[[introduction|(<-- Introduction)]] [[start|(Back to Start)]] [[001.richard|(1. Richard(1) Seymour -->)]]

====== The English Origin of Richard and Mercy Seymour ======

THE ENGLISH ORIGIN OF RICHARD AND MERCY SEYMOUR

In which the editor examines and interprets the evidence in Sawbridgeworth in
Old England, in Hartford, and in Norwalk; respecting the origin of
[[001.richard|Richard Seymour]], the colonist; all showing how conclusive
circumstantial evidence may be.

The late Mr. J. Gardner Bartlett, an expert genealogist who specialized
in the English field, while conducting searches in Hertfordshire in
connection with another family, found by accident the clue which led
to the discovery of the origin of the American Seymours. After the
data he discovered had been offered to other members of the Seymour
family, the information was purchased by the author, who contributed
it in 1917 to the //New England Historical and Genealogical
Register,// in which it was
published (vol. 71, pp. 105-115). For full details of the English
connections, the reader is referred to that publication

Some twenty-five miles north-east of London, in the contiguous counties of
Essex and Hertfordshire, traces are found in the sixteenth century of
a family which spelled its name variously Seymer, Seymor, Seamer and
Semer. The orthography employed at that period by country vicars
means very little, but it is worthy of note that the spelling
earliest used and most frequently used was //Seymer.// This
was the form of the surname preferred by the Seymers of Dorsetshire,((For some account of this family, see Appendix.))
a gentry family which displayed the arms (with differences) of the
Seymours of Devonshire, later the ducal house.

The members of the family in Hertfordshire were, at this period, largely
of the small yeoman and tradesman class. The social status of any
family at a given period of time is no indication of the ancestry of
that family. The Tudor period in England was one of rapid change and
mobility. The older Plantagenet aristocracy had suffered severe
losses during the Wars of the Roses; many of its members had fallen
in battles, and many more had lost their estates by attainder or, as
we should say, by confiscation. Many new families had risen to power
and position, trailing the Tudor fortunes. Some of these, sneered at
as "Tudor upstarts," were of extremely humble origin, and
this was so notorious that Elizabethan heralds found it a profitable
business to invent pedigrees for "gentlemen" who lacked any
real claim to "gentle blood."

There
are records of retired pirates who bought manors with the proceeds of
their villainy and founded families of distinction. On the other side
of the picture, the owners of manors - the "minor gentry" -
often apprenticed younger sons to learn trades. Younger sons of
younger sons of the older aristocracy not uncommonly descended to the
ranks of the unlanded laborers. When, at a little later period, the
last Duke of Northumberland of the male-line Percy family died, the
claimant to one of the proudest titles in England was a humble
trunk-maker of Dublin.

With
these reflections in mind., we turn to the records of Sawbridgeworth
(a name locally pronounced "Sapsearth"), a rural parish in
co. Herts, which extends to the eastern boundary line of this county
and borders on co. Essex. Here in 1605 "John Seymer y<sup>e</sup>
elder was burred y<sup>e</sup> xxiijth day of October." A man of
sufficient substance to make a will, John Seymer had married, for his
second wife, 9 May 1562, Dyzory Porter. His eldest son, Robert
Seymer, was baptized at Sawbridgeworth 30 Nov. 1573, married there 14
Nov. 1603, Elizabeth Waller, baptized there 12 Dec. 1578, daughter of
John and Elizabeth (Bayford) Waller, and was buried there 23 Aug.
1637.

In
1604 "Richard Seamer y<sup>e</sup> sonne of Robert Seymer was
baptised y<sup>e</sup> xxvijth day of January," the year being
1604/5, or 1605 when reckoned by our modem calendar. "Richard
Seamer and Mercy Ruscoe ware maried the 18 Aprill" 1631. Three
children of this marriage were recorded at Sawbridgeworth:

<file>
      Thomas, bapt. 15 July 1632
      Mary, bapt. 9 Jan. 1634/5; bur. 3 Apr. 1635
      Mercy, bapt. 8 July 1636
</file>

Although
the Sawbridgeworth registers were searched to 1650, the family of
Richard Seamer or Seymer drops out with the last entry in 1636.

Now what are the reasons for accepting this Richard Seymer of
Sawbridgeworth as identical with Richard the Colonist? Admittedly, we
lack direct record evidence. This is not the same as to say that
legal proof is lacking. Many things can be proved in a court of law
by cumulative circumstantial evidence. Historians too look with favor
on this type of evidence when its weight is sufficient. A single
piece of direct evidence may be a lie; an entry in a Bible, as we
have seen, may have been forged by a fraudulent dealer for the sake
of profit. But when we review all the known facts, and each
circumstance harmonizes with all the other circumstances, and every
bit of evidence fits neatly into the picture as if by magic, - then
we feel entitled to claim that theory has given way to proof.

