For the last couple of years I have been trying to put Mary Walker back in her place in history that the article by Robert C Anderson in 1984 took away from her. For almost 300 years it was accepted as fact that she was Elizabeth Soule's daughter. In doing this I have been met with ridicule and derision for even thinking that the all mighty Robert C Anderson did not have his facts right. In genealogy circles it would seem he is God, beyond question and everyone will go to great lengths to protect that image. .
I wrote a paper and sent it to a "Professional Genealogist " for his comments and have revised my original paper to reflect those comments. It can be read at the link below, as can't just copy and paste it here. If anyone would like to see the original send me an email at the link below
Even he in his comments, while willing to concede that there were some flaws in Anderson's paper nothing, was enough to change his conclusions. It seems other genealogist will go to great lengths to protect Anderson, or everybody is afraid of him and I am to dumb to realize that.
He was willing to concede that Francis Walker of Middleboro was probably the same Francis seen in Woodbridge NJ. The lengths he would go to shelter Anderson were seen in his conclusion that there was only one Francis Walker in Woodbridge despite the marks. Anderson's paper is pointed out as a prime example of how marks that an individual made are excellent ways of identifying our ancestors. Now it seems that everyone is willing to conclude the two marks in Woodbridge are the result of sloppy clerk recording and that they used generic marks a lot of the time. if the X mark in 1714 is not accurately recorded then the possibility must also hold true for the 1672 mark in Middleborro for the sake of consistency. you can't have it both ways!!
Anderson ignored all information that would contradict his conclusion that was readily available and some that he even uses as references. Why he wrote the paper and for what purpose needs to be brought forward, but he has steadfastly refused to come forward as he probably knows that his work is indefensible and besides everybody thinks he is beyond reproach and willing to cover up for him!
The evidence strongly suggests that Isaac is the "legitimate" son of Elizabeth and Francis and that leaves Mary Walker as the daughter born to Elizabeth 1667/8. There is no other possibility.
When Mary Walker is considered it seems that the burden of proof changes to prove beyond any doubt, while for others it seems that a preponderance of evidence is sufficient as that far back in time there is a lack of records.
Anderson made his reputation writing about frauds, why can't he defend his own paper instead of leaving it to his reputation to suffice and why is everyone so unwilling to examine his work and references with a critical eye. They don't stand up to close examination..
Ann S. Lainhart
Plymouth, MA 02361
21 March 2006
Dear Ms Lainhart,
I received your letter today, and, again I see you do not wish to address all the issues associated with Francis Walker that I presented. I have presented this information to other professional genealogists and they seem to be leaning toward support my position and are in disagreement with yours. From the E-Mails I get from my website it seems that my position is rapidly gaining support.
Since you are unwilling to address the issues, does that mean that you are in 100% agreement with the conclusions and evidence as presented by Robert Anderson? I doubt that you are unwilling to make that leap of faith in light of the evidence that I have put forth. I really would like to know your position on the correctness of his Mary Walker article.
It seems that you are willing to put all the eggs in one basket based on the word “formerly” and ignore all the other evidence that is in direct contradiction to Francis being deceased. Anderson made a big deal out of the mark Francis of Middleboro made and the mark Francis of Woodbridge made. Maybe you can get him to comment on why he hid the fact that there was a Francis making the same mark in Woodbridge as that seen in Middleboro, or why he ignored all the John Haskell deeds that were in contradiction to what he had to say. There is far more evidence to suggest that Francis is alive through the late 1600s and early 1700s almost to 1720 than there is to declare him dead. After all, Anderson stated in his first paragraph stated he was going to examine all the evidence, which he clearly did not do, and it was readily available to him. In fact it would have been difficult not to see it. The John Haskel deeds clearly show his father as deceased, but not so for Francis Walker his uncle.
Another fact that was ignored is that Isaac is seen using language that is consistent with Francis being his true and biological father and not his stepfather. Why did Anderson not address this? I think it’s because that would make him not the child born to Elizabeth in 1667/8.And, as to the only child of Francis why is not this same argument applied to the father of Francis and Martha as seen in the 1714 deed by Francis X (mark) Walker? Judy Swan says all children in Woodbridge are same set of parents, yet only two of the five are mentioned. Not consistent.
If you can’t say Anderson’s article is 100% accurate, then you cannot use it as source material as seen in the Soule Pink Book. It also should be subject to scrutiny as any other document would be. It will not hold up against the now known facts. Mr. Anderson rails against those who do shoddy genealogy research and now one of his works has been subjected to scrutiny, and it did not pass. Why won’t he come forward and set the record straight? If Anderson is unwilling to defend his article, so why does the MFS?
Sincerely
Fred Martin
3004 Red Marble Rd
Chewelah,Wa. 99109
It has been awhile since I have added anything to this discussion. I wanted to give it time to digest so to speak.
The Mayflower Society is determined that NO descendants of Elizabeth Soule will ever be allowed for whatever reason only they know. They have demonstrated that they are an elitist organization and will all possible means to remain exclusive.
