[not correctly formatted to reflect Bold, Italica, quotes)
and probably a lot of typing errors! Sorry.
This is limited to quotations related to the
limited to the ncestors of John Minor
born 19 Dec, 1697, Woodbury
the son of John and Sarah (Rose) Minor
Selections from Pages 1-11, 16-18, 32:

Descendants of
Robert Rose
Wetherfield and Branford

Who came on the ship "Francis" in 1634
From Ipswich, England
Christine Rose
Certified Genealogiogist

San Jose, California

Page 1:

Robert Rose Family

of Wethersfield and Branford, Connecticut and His Descendants


    Robert1 Rose was born ca 1594, perhaps in England since he set sail there from Ipswich. He d. at Branford, Conn. sometime between 25-Aug. 1664 (date of will) and 4 Apr. 1665 (will presented in court of New Haven).

    He m. 1st, before his entry into the Colonies, to Margery ---, b. ca 1594. Her identity is not known, nor her date of death, but she came in 1634 with her husband and eight children and had two children after their arrival. It is said that she died before 1644, though I find no supporting. records. Nothing is known of Margery beyond her name on the ship passenger list; her character, her parentage, all is lost to us.

    Robert Rose m. 2nd, 1664, New Haven VR, Elizabeth ( ) Potter Parker, birth unknown, d. 28 July 1677, New Haven VR. She was the widow first of John Potter* by whom she had John, Hanna and Samuel Potter, and second of Edward Parker by whom she had John, Hope and Lydia Parker.

    The second marriage of Robert Rose took place shortly after 7 June 1664 for on that date the widow Parker¥ was about to leave New Haven "to change her condition" and desired to know the "mind of the Court" concerning her children's portions (Anc. Town Rec., vol. II, P. 90). They were married only a few months, for Robert died soon after.

    In John Camden Hotten's The Original Lists of Persons of Quality (pp. 177-180), is a list of the passengers of the Francis (John Cutting,

    1Donald L. Jacobus suggests in .4nc. NH, VI:1459 that her first husband may he the John Potter who m. 14 Apr. 630. Chesham, co. Bucks. Eng., Elizabeth Wood, and had daughter Elizabeth Potter hp there 16 Feb. 1631.
    Robert Ruse's second wife Elizabeth seems to have been a strong willed woman.. A court action June 1643 involved slander of "widow Potter- and Edward Parker by a Mrs. Br-A-Aster. It appears that for some reason the church elders did not approve of Edward Parker and had requested Mrs. Potter not to receive his attentions. Mrs. Brewster reported that "Mrs. Potter would not join the church because she would not give up Edward Parker.- Elizabeth did marry him, and in Jule. 1646, "Edward Parker and his wife presented their desires to the Court to inyest John Potter's two sons in the right of their father's land and house and declared themselves willing to bestow a heifer of a year old on Hannah and deliver it presently for her use..." James Shepard, "The New Haven Potters'', Am. Gen., vol. 54, pp. 20-23).

Page 2:

Master) which embarked from Ipswich, England "bound for new England" the last of April 1634. From the list of adult passengers who presumably took the Oath of Allegiance, there are listed:

    Robert Rose aged 40
    Margery his wife aged 40
The passenger list also included their children:
    John Rose aged 15
    Robert Rose aged 15
    Eliz: Rose aged 13
    Mary Rose aged 11
    Samuell Rose aged 9
    Sarah Rose aged 7
    Danyell Rose aged 3
    Darcas Rose aged 2

    In an excellent article "Robert Rose of Wethersfield, Connecticut" (Am. Gen. 39:206), John Insley Coddington writes that the usually careful and painstaking Col. Charles E. Banks evidently erred in his The Planters of the Commonwealth (pp. 122- 124), in stating that Robert Rose came from Elmswell, county Suffolk, England. Col. Banks or his searcher had located in that parish register these entries:

    1619 William son of Robert & Margery Rose, bapt. 22 Aug.

    1621 Mary dau. of Robert & Margery Rose, bapt. 27 Feb. (1621/2) (Banks MSS., folio vol. M-R, p. 561, Rare Book Room, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.)