First of all, there is the negative evidence of excluding other
possibilities. A tremendous amount of research was done by various
English professional genealogists for the Hon. Henry W. Seymour, and
afterwards by Miss Talcott in person, and about a score of Richard
Seymours were found at the proper period, no one of whom it was
possible to identify with the Colonist.

The locale is correct. A large number of the Hartford settlers were from
Essex or near its borders, and Sawbridgeworth lies just over the
boundary line. The age of this Richard is right. The Colonist was a
very active man up to the time of his death, which apparently was
sudden, and there is no reason to suppose that he had passed the
prime of life. The baptism at Sawbridgeworth makes him fifty years of
age. The wife of the Colonist was named Mercy. This was a Puritan
name, and not particularly common in England.. Richard the Colonist
and his wife Mercy brought with them a son Thomas who, since he
married in 1653/4, must have been born in England. Richard and Mercy
of Sawbridgeworth had a son Thomas baptized there in 1632, who was in
his twenty-second year at the date of the marriage of Thomas in
Norwalk, Conn.

It is a most unlikely coincidence that two Seymour families in England
would have a son Richard; that each Richard would marry a girl named
Mercy; and that each couple would have an eldest son named Thomas -
all of proper age for identification with the family of the Colonist.
For collateral evidence, consider the name Zechariah which the
Colonist bestowed on one of his sons. At Ware, co. Herts, only six
miles from Sawbridgeworth, a Zechariah Seamer was married in 1637. He
may well have been a younger brother of Richard, and was almost
certainly a relative.

Many
identifications of colonists have been made and widely accepted where
the evidence was trifling in comparison with this remarkable
correspondence of names and dates. Add to this the facts that the
last child of Richard recorded at Sawbridgeworth was born
in 1636 and that his father died there in 1637, after which his
family disappears from the local records, just in time to reappear in
Hartford, Conn., and the circumstantial case is almost perfect. The
father's death, with the likelihood of a small inheritance from that
source, we1l may have been the deciding factor in fixing the time of
emigration.

But we have left to the 1ast the strongest, or at least the most
convincing, link in our chain of evidence. Mercy Ruscoe, daughter of
Roger and Sarah Ruscoe of Sawbridgeworth, was named in 1618 in her
father's will. The surname is extremely rare in England, and the
family was probably Flemish in origin. John Rouscoue, //alien,
//was taxed at Great Dunmow, co.
Essex, in 1545. Outside of Essex and Hertfordshire, the surname has
not been found in England.

Rev. Thomas Hooker, ministerial leader of the founders of Hartford, preached for
ten years at Chelmsford, co. Essex, less than fifteen miles from Sawbridgeworth.
He came to New England in 1633 with some of his followers, and others followed
shortly after. In 1635 came William Ruscoe, with a certificate from the minister
of Billericay, co. Essex, and sat down with Hooker in Cambridge, Mass.,
following him in 1636 to Hartford, Conn. [[001.richard|Richard Seymour]] and his
wife, born Mercy Ruscoe, arrived in Hartford by 1639. This William Ruscoe - his
age is stated as 41 in the shipping list of 1635 - was roughly twenty-five years
older than Mercy, hence in age was suitable to be her uncle. This is theory:
what are the facts?

In Feb. 1639/40 William Ruscoe granted land in Hartford to [[001.richard|Richard
Seymour]], and on 14 Dec. 1650 [[001.richard|Richard Seymour]] conveyed land to
William Ruscoe. In 1651 [[001.richard|Richard Seymour]], with Nathaniel and John
Ruscoe, sons of William, were among the fourteen original proprietors of
Norwalk, Conn., and John Ruscoe removed from Hartford to Norwalk with
[[001.richard|Richard Seymour]]. When [[001.richard|Richard Seymour]] made his
will in 1655, John Ruscoe was one of the witnesses.

This
intimacy with the Ruscoe family should have suggested a connection to
the genealogical mind, even before the discovery of the Seymer
records in Sawbridgeworth. Combining the evidence from the English
records with the evidence from the Connecticut records, our case is
complete, and, we dare assert, impregnable. It was the Ruscoe
connection which appealed to the trained genealogical mind of Miss
Talcott and played no small part in convincing her of the
authenticity of the English discovery and of the identity of
[[001.richard|Richard Seymour]]
the Colonist with the Sawbridgeworth yeoman.

Over twenty years have passed since publication in the
//Register// of Mr. Bartlett's momentous
discovery. The facts there presented very largely speak for
themselves, and gradually they have prevailed over errors of opinion.
The author is content to sum up here the evidence, believing it will
prove convincing to all who are willing to be convinced; others are
free to pursue their own notions and to defend them as best they can.
In the words of Coventry Patmore:

<file>
      For want of me the world's course will not fail:
      When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
      The truth is great, and shall prevail,
      When none cares whether it prevail or not.
</file>

[[introduction|(<-- Introduction)]] [[start|(Back to Start)]] [[001.richard|(1. Richard(1) Seymour -->)]]