Wife of Robert Hempstead, mother of children: Mary (Robert Douglass)...first child born in the new town of Pequot, later New London...Joshua (Elizabeth Larrabee) and Hannah (Abel Moore, Samuel Waller).
Many have given Joane the maiden name WILLEY, or WILLIE; THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD offers no "substantial" encouragement for such conjecture. The 1999 version (published by the New London County Historical Society) correctly lists her as "Joane" (introduction). It's also [at least] noteworthy that Joshua (1678-1758), the Diarist, never refers to any Willey (Willie) as "Uncle, Aunt or Cousin;" or any other relational capacity.
It's also noteworthy that in THE prominent AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, Donald Lines Jacobus states:
"There is not the slightest shred of evidence that his [Robert Hempstead's] wife's name was Joanna Willie, or Willey. Miss Caulkins, in her account of Robert Hempstead, pg. 272, History of New London, says nothing about who his wife was, merely gives the names of his three children Mary, Joshua and Hannah; it is only on page 310, in her sketch of the family of Isaac Willey, that she says 'inferential testimony leads us to enroll among the members of this family Joanna, wife of Robert Hempstead...' Where the 'inferential testimony' comes in it does not appear.
"It is by no means certain that her first name was even 'Joanna;' in his will, Robert Hempstead gives her the name 'Joane'--not necessarily a two-syllable word, but [possibly] pronounced as a one-syllable word; the 'oane' sounding the same as 'one' in 'cone.'
"Savage [Genealogist James Savage, Dean of American Genealogy]... fails to accept her [Caulkins'] 'inferential testimony;' and there is certainly nothing about it to warrant the...statement as given in the introduction [to the 1901 edition of THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD], viz.: 'Robert Hempstead married Joanna Willie.'"
HOWEVER, after all of this rather negative reflection upon Joane's parentage, I certainly accept that the body of evidence cannot "prove" she wasn't the daughter of Isaac Willey/Willie! And in that spirit I absolutely welcome those who believe she was!
Many have given Joane the maiden name WILLEY, or WILLIE; THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD offers no "substantial" encouragement for such conjecture. The 1999 version (published by the New London County Historical Society) correctly lists her as "Joane" (introduction). It's also [at least] noteworthy that Joshua (1678-1758), the Diarist, never refers to any Willey (Willie) as "Uncle, Aunt or Cousin;" or any other relational capacity.
It's also noteworthy that in THE prominent AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, Donald Lines Jacobus states:
"There is not the slightest shred of evidence that his [Robert Hempstead's] wife's name was Joanna Willie, or Willey. Miss Caulkins, in her account of Robert Hempstead, pg. 272, History of New London, says nothing about who his wife was, merely gives the names of his three children Mary, Joshua and Hannah; it is only on page 310, in her sketch of the family of Isaac Willey, that she says 'inferential testimony leads us to enroll among the members of this family Joanna, wife of Robert Hempstead...' Where the 'inferential testimony' comes in it does not appear.
"It is by no means certain that her first name was even 'Joanna;' in his will, Robert Hempstead gives her the name 'Joane'--not necessarily a two-syllable word, but [possibly] pronounced as a one-syllable word; the 'oane' sounding the same as 'one' in 'cone.'
"Savage [Genealogist James Savage, Dean of American Genealogy]... fails to accept her [Caulkins'] 'inferential testimony;' and there is certainly nothing about it to warrant the...statement as given in the introduction [to the 1901 edition of THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD], viz.: 'Robert Hempstead married Joanna Willie.'"
HOWEVER, after all of this rather negative reflection upon Joane's parentage, I certainly accept that the body of evidence cannot "prove" she wasn't the daughter of Isaac Willey/Willie! And in that spirit I absolutely welcome those who believe she was!
Wife of Robert Hempstead, mother of children: Mary (Robert Douglass)...first child born in the new town of Pequot, later New London...Joshua (Elizabeth Larrabee) and Hannah (Abel Moore, Samuel Waller).
Many have given Joane the maiden name WILLEY, or WILLIE; THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD offers no "substantial" encouragement for such conjecture. The 1999 version (published by the New London County Historical Society) correctly lists her as "Joane" (introduction). It's also [at least] noteworthy that Joshua (1678-1758), the Diarist, never refers to any Willey (Willie) as "Uncle, Aunt or Cousin;" or any other relational capacity.
It's also noteworthy that in THE prominent AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, Donald Lines Jacobus states:
"There is not the slightest shred of evidence that his [Robert Hempstead's] wife's name was Joanna Willie, or Willey. Miss Caulkins, in her account of Robert Hempstead, pg. 272, History of New London, says nothing about who his wife was, merely gives the names of his three children Mary, Joshua and Hannah; it is only on page 310, in her sketch of the family of Isaac Willey, that she says 'inferential testimony leads us to enroll among the members of this family Joanna, wife of Robert Hempstead...' Where the 'inferential testimony' comes in it does not appear.
"It is by no means certain that her first name was even 'Joanna;' in his will, Robert Hempstead gives her the name 'Joane'--not necessarily a two-syllable word, but [possibly] pronounced as a one-syllable word; the 'oane' sounding the same as 'one' in 'cone.'
"Savage [Genealogist James Savage, Dean of American Genealogy]... fails to accept her [Caulkins'] 'inferential testimony;' and there is certainly nothing about it to warrant the...statement as given in the introduction [to the 1901 edition of THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD], viz.: 'Robert Hempstead married Joanna Willie.'"
HOWEVER, after all of this rather negative reflection upon Joane's parentage, I certainly accept that the body of evidence cannot "prove" she wasn't the daughter of Isaac Willey/Willie! And in that spirit I absolutely welcome those who believe she was!
Many have given Joane the maiden name WILLEY, or WILLIE; THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD offers no "substantial" encouragement for such conjecture. The 1999 version (published by the New London County Historical Society) correctly lists her as "Joane" (introduction). It's also [at least] noteworthy that Joshua (1678-1758), the Diarist, never refers to any Willey (Willie) as "Uncle, Aunt or Cousin;" or any other relational capacity.
It's also noteworthy that in THE prominent AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, Donald Lines Jacobus states:
"There is not the slightest shred of evidence that his [Robert Hempstead's] wife's name was Joanna Willie, or Willey. Miss Caulkins, in her account of Robert Hempstead, pg. 272, History of New London, says nothing about who his wife was, merely gives the names of his three children Mary, Joshua and Hannah; it is only on page 310, in her sketch of the family of Isaac Willey, that she says 'inferential testimony leads us to enroll among the members of this family Joanna, wife of Robert Hempstead...' Where the 'inferential testimony' comes in it does not appear.
"It is by no means certain that her first name was even 'Joanna;' in his will, Robert Hempstead gives her the name 'Joane'--not necessarily a two-syllable word, but [possibly] pronounced as a one-syllable word; the 'oane' sounding the same as 'one' in 'cone.'
"Savage [Genealogist James Savage, Dean of American Genealogy]... fails to accept her [Caulkins'] 'inferential testimony;' and there is certainly nothing about it to warrant the...statement as given in the introduction [to the 1901 edition of THE DIARY OF JOSHUA HEMPSTEAD], viz.: 'Robert Hempstead married Joanna Willie.'"
HOWEVER, after all of this rather negative reflection upon Joane's parentage, I certainly accept that the body of evidence cannot "prove" she wasn't the daughter of Isaac Willey/Willie! And in that spirit I absolutely welcome those who believe she was!
Family Members
Children
