This adds to Mignon's comments somewhat.I posted this in Rootsweb Paddock mail list and am sharing it here. There are also some updated comments reference the Curfman book.
I recently obtained copies of journals of the COLONIAL GENEALOGIST which
contain four articles discussing in one form or another the wives of Robert
PADDOCK, the emigrant ancestor of most PADDOCKS in the United States. Three
of them are authored by Carlton A. Palmer, Jr., who has studied the
relationships between PADDOCK and PALMER in depth, to say the least. One
article is authored by Robert Curfman, about two years after he published
his "Paddock Genealogy". There is some duplication and unrelated information
pertinent only to the PALMER side. I have extracted and combined this
information into one segment which deals mostly with Robert PADDOCK's wives.
There are also some interesting revelations by Mr. Curfman which cause one
to give more pause to the authenticity of the genealogy of the PADDOCK
family in France. I have a few annotations which you can identify by noting
they are in all caps and in Parentheses. ANY QUESTIONS I WILL BE GLAD TO
DOUBLE CHECK AS BEST I CAN.
(CARLETON A. PALMER OFFERS THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WHICH SEEMS MOST A MOST
PLAUSIBLE ONE.) William Palmer Sr. arrived at Cape Cod on the ship Fortune on 19
November 1621, the second ship after the Mayflower. Coming with him was his
son William Jr., age 8, and a servant, William Carvanyell. William's wife
Frances came later, alone, on the ship Anne in 1623. Histories about the
Fortune passenger families usually describe the William Palmer family
incorrectly. No one except Banks has mentioned that he brought with him a
servant named William Carvanyell. Carvanyell is listed as a passenger on the
Fortune and also in the inventory of debts in the 1637 estate of William
Palmer as "monies due servant Carvanyell" (THIS NAME IS MENTIONED BELOW AS
INDICATING PALMERS AND PADDOCKS WERE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS). (Palmer, Horace
Wilbur, Palmer Families in America, Vol. Ill)
Through the years genealogists and compilers have expressed confusion over
some of the events that transpired between the early William Palmer and
Robert Paddock families in Plymouth Colony and Duxbury, as well as some
other early events. Included in these early happenings were quite a few
William Palmers and some perplexing questions. For instance;
1) Were there two William Palmers, one born 1634; the other 1638? Or just
the one born in 1638? (THIS PART IS CONFUSING TO ME AND I WANTED TO
CONCENTRATE ON ROBERT'S WIVES --I HAVE NOT INCLUDED ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION)
2) If William Palmer Jr. had a son William, why did his well to do father,
William Palmer Sr. exclude him and his son from his will?
3) Why was an infant later named William Palmer placed in the care of the
Robert Paddock family arid later listed after the latter's death, with the
Paddock children in the records as "son-in-law"?
It is believed that it was about 1630 that Sarah Palmer (DAUGHTER OF WILLIAM
PALMER SR.) arrived in New England with her husband, Henry Rowley. She had
with her their two children, Sarah and Joseph. As Sarah Palmer was expecting
they had brought along with them a young nanny tradition has named Mary
Trine . Mary Trine then moved into the William Palmer (SR.) household as a
maid servant after the death of Frances Palmer. "On 23 July 1633 a man
servant of William Palmer, Sr. named William Mendlone was whipped and
discharged for misconduct with the maid servant of said Palmer." (PCR) Mary
Trine was probably that maid servant and also possibly a coquette (A
FLIRT--A TEASE). She must have been a comely (BEAUTIFUL--PLEASING TO THE
EYE) lass about 20 years old because as events later proved, she became a
much married girl and was still able to bear a child 16 years later in 1649.
It has been generally accepted that William Palmer Jr. was the father of
William Palmer JR.(2). This questionable parentage of William jR. (2) has
succeeded in baffling compilers for many years. The actual situation must
have been unusual enough to have been the creation of a closely guarded
secret within the family itself and so contrived and guarded as to "pull the
wool over the eyes" of a small village like Plymouth. At this point in time
William Palmer Jr. was 20 years old and engaged to Elizabeth Hodgkins. But
one day he found himself alone with the maid servant, Mary Trine who
probably had been "setting her cap" (FLIRTING-SETTING HER SIGHTS ON) for
some time for the Palmer heir. (SHE GOT PREGNANT AND HAD A BABY AS A RESULT
OF THE AFFAIR WITH WILLIAM PALMER JR.)
It must be remembered that the Pilgrims were a highly moral group but they
had problems with their young unmarried adults from time to time. Public
condemnation and whipping at the public post was the result — if caught.