    Col. Banks assumed that this was the correct family, even though the parish records did not disclose baptisms for the other children on the ship passenger list, nor did it list the death of the son William who was not on the Francis. Mr. Coddington had a search conducted in England in 1939-40 by Miss Lilian J. Redstone who made extensive searches, particularly in the records of Ashfield Magna (Great Ashfield), Bacton, Cotton, Elmswell, Fornham St. Genevieve, Fornham St. Martin, and Hemingston, all in Suffolk. Though she found Roses in each of these parishes, she did not locate the marriage of Robert to Margery. Mr. Coddington further states it would appear that the above Robert Rose of Elmswell was probably the eldest son of William Rose of Cotton, yeoman, who was buried at Elmswell 26 Feb. 1620/21 leaving a will dated 18 May 1618, proved 12 Mar. 1620/1 (Archdeacons.' Court of Sudbury, Book 48, folio 175). Because of the appearance of a Robert 'Roose' who was taxed 17 shillings in Elmswell Parish in the Ship-Money Tax of 1639-40 (Vincent B. Redstone, The Ship-Money Returns for Co. Suffolk, transcribed from Harleian MSS. 7540-7542 [Ipswich, 1904], p. 59), we must proceed with caution in determining the ancestry. Robert

Page 3:

    Rose who embarked for the colonies in 1634 on the Francis could not have been taxed in Elmswell in 1639-40. It is possible that there were two Robert Rose in that parish, one who left for the Colonies and the other who remained, but it is also possible that Robert of Elmswell with wife Margery remained, and that another Robert with a wife by the same named sailed on the Francis. The ancestry therefore of Robert is unknown.

    It is not known if Robert Rose first settled in Watertown, Mass. and removed to Wethersfield about 1635, or if he went directly to that settlement in 1634. Dr. Bond in his History of Watertown (p. 413) says that it is not clearly ascertained that this family settled in Watertown, but that "it is probable, as they came over in the same ship with several other Watertown families and belonged to the colony that went thence to plant Wethersfield."

    Wethersfield, the oldest town in Connecticut, received from Watertown, Mass. its first considerable immigrations in 1634. Pvquag, its Indian name, was changed in 1635 to Watertown (named for the Massachusetts settlement), and on 29 May 1635 was again changed to Wethersfield (Weathersfield).

    It is said by some historians that the immigrant Robert Rose was a soldier in the Pequot War in 1637, but I think he has been mistaken for his son Robert whose service is proved (see section 3). He is listed in Judge Sherman W. Adams' list of first settlers of ancient Wethersfield (Stiles I:28). He was on a committee 16 Jan. 1639, to view lands for a settlement at Unxus Sepus (Farmington) (Pub. Rec. of Conn. vol. 1, p. 42); was sworn Constable at Wethersfield 6 Feb. 1639 (Ibid., p. 43); and was also a committeeman there 8 Feb. 1640 "to take into serious consideration" how the ground may be improved and the cattle kept (Ibid., p. 60). Stiles states he was one of the largest owners of "adventurers lands"; his homestead was on the southeast side of Broad Street, between Lieut. Rob't Seeley and John Clarke (later John Robbins). He sold this homestead to his son John Rose (who in turn sold it to John Latimer 11 Mar. 1650). He bought 20 acres in 1640 from Andrew Ward, and already "held the same amount in his own right" at the time (Stiles 1:27). "He also exch. 20 acs. of Plain Id. for a like quantity there, with John Robbins, 1641" (Ibid., I:294).

    He represented the town at general court as Deputy, Sept. 1641, Aug. 1642, and Mar. and Apr. 1643 (Pub. Rec. of Conn. vol. 1, pp. 67, 73, 82, 84). Robert Rose was active in thc affairs of the town, and served on many committees. He also served as fence viewer, helped collect taxes, appraised, and served the town in many other capacities. He is mentioned often in the town records.

Page 4:

[Photo not included here]

Plaque marking the homesite of the "adventurer" Robert Rose, Wetherdireld. Conecticut. It states "Home Site of Robert Rose One of the Adventurer 1634 Born in Enlgand 1594 Died in Branford, Conn. 1664."

