 Plymouth sent one of their own, a Mr. Allerton, to London. While there he contacted a Mr. Sherley who was a goldsmith. Goldsmiths were the bankers of the day. They were who you saw when you needed a loan. Mr. Sherley in turn contacted a Mr. Andrews and a Mr. Beauchamp to invest in the Plymouth Plantation. Beauchamp paid £1127 and Andrews £1136. It is said “Mr. Sherley pretendeth that hee did alsoe add the some of £1190 for his share.” As part of the agreement Sherley would receive shipments of skins and sell them. Then he would share profits with Beauchamp and Andrews. He would also pay the bills of the Plymouth colonists. These treaties were signed in 1625, 26 and 27.
In 1636 there was a plague epidemic. Everyone who could was spending as much time as possible outside of the city. Sherley would only spend 1 day a week there. It was during this bout of pestilence that Sherley received a shipment of beaver skins. What would in good times fetch up to £24 per pound was now less then £8. So Sherley decided to sit on the skins till the market went up. In the meantime he had to pay some bills run up by the colonists. He owed money to a Mr. Hall who was out of town. When contacted he said he could not pay. So Sherley went to see Beauchamp and Andrews. He told them they should each pay a third. They both refused. This all comes from a letter from Sherley to Plymouth.
In Plymouth the colonists were worried because in the 10 years of doing business with Sherley he had never once sent them an account of what he had been doing. They decided to halt all shipments till they got a full account. After doing so they received letters from Beauchamp and Andrews complaining about not receiving and furs and being £1100 in the hole. The colonists were shocked, they wrote back that they had been sending furs for a long time, and that they should see Sherley about their share.
Sherley refused to pay up. Apparantly he was mad about their refusal to pay the bill to Mr. Hall earlier. Beauchamp sued Sherley in Chancerie but apparantly lost.
Andrew and Beauchamp again wrote to the colonists and blamed them. The colonists took all their furs and sent them to Beauchamp and Andrews. They sent 1325 pounds to be divided equally among them. Beauchamp made £400, apparantly over the £1127 he invested. Andrews however was still down £40. This was in 1637.
Apparantly Sherley had been receiving furs for a long time and had been pocketing the profit without giving any to Beauchamp or Andrews. Finally in 1641 the colonists became so fed up with the lying cheating Sherley and tried to terminate their contract with him. On Oct 15, 1641 they wrote up a termination contract and had it sent to each of the three merchants, Sherley, Andrews and Beauchamp.
Beauchamp refused to accept their terms believing he was owed more. He demanded either an extra £400 or £400, I’m not clear on this. In April 7, 1643 Sherley sent a letter to the colonists arguing against Beauchamps claims. Apparantly what happened was that when the coalition fell apart each man tried to get as much out of it as he could and Sherly and Andrews turned on Beauchamp.
Finally in 1645 Beauchamp received £210 10s and I guess was satisfied. He was the last person to whom the colonists owed money. From this point on they were in the black. He apparantly had no further dealing with Plymouth.

If any of you want to send me furs to sell, I’d be happy to share the profits.

Shirley_Ujest · February 13, 2003, 3:52am

Ummmm, wouldn’t your friend be ‘related’ too? How could a daughter or son be related to someone famous but not the mother? Just baffled.

Fern_Forest · February 13, 2003, 3:58am

Presumably the spouse of the friend is the one who provides the descent making the friend only related by marriage and not blood.