(Wood, John S., Cupid's Path in Ancient Plymouth) When the results of the
act first became known, William Palmer Sr., to protect his son's coming
marriage to Elizabeth Hodgkins, and also to protect the couple from public
punishment, offered marriage to Mary Trine. But first he obtained a
confidant like his next-door neighbor and very close friend, the burly
(BEEFY, MUSCULAR & HEAVILY BUILT--I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS BEFORE) Irish
blacksmith, Robert Paddock.
William's plan with Mary Trine was that he would
have to disown the coming child on moral grounds but he could supply support
money to have the child raised. He would insure her security by leaving her
a good share of his estate. He then made an oral promise to William Jr. of a
grant of land as a future estate settlement along with a sizeable gift of
cash. The Aftermath Mary (TRINE) Palmer's child was born 27 June 1634 soon
after William Palmer's (JR.) marriage to Elizabeth Hodgkins in March. As far
as the village knew, the child was that of William Palmer Sr. and his young
wife. Then Mary, feigning well-publicized poor health, turned the child over
to the Paddocks who agreed to a series of payments for the care and
In his will, (He died in November 1637) William Palmer Sr. recommended Mary
be ruled by her auncient (GUARDIAN), Edward Winslow, if she remarried."
(Palmer, Horace Wilbur, Palmer Families in America, Vol. Ill). The promise
of land to William Jr. was never recorded and after both father and son died
the widow Elizabeth and her second husband, John Willis, sued the executors
of the estate of William Palmer Sr. "At a general court on January 1638 John
Willis and Elizabeth, his wife, sued the executors of the will of William
Palmer Sr. for --- a lot of land which he had a right to by the marriage of
his wife of William Palmer Jr., the younger, son of William Palmer Sr., the
elder, but the court found for the defendants." (PCR) After the death of
William Jr. in 1636, William Sr. was desirous of leaving an heir in America.
In November 1637 at the age of about 62, William Palmer Sr. died. A Section
of his will reads: "Whereas I have married a 'young woman' who is dear unto
me, I desire that she have not less than one-third of my estate, and, if in
case she be with child then that one other third be preserved and improved
---for that child as mine heir." (PCR) Quoting from the Palmer Families in
America, Vol. Ill: "Looking again at the will we do not find any mention of
any ---- William but to the inventory we find an item among the debts as
follows; 'to goodwife Paddock, for the child, one pound, 5 shillings, 2
pence.'" This must have been the last periodic amount under the agreement
that was unpaid at the time of death. The agreement was designed to continue
until such a future time when it would be discreet for Mary to regain her
child. As events soon proved, this happened after the death of William
Palmer Sr. and a little later, the death of Mary Holmes Paddock.
The above unpaid debt was not claimed by Mary (HOLMES) Paddock at the time
because it was settled by Job Cole in 1638. (Curfman, Robert J., The Paddock
Genealogy) However, the satisfaction of the debt apparently was never
cleared through the court as it was claimed nine years later by Robert
Paddock who, as constable, found out about the amount still due him. The
Plymouth records which must have been set down some time after 1650, give
the birth of a William Palmer and he is listed among the children of the
late Robert Paddock:
"Register of some of the children of Robert Paddock, deceased: Imprimus:
William Palmer, the son-in-law of the said Robert Paddock, born 27 June 1634
Zacharias, son of Robert Paddock, born 20 March 1636; Mary born 10 March
1638; Alis (Alice) born 7 March 1640; John, born 1 April 1643. TWO OTHERS
REGISTERED BEFORE IN THIS BOOK." (Shurtleff, Nathaniel B, Records of the
Colony of Plymouth) The two others registered before were Robert Paddock, Jr
, born 1634 (probably March per above pattern) and apparently Elizabeth
Paddock, born ca. 1632.
Elizabeth has been named as the wife of William Palmer (JR. 2) by the
descendants of Robert Paddock — hence, son-in-law." Elizabeth was named
after her grandmother, Elizabeth Holmes. (Curfman, Robert J., The Paddock
Genealogy) After the death of Mary Holmes Paddock in 1643, after the birth
of her last child, (JOHN), Mary (TRINE) Palmer, widow, married Robert
Paddock between 1644-1646 (Wakefield, Robert S., Plymouth Colony Marriages
to 1650) and took over the rearing of the Paddock family. There were
probably only two people left now that understood why a girl who was still
young, married an elderly man like Robert Paddock who was about 60 years old
Mary had a child, Susanna, by Robert Paddock before his death in 1650. This
event was probably the entry in the Plymouth record of births, marriages,
and burials which listed on the page dated 1649, the birth of a child to xxx
Paddock with no name of the child shown; probably in March or April.