    A letter written by Samuel Smith, son of the Rev. Henry Smith who was in Wethersfield by 1639 (Stiles, I:154), gives us a glimpse into life during those years as recalled by a man who spent his youth in early Wethersfield:

Ye firste Meeting- House was solid mayde to withstande ye wicked onsaults of ye Red Skins. Its Foundations was laide in ye feare of Lord, buts its Walls was truly laide in ye feare of ye Indians for many & grate was ye Terrors of em. I do minde me yt alle ye able-bodyed Men did work thereat & olde & feeble did watch in turns to espie if any Salvages was in hidinge neare & every Man keept his Musket nighe to his hande. I do not myself remember any of yt Attacks mayde by large bodeys of Indians whilst we did remayne in Weathersfield, but did oftimes hear of em. Several Amiles Wch did live hack a ways from ye River was either Murderdt or Captivated in my Boyhood & we all did live in constant feare of ye like ...

    There arose a controversy among the previously mentioned Rev. Henry Smith, who moved into Wethersfield with his wife and several children in 1639, and members of his congregation. So much difference existed that in 1643 the General Court appointed a committee to take the matter "into sadde and serious consideration", and their report, submitted April 13th of that year, found the difference to be "exceeding great" (Pub. Rec. of Conn., vol. 1, p. 87, orig. p. 103). In Nov. 1643 the General Court cleared Mr. Smith from the accusations against him, and proceeded to impose penalities upon the signers of the "declaration" against him. Among the list of

Page 5:

those fined was 40s on Robert Rose. Probably as a result of this dissension, he removed about 1644 with others to Totoket (Bran- ford) r p. 1) and the name of "Ro Rosse" appears in the first division of meadow lands there on 7 July 1646 (Branford Town Records vol. I, p. 1).

    The move of those from Wethersfield to Branford is described in Rockey, History of New Haven County, vol. II, pp. 2-3, quoted in that source from an account of Rev. Elijah C. Baldwin:

In the month of December, 1638, the New Haven settlers bought an additional tract of land of the Indians. It was ten miles in length. north and south. and extended eight miles east of the Quinnipiac riyer. It was bought of Montowese, son of Sowheog, the sachem of Mattabeseck Indians ... this territory was then called Totoket, from the Indian name of a range of hills in the northern part . . . September 3d, 1640, the general court at New Hayen made a grant of Totoket to Mr. Samuel Eaton .. [however], he went to England to procure settlers, but never returned. In 1643 Totoket was granted to Mr. William Swaine and others of Wethersfield . .. the remoyal from Wethersfield was the result of diyisions in the church there ... the men who had bought Totoket for a settlement ame to occupy their purchase early in 1644.

    Robert Rose had three acres in his house-lot in Branford, beside meadow lands, and a dwelling house appraised at forty pounds in May 1663 (TS, vol. 1, p. 182, orig. p. 178), one of the highest in town. In a list from the same town records for 1663 (Ibid., p. 21, orig. p. 27), his acreage was equalled only by Mr. Plum and Tho. Muliner. It is clear he was a man of some means in the town.

    He appeared in the Particular Court records (Pub. Rec. of Conn., vol. 1, p. 109, orig. p. 124) on 1 Aug. 1644, in an action Nath: Foote agst Robert Rose. The jury awarded plaintiff damages and costs of court. In an action 5 June 1646, Robert Rose plaintiff agst Robins defendant, the jury found for the plaintiff ten pounds damages and cost of court (Ibid., p. 140, orig. p. 152). In another record (Ibid., p. 177, orig. p. 187), court of 1 Mar. 1648, Robert Rose was fined 20s for a misdeamor (nature not stated), and in the same court Enoch Buck was fined lOs for irregular speeches in court against Robert Rose "when hee spake vppon his oath."

    In the Town Records of Branford (TS, vol. 1, p. 180, orig. p. 177), Mr. Crane entered action 16 May 1655 agst Robert Rose and Josiah Ward for "pulling down his fence which they acknowledged they to pay court costs and make the fence good."

    From Rockey, History of New Haven County, vol. II, p. 74, quoted from the records of Rev. Elijah C. Baldwin:

"[Robert Rose] was one of the Branford original proprietors. There is a tradition 'that Robert Rose owned ten cows and sixty horses'; also, that the Sunday 'milking' was always given to the poor. The Bible he bought with him from England, printed in 1599... has been in its time. the property of three or four deacons of the Rose family."

