Friday, November 8, 2013


Now here is one of those families where I have an original immigrant, with a daughter, whose marriage registration to Samuel BEEBE shows no surname. But histories of the Orcutt family in America state she was an ORCUTT.  I do wish there was a footnote/document showing the specific proof of that statement.

Those ancestor females  - I usually don't research their parents' lines very far back, since they only show up once or twice in my family tree.  And the records back in the 1600s in the new colonies were not very detailed. Often just the bare bones of individuals were shown.

If she is Hannah ORCUTT, it is known that she was b. 11 Apr 1675, a twin to Mary Orcutt, the 6th & 7th children of William ORCUTT b. 18 Dec 1618 in Warwickshire, England, and his wife - either Mary LANE, and/or Martha Unknown surname. There is confusion in the literature about his wife or wives' names. A group of 11 children are attached to William, with very little spacing between births, so I'd suspect that he had one wife, who had children approximately every 2 years, from 1664 to 1683. And, his wife outlived him by almost 20 years. Good genetics, eh?

However, my tree in this instance is very bare and poorly sourced. It is highly likely that "ORCUTT" is NOT the surname of the Hannah who married Samuel BEEBE/BEEBIE in 1698, in Connecticut.

What we do know is that Samuel BEEBE married a Hannah, surname sometimes omitted, in 1698, in Wethersfield [Littlefield], Connecticut.

Their first child, a daughter named Mary (both grandmothers were named Mary), was born here on 25 Sep 1699.  My line goes through this first child, Mary BEEBE.

The small family then moved to Danbury where 5 more children were born, before they moved to New Milford, where two more sons were born. Samuel and his wife Hannah are listed as original members of the First Church in Milford, CT. (See NEHGS Register, 1854, p.176).  He is listed as a Planter, Hannah as his wife; they had come from the church at Danbury CT.

At least 6 of their 8 children appear to have survived to adulthood.

Samuel apparently died in 1731 in Litchfield, while his wife, Hannah lived on to 1766 (abt 90 years of age). However some of the records can be challenging to attach to the correct person, as the same names are used over and over again in the families. With siblings naming their children the same names, several years apart, cousins doing the same, it is definitely a puzzle.

I have decided to try first to find more information on the ORCUTT families in New England to try to pin down more on the line of William & Mary ORCUTT, with daughter Hannah - who may or may not have been the wife of Samuel BEEBE.  If I can't determine the connection this way, I'll see if I can go through the BEEBE line to follow details there for his wife.

I am unable to travel to search, and funds are highly limited, so online searching is my only research option at the moment.  If you know anything definitive about Samuel BEEBE's wife Hannah's background, I would be thrilled to learn about it.  Or, where to search.  Any clue is a good clue.

Thanks for visiting. Contact me at calewis at telus dot com, or comment below.

1 comment:

Matthew Getz said...

Hi there. Came across this post doing a random Orcutt search. I'm actually compiling the Orcutts in America genealogy and have been for more than 20 years. I show Hannah Orcutt (d/o William and Mary) as having died in 1707. There's a recorded marriage for Hannah and Edmund Tilson on Dec 25, 1706 in Bridgewater, MA. Given her death at age 32, I think it's likely there were no second marriages. Happy to answer any other Orcutt questions you have. Matthew Getz (getzga at gmail dot com).


Family, friends, and others - I hope you enjoy these pages about our ancestors and their lives. Genealogy has become somewhat of an obsession, more than a hobby, and definitely a wonderful mystery to dig into and discover. Enjoy my writing, and contact me at celia.winky at gmail dot com if you have anything to add to the stories. ... Celia Lewis