Looking back at their arguments it boils down to one word, “formerly” and the fact that Robert C Anderson said so. They are lockstep behind him and nobody better disagree with him.
A main point of their argument is the fact that in the land deals executed by Isaac Walker no siblings are ever mentioned and it is their contention that since they have decreed that Francis Walker, his Father has died, that he has no brothers or sisters. At this point there is absolutely no proof that he has indeed died and as will be shown later far more exist to the contrary. The fact that if Francis is not deceased, or if he was selling for his father there would have been no need to mention any others. This fact they refuse to look at, as it is contradictory to their premise and purpose to exclude Elizabeth. More to the point however is Mary Walker is not the sister of Isaac, but the child born of the fornication charge of 1667, thus she is not a child of Francis Walker.
One of the deeds executed by Isaac states that the land in question,” is bounded by his Fathers lot”. This clearly indicates that Francis is alive at this point in time. In 1709, again in a John Hascal deed John Hascal the father is called deceased, but not so for his partner Francis Walker his uncle. This would also seem to indicate that again, this point in time Francis is still alive. Anderson makes a glaring error in his treatise written for the MFS when he brings up and discusses the 1789 77th land division where John Haskal and Francis Walker are shown as owners. He failed to mention that this was a correction to a 1718 deed where again it is shown that Francis Walker is alive, again at this point in time. The 77th division took place in July 1718 and Sept John Haskal sold this property.
Anderson says that the fact that Isaac acted alone is instructive in the fact that no siblings are mentioned and he states clearly Francis has died, so Isaac must not have had any siblings, but he completely ignores the evidence that show otherwise and does not say what would be the conclusion if Francis is still alive, or even if Mary Walker is not his child, but was brought to the marriage by Elizabeth Soule.
Much speculation has been made about the Francis Walker of Staten Island and for years it was thought that he was the same Francis Walker of the Passyunk area on the Delaware River. This has been proven to not be the case. That Francis had only one heir and that was Francis Walker Keen, wife of Jonas Keen.
When Isaac Walker marries in Woodbridge and waits almost a year to purchase property, indicating that he may not have been of age before 1693, that fact is ignored and he is deemed to be about 25 in order for the dates to work out for him to be born in 1668. Also overlooked is how he came to be in Woodbridge and how long had he been there. You see if he had been born in 1672 as his marriage and land purchase would indicate then he could not have been the child born in 1668 to Elizabeth. He most likely came with family, and that would have been his father.
Much was made about the “o” mark made over a 25 year period by Anderson to show that since his Francis Walker had died and made an “X” mark in MA, that this Francis could not be the same Francis that married Elizabeth. Anderson failed to inform in his article that there was a Francis Walker in Woodbridge as early as 1686 that used an X mark. And that this Francis died about 1719, or 1720 having given all his property to his children Francis and Martha in a deed dated 1714. Following the logic set forth by the Mayflower Society this deed should have mentioned three other children that they purport belongs to this Francis: Jonathan b182, David b 1684, and Ann b 1686. If these children all have the same set of parents why are they not mentioned in the deed, and later sale of property after Francis Walker died. This fact the MFS refuses to acknowledge, preferring to sweep it under the rug.
A careful look at the facts and the argument the MFS uses shows that they are biased, and their analysis of the facts is inconsistent, Marks are the same for an individual and not when it suits them witness the X and the O. It is my belief after examining the original documents that Francis O Walker signed his name, not a mark and that Francis X Walker used a mark, and thus there is two different and distinct individuals. Siblings are mentioned in deeds when it suits them and not when it doesn’t. Look at the deed of Francis to Francis and Martha in 1714.
Francis X mark Walker shows up in Woodbridge in 1686, Mary Walker marries in 1689, and using Anderson’s analysis of births etc her age would be about 21-22 or born ca 1687-8. Isaac in 1692 when he married and purchased land for the first time in 1693, for a birth date of ca 1672. The record shows clearly that there apparently was two different Francis Walkers , both married an Ann in Woodbridge. Francis O from 1682 to 1706 and Francis X from 1686 to 1719.
The Mayflower Society needs to throw the bias out the window, and take a good look at the existing evidence and apply all arguments consistently to all the facts, regardless of what Robert Anderson has to say. After all his paper for the MFS has been shown to be a work of fiction and should be treated as such. He clearly had an agenda in mind in his paper and when he stated he was going to examine all the facts that was to mislead the reader into thinking there was no more out there when he clearly knew otherwise. He has steadfastly refused comment on his paper, probably because he knows it can not be defended and the MFS will do it for him, thus his reputation is not tarnished. The future may hold the same fate for him that he used for Monnet, where he stated “….. the undocumented word of Monnette which, in this researchers judgement , is of no value.
I at least, have provided sources and verifiable records from which my conclusions are based on. And I have presented all of the facts, that is more than Anderson can lay claim to. The future will probably judge him harshly in my opinion.