Page 6:

    After the death of Robert Rose, there appeared in the Branford Town Records 12 Dec. 1665 ( TS, vol. 1, p. 228) a matter in which "Frances Linsley Defendant in a case about a Calfe that hee had in his home lot and went through goodman Roses fence into his home lot ... and there by being lost hee entered an action against Samuel Rose being administrator of his father Robert Rose deceased."

    The mention of "goodman" Rose in the foregoing record gives us some proof that the various records in the Town Records of Branford do indeed refer to the immigrant Robert Rose. There has been speculation on this matter, since some of the early records refer to Robert Rose (or Rosse) and others refer to "goodman Rose." Donald L. Jacobus in his ''Rose Notes" (MS., Conn. State Historical Society) believed that "Goodman Rose" was the Robert Rose of Long Island. However, I made a careful study of the Long Island family of Robert Rose and found that various historians erred in an identification of this man. Robert Rose of Long Island left a widow named Dorothy, and though both he and the Branford Robert had sons named John, the court records prove that the Long Island John was born about 1638 for he testified in 1655 that he was about 17 (Conklin Mann, "Two Daughters of Ananias Concklyne", American Genealogist, 11 [Jan. 1935], p. 142), while the John who came on the Francis was born ca 1619 according to his age as stated on the ship passenger list. Further, "goodman Rose" of Branford was still living after the death of Robert Rose of Long Island. I do not discount the possibility that Robert Rose of Long Island may have been for a time in Branford, or even that some of Branford family may have been on Long Island, but clearly there are two Robert Rose and each left families.

    I am indebted to Miss Nora G. Frisbee of Glendale, California for her permission to use the following account which she prepared in 1966:

    "One of the most delightful and unintentionally comic episodes in which Robert Rose was involved was that of the bull which was hired to 'go with' the Branford cows.

    "In November 1653, according to the New Haven Town Records

    Mr Linge, atturney for Mr Robins of Wethersfeild, entered an action against Thomas Blachlv of Brandford for fetching away a bull of the said Mr Robins from Guilford wihout order, wch bull was left at the said Towne of Brandford or Totoket and therefore desires, satisfaction.

    "Mr. Linge does not add in his complaint that the bull was dead, the Branford people having carelessly allowed him to mire himself in a mudhole. This had apparently transpired before the bull could perform the function for which he had been hired, and the Branford people were apparently refusing to pay the agreed-upon fee.

Page 7:

    "Thomas Blatchely appeared to answer the complaint, and testified that

    he and Goodman Roses sonn fetched the bull for the Townes vse, Goodman Rose haueing hired him of Mr Robins for that purpose.

    "Goodman Rose was Robert Rose, but it is impossible to be certain which of his five sons fetched the bull from Guilford ... Goodman Rose, being present in the Court, affirmed Blatchely's statement and added in explanation that

    Mr Swaine and Mr Sherman wrott to him to Wethersfeild to hire a bull for the Towne to goe wt their cokes, and hearing Mr Robins had one, hee went w one Goodman Edwards and hired the bull and vpon that ground sent tor him.

    "It appeared, however, that Goodman Edwards was in Wethersfield and could not appear at New Haven to verify his testimony. Rose said that 'they sent a weeke agoe' for his statement, but that 'the messenger is not returned.' He asked that the case be 'respited till next Court', and this request was granted.

    "The next Court was held the 6th of December. Goodman Rose appeared and said that their affidavits had not vet come from Wethersfield ... he asked for another extension and the request was rather grudgingly allowed, he being warned that

    if ye next Court he cleare it not. the case will goe against him

    "At the January Court Rose appeared a third time with 'sundrie testimonies to prove that the bull was hired of Mr Robins' and not borrowed without permission. John Edwards' statement was to the effect that Mr. Robins

    was loath to let him (i. e., to hire the bull out), but would haue them buy a steere for him of John Roote.

    "The steer was, presumably, to be given to Robins by way of fee for the service of the bull, but Rose and Edwards could not come to an agreement with Root. They 'came againe to Mr Robins' and he finally

    let them ye bull for twenty shillings, and they should summer him a steere into the bargaine,

    "that is, the Branford people were to agree to feed and pasture one of Robins' steers during the summer as a part of the fee for the use of the bull.

    "Rose also presented other testimony, including that of Phillip Goff taken 17 Dec. 1653, and that of William Boarman taken 5 Dec. 1653, none of which advanced their case to any extent, but at least made it clear that Robins had agreed to hire out the bull. Up to this point nothing at all had been said about the eventual loss of the bull. The point makes its first appearance in testimony of one John Russell, 'aboute the age of 21 yeares', who was probably a servant of Mr. Robins. He testified that

Page 8:

    he heard Mr Robins say he let a bull to Goodman Rose of Totoket, but because the bull was carelessly lost, he would make the said Goodman Rose pay for him.

    "Attorney Linge then took the floor and pleaded that the testimony of Edwards was inadmissable, inasmuch as he was a party to the action. The Court challenged him to prove his statement, which he could not do so, and so Edwards' testimony was allowed to stand.

    "Linge then raised another objection:

    if they did hire the bull, why did they leaue a steere wch they should haue fetched away wth him and summered for Mr Robins?

    "The Court then intervened and informed Linge

that it doth cleerly appeare by these testimonies that Mr Robins did lett the bull to them of Totoket.

    "Linge was not going to be satisfied with this decision, however, and he now brought up the question of the death of the bull. He claimed that the animal had been lost through the carelessness of `them of Totoket', but, challenged to prove it, said 'he was not fitted at present to cleere by proofe.' He declared that he could get the proof, however, and the case was again set forward to a future sitting of the Court.

"By the time of the March court, Linge had secured his affidavits, and the case came up once again. He presented a statement from John Norton, one of the original Branford planters, who testified that

    he saw the bull stick fast in a litle salt pond

    "He thought it would have been several days before the bull died, and he

    apprehends it was negligenee in the Towne that the bull was not looked after

    "Linge's second statement was from Thomas Blatchley, against whom the action had been brought in the first instance, so that Blatchlev was in the position of testifying against himself. Linge had objected to accepting the testimony of John Edwards for the defense, on the ground that he was an interested party, but no protest is shown by the Branford people, and his testimony went into the record unchallenged. Blatchlev added very little to the sum of the evidence, however; he said merely that if they had had any idea that the bull would mire himself, they would have watched him more carefully and so might have saved him alive.

"Robert Abbott, still another of Branford's original settlers,
appeared on behalf of the town and testified that the bull 'was well
the dry cattel', and, since it 'was not a time of swamping', they
had not foreseen that he would fall into a mudhole. Linge took this
up immediately and demanded to know why, if the bull was hired
for the cows, they had allowed him to run with the dry cattle.

Page 9:

Abbott retorted that, on the contrary, the bull was hired for the town's use, and that `they were not lvmitted to any place or heard.' Furthermore, the record states that the testimonies

        did but speake their apprehensions and sweare nothing possitively.

"Linge, balked at every turn, now had nothing more to say. The Court

        declared their minds that they see not such negleet in ye Town of Brand-ford as to ast the loss of ye bull upon them;

"moreoyer, the action had been entered only for the recovery of the hire of the bull and the summering of the steer, and this had already been settled in favor of Mr. Robins. They were now heartily sick of Mr. Robins and his bull, and they advised the Branford
' people

        to pave Mr Linge for Mr Robins twenty shillings for the hire of the bull and ten shillings for their not summering of ye steere (for so much it is said Mr Robins saith it stood him in) and 3s 4d for ye Court charges, and so make an end of it.

"The Branford people 'at first . . . were loath to veild', although they were out only the court costs whereas Mr. Robins had lost the value of his bull, but afterward they said, 'to avoyde further trouble, they would doe it',

"and so the matter ended" (Anc. Town Rec., vol. I, pp. 190-191, orig. p. 37; pp. 194-195, orig. p. 139; pp. 196-197, orig. pp. 140-141, pp. 201-202, orig. p. 144).

From the Town Records of Branford (vol. 1, p. 204), the will of Robert Rose was presented at a court for Branford 4 Apr. 1665. In New Haven Probate Records vol. 1, part 2, p. 7, the will is recorded with some slight variations, but it is essentially the same. The text as given in the latter source:

The last will & testament of Robert Rose of Brandford made August 25th 1664:
Item First I give to my son Jonathan a hundred pounds
2I when all my debts are pavd then I give to my wife one third part of my whole estate
3Y I giye to my son Jonathan five pounds more4ly
I give to my Daughter Hanna ten pounds more
51Y It is my will that all ye rest of my estate shal be equally divided into eight parts Amongst my other eight children as followeth: That is to each of them alike part, but my son John & Daughter Mary & my Daughter Elizabeth shall have but twenty pounds of that part that falls to them, but the rest of that part which falls to them shall be given to their children.
Item I give unto the church of Brandford six pounds thirteene shillings foure pence.

Laurance Ward                 The marke M of Robart Rose
Samuel] Swaine

This writeing was proved in Court at Brandford the 4th day of ye 2d month 1665 to be ye last will & testament of Robert Rose Deceased, by ye

Page 10:

testimonies upon oath Laurance Ward & Samuell Swaine . [Lawrence Ward, John Wilford & Richard Harrison were appointed to settle any difficulties or differences that might arise among the legatees.]

    The inventory Follows the will (New Haven Prob. Dist., vol. 1, part 2, pp. 7-8), taken by Laurance Ward, John Wilford and Richard Harrison. It included £260.00.00 For house and land, two bulls, a number of other stock, and household Furniture. Total inventory, £826.09.07. His son Samuel was administrator of his estate, as shown in a recorded deed (Branford Town Records, TS, vol. 2, p. 228).

    A few years after the death of Robert Rose, on 26 Dec. 1670, Elizabeth Rose of Newhaven deeded to Jonathan Rose of Branford 1/2 of house, barne, gardens, yards, orchards, pasture, ground or meadow lying in the town of Branford which came to her by "gift or will" of "my late husband Robert Rose of Branford." It was witnessed by Nicholas Auger and John Parker (Ibid., p. 288, orig. p. 309).

    The will of his widow Elizabeth Rose is dated 20 July 1677 (New Haven Prob. Rec., vol. 1, part 1, p. 176). She bequeathed to sons John Potter and Samuel Potter, 20 sh. each; to son John Parker. house he lives in with all my land and meadow; to dau. Brooks, 20 sh.; to dau. Hall, my small bible; to dau. Cooke, "my best suite of apparrell": to all my grandchildren twelve pence a piece. Remainder of estate to be divided between three daughters, Mary, Hope and Lydia. Named as executors, my two sons John Potter and John Parker, and allows them each ten shillings for their "care and paynes therein." She died before the will was signed or witnessed, but it was accepted by the court on 27 Feb. 1677/8. Inventory of her estate (Ibid.) was taken by John Cooper Sr. and John Winston Sr. 2 Aug. 1677 and amounted to £49.11.09.

    James Shepard in "The New Haven Potters" (Am. Gen. 54:20-23) comments, "Widow Rose was probably a business woman, For her son John Potter, in his will 1706, gives to his son Samuel 'ye still that was my mother's.' " When she died leaving an unsigned will, it was nonetheless accepted in Court without dispute by her children indicating that she "had the respect of her children, who were willing ... to abide by her wishes."

Children: ROSE.

2. i. John b. a 1619, m. 1st, m. 2nd, Ellen (Moulthrop) Luddington
        m. 3rd, Phebe (Bracey) Dickinson
3. ii. Robert b. ca 1619, m. Rebecca ---
4. iii. Elizabeth h. a 1621, m. Michael Taintor
    iv. Mary b. ca 1623. living 1685. Evid. had children, see will of father
5. v. Samuel h. ca 1625, m. Mary Tompkins, to Newark, N.J.

Page 11:

    vi. Sarah b. ca 1627. No further
6. vii. Daniel h. ca 1631, m. Elizabeth Goodrich
7. viii. Dorcas b. ca 1632, m. Daniel Swaine
8. ix. Jonathan b. ca 1634-35. m. Delivered Charles
    x. Hannah b. ca 1636, liying 1685. She is probably the Hannah who
        witnessed deed of Robert Rose of Stratford to his brother
        Jonathan in 1674 (see page 171

Page 16:

    Robert2 Rose (Robert1), b. ca 1619, was aged 15 when he came with his parents on the Francis in 1634. He d. sometime between 1 Nov. 1679 (deed) and 9 Mar. 1682/83 (inventory), in Stratford, Fairfield Co., Conn., m. (before 7 Oct. 1651), Rebecca --- . She testified that date in court held at New Haven (Anc. Town Rec., vol. 1, p. 89):

    Rebecka Rose, the wife of Robert Rose, testified vpon oath that she heard ---How sweare by God, and as she is a Christian, and by her faith, and by her Soule, and that she sawe her turne ouer a !cafe of the bible, and said it was not worth reading, and one time her mother called her and she said, a pockes of ye devill what ayles this madd woman.

    His widow Rebecca m. 2nd, 1685, Henry Allyn of Stratford who died by 8 Nov. 1690.
Robert Rose settled first in Wethersfield, Conn. with his father, and removed with him to Branford, New Haven County about 1644. Soon after 1655 he removed to Stratford, Fairfield County where he died.

    Robert Rose served in the Pequot war in which several hundred Indians were killed. After various hostilities and the murder of a number of New Englanders including the pioneer John Oldham, an expedition under Governor John Endicott was dispatched to avenge the massacres and to demand submission from the Pequots. This succeeded only in injuring a few innocent natives. "The crowning act of audacity which brought matters at once to a crisis was perpetrated in the early spring of 1636, when a party of Pequots, about one hundred in number, found their way to the infant settlement at Wethersfield, where they killed nine men and carried away captive two girls . . . it was now apparent that the Pequots had entered upon a course of hostilities which would not stop until their power was curbed or crushed."* At a General Court held May, 1637, an offensive war was ordered against the Pequots.

      Memorial' History of Hartford County, Connecticut, 1663-1884, Ed. J. Hammond Trumbull, Boston: Edward L. Osgood. 1886. vol. 1, pp. 49-51.

Page 17:

On the 10th of May around eighty whites and a number of friendly Indians convened, making their way during the next days to the Pequot settlement. It was reported by Capt. Mason that six or seven hundred Indians were killed and "there were only seven taken captive and about seven escaped" (Ibid.)

    In May 1668, Robert Rose received a Colonial grant of 50 acres for his services in the Pequot War of 1637 (Old Fairfield, vol. 1, part 2, p. 506). On 1 Nov. 1679, Robert Rose of Stratford conveyed to son-in-law Moses Johnson of Woodbury, land in Woodbury "granted to me as gratification for servis don by me in ye pequad war."

    He was listed freeman, 7 Oct. 1769 (Pub. Rec. of Conn., vol. 4, p. 522).

    From the Typescript of the Town Records of Branford ( TS. vol. 1, p. 342, orig. p. 377), on 20 July 1674 Robert Rose of Stratford, Fairfield Co. gave to "my beloved brother Jonathan Rose of Branford" my part or parcel of upland lying in great plaine formerly my father Roses, containing 2 acres; and one parcel of meadow at parkes hole, for five pounds, witnessed by William Maltbye and Hanna Rose (she was probably his sister). He is also mentioned in the town records following a deed dated 7 Mar. 1671 in which John Rose Senior sells land of brother Samuell Rose of Newark, N.J. At the end of this document Robert Rose of Stratford on 21 July 1674 states that he formerly sold the deeded land to "my brother Samuell Rose", and agrees not to molest him or heirs or assigns (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 312-313, orig. p. 348).

    Inventory of his estate is dated 9 Mar. 1682/3. On 13 Mar. 1682/3 distribution ordered to widow Rebecca, and children Mary Jonson, Rebecca Stevens, and Elizabeth, Sarah, Hannah and Mercy Rose (Fairfield Prob. Dist., vol. 3, p. 110). On 6 Nov. 1683, the widow as appointed to administer. The estate was ordered to be divided 4th part to widow, remaining to daughters equally (Ibid., vol. 3, p. 111). An agreement 10 June 1685 between Rebecca Rose, widow; Moses Johnson; Isaac Bennett for himself and his brother-in-law Obadiah Stephens; and John Minor, Jr., making allowance for their two sisters-in-law Hannah and Mercy Rose (Ibid., vol. 3, p. 180, cited in Jacobus MS.).

    In 1685 Moses Johnson of Woodbury conveyed to father-in-law Henry Allyn of Stratford all right in estate of Robert Rose lying undivided between the children of said Rose (Stratford Deeds 2:500a, cited in Jacobus MS.). In 1686 the heirs to estate of Robert Rose, viz: Henry Allyn in behalf of Moses Johnson; Obadiah Stephens of Stamford; Isaac Bennet for himself and for his wife Elizabeth, and also on behalf of John Minor, Jr., and Hannah Rose (Ibid., Stratford Deeds 2:501a).

Page 18:

    Though Robert Rose had a large family and many grandchildren, it is to be noted that there are no male Rose descendants of this family.
Children: ROSE, rec. Stratford VR

12.     i.     Mary b. 20 Apr. 1655 (as rec. Stratford VR, hut 15 Apr. as rec.
                Branford VR), m. Moses Johnson
13.     ii.     Rebel:kali h. 14 (or 15) July 1657 ("July about 14, VRb), m.
                Obadiah Stevens
14.     iii.     Elizabeth h. Feb. 1658/59, m. Isaac Bennett
         iv.     Dorcas h. Apr. 1661, d.y., not in distribution
15.    v.     Sarah h. Aug. 1664, m. John Minor Jr
16.    vi.     Hannah h. 15 Mar. 1666/7, m. 1st, Isaac Stiles Jr.. m. 2nd,
                Samuel Harger Sr., m. 3rd, John Tibbals
          vii.   Mercy h. 3 Mar. 1672/3, d. ca 1733 at Stratford, unm. Adm'n
               granted 25 or 23 Jan. 1733 4 to Nathan Bennitt of Stratford, with
               John Faverweather, surety (Stratford, Fairfield Prob. Dist. orig.
               file, #5280)

See also:
Jacobus, Old Fairfield, vol. 1, part 2, pp. 505-506.

Page 32:

Sarah3 Rose (Robert2, Robert1), b. Aug. 1664, d. 24 Dec. 1732, Woodbury, Conn. VRb, m. 1685, John Minor Jr., who d. 14 Mar. 1731, Woodbury VRb, son of Capt. John and Elizabeth (Booth) Minor. His estate is recorded Woodbury Prob. Dist., orig. file #3042.

Children: MINOR, b. Woodbury
       i. Samuel bp 14 Nov. 1686, d. 22 Dec. 1734, no issue
       ii. Elizabeth bp 6 July 1690, m. Dunning
      iii. Hannah bp 29 Jan. 1692/3, m. 10 Aug. 1720, Thomas Mallery II or III, she d. 20 Aug. 1746
      iv. John b. 19 Dec, 1697, Woodbury VRb, bp. 27 Feb. 1697/8, m. Elizabeth --
       v. Sarah b. 7 Apr. 1709, m. 3 Mar. 1730/ 1, Moses Matthews

JOHN MINOR was born in Woodbury, CT on 19 Dec 1697 and baptized on 27 Feb 1697/8 in Stratford, CT, son of John Minor and Sarah Rose. He died 2 May 1761 in Woodbury, CT.  He married (1) Elizabeth _?_.

  i. Justice Minorborn 4 Sep 1730died 29 Apr 1733

He married (2) 18 Nov 1731 Mary Judson daughter of Joseph and Mary (Walker) Judson born 19 Apr 1713, Woodbury Ct,

  ii. Eunice Minorborn 14 Jan 1732/3     married Seth Avered (?Everett) 6 Feb 1752
 iii. Beulah Minorborn 27 Aug 1734 married Thomas Porter on 24 July 1754
 iv. John Minorborn 13 Mar 1737married Sarah Dutton on 19 Sep 1758
 v. Elizabeth Minor     born 18 Oct 1741   married Joseph Waugh 1 Feb 1758

Elizabeth Minor born 19 Aug 1734 daughter of John & Mary (Judson) Miner.
Married July 1754 at Bethlehem, Connecticut to
Joseph Waugh Born 1726 son of John & Margaret Waugh. Connecticut Men in the French & Indiana War p 140 Compaign of 1756, Enlisted Apr-18-1756 discharged Aug-9-1756. P 224: Campaign of 1757 - 17 Days of Service
Served in the American Revolution was at Horse Neck NY
  i. Thaddeus Waugh     born 1759. Soldier in American Revolution
  ii.Joseph Waugh born 1762. Soldier in American Revolution
 iii.Rachel Waugh born 1766.
 iv.Rebecca Waugh born 1768.
  v.Elizabeth Waugh born 1771.
 vi.  Lemon Waugh born 1774.

Family NotesGSWCHopkinsMarlinWaughWCHS


October 30, 2006