(Shurtleff, Nathaniel B, Records of the Colony of Plymouth) However,
Whittemore reports the following: "Susanna Paddock, born 1649." (Whittemore,
Henry, General Guide to the Early Settlers of America)
Mary Trine Palmer Paddock, widow, married again the following Spring. On 25
March 1651 she wed Thomas Roberts. (Wakefield, Robert S., Plymouth Colony
Marriages to 1650) The older children could have fended for themselves but
with the baby Susanna to care for, it was not surprising that Paddock, on
his deathbed, permitted Mary (TRINE) to release his son John, aged 7, to
Capt. Willett. Willett later became the first mayor of New York City. In
November 1650, four months after the death of Robert Paddock, Mary signed a
consent agreement turning over the guardianship of John Paddock, Robert's
youngest child, to Capt. Willett. (Curfman, Robert J., The Paddock
Genealogy) After receiving his bequest, William Palmer Jr. (2) moved his
mother Mary, his stepfather Thomas, and the Paddock children (EXCEPT FOR
JOHN) to Acushnet in 166 (later named Dartmouth in 1664). In 1665 Susanna
Paddock, "of Dartmouth," married John Eddy (PCR-38). In the meantime,
probably back in Duxbury, William Palmer Jr. (2) and Elizabeth Paddock had
married about 1660.
It appears that William (PALMER SR.) had three wives before he died in
November 1637, two of whom he married in England. He had four children in
England. His first wife, name unknown, was the mother of Henry and Bridget;
he mentioned the children in his will if they are still living," indicating
that they had remained in England. His second wife was very probably Frances
Blossom whom he married about 161 No record of the marriage has been found
but many compilers have accepted her as such. Banks has stated "she was much
younger than William."
A fever sickness epidemic hit the Colony inthe summer of 1632/3 and several
colonists died. The Palmer family was particularly hard hit. Frances Palmer
and Sarah Palmer Rowley were two of the victims. The Rev. Thomas Blossom
also died in the spring of 1633 after which his widow, Anne, married Henry
Rowley in October that same year.
The inventory of the estate of William Palmer Jr. is dated August 1636. He
died suddenly leaving no will. It may have been about this time that his
father remarried. William pamer Sr.s' third wife was Mary Trine. Trine may
not have been her actual surname, but it probably was assigned to her by
someone in the past to denote "three," third" wife (TRINE REFERS TO
THREEFOLD OR TRIPLE. IT ALSO IS DERIVED FROM A CHRISTIAN TERM, TRINITY. THE
UNION OF THREE DEVINE PERSONS, THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRITIN ONE GOD.
ALSO CALLED TRINE). Mary was described by William in his will, "I have
marryed a yeong woman who is deare unto me." (Plymouth Colony Wills 1:28.)
Mary must have been in her early twenties as she was able to bear a child to
Robert Paddock many years later, in 1649.(Plymouth Colony Records of Birth,
Marriages, Burials, born to Paddock 1649." General Guide to the Early
Settlers of America, Henry Whittemore, "Susanna Paddock born 1649.") she was
the mother of William's fifth child, a son born posthumously, William Palmer
Jr. , on 2 June 1638.
William Palmer Sr. died about 10 November 1637. William, in his will, stated
that that "wife should be ruled by her 'auncient," Edward Winslow. The term
auncient" meant standard bearer and possibly, "guardian." William also
mentioned his granddaughter Rebecca, daughter of his son, William Palmer Jr.
and Moyses, son of his daughter, Sarah Rowley. He left at least one third
of his estate to his wife, "for her comfort," and to his expectant child.
The inventory of debts of his estate included a payment "for Robart padock a
pair of shoes, 9 pence (child) & to goodwife padock for ye child, £1, 5
shillings and 2 pence."
One of the puzzling items to genealogists in
Plymouth Colony was whether there were two William Palmers born in 1634 and
1638, or just one born in 1638. Various compilers have named William Palmer
Jr. and Elizabeth Hodgkins as the parents of William, born 27 June 1634, who
was placed in the home of Robert Paddock, after his father's death in August
of 1636. (Holman, Winifred Levering, The American Genealogist, April, July
1950.) This child was said to have grown up and married a Paddock daughter
and a Susanna as his second wife.15 The facts were confusing because the
supposed parents were married just two months before the child's birth, or
27 March 1634. In Plymouth Colony this would have been a scandalous
situation that would call for some notoriety, but none was forthcoming. They
were not the parents of a William Palmer. This child would have been the
grandson of William Palmer Sr., but he wasn't mentioned in his grandfather's
will of 1637. One account had settled the problem with the theory that the
child had predeceased his grandfather. (Palmer Families in America, Vol. Ill
Horace Wilbur Palmer, 1973.) The Plymouth Records, which must have been set
down sometime after 1655, after the death of Robert Paddock, give the birth
of a William Palmer and his is listed among the children of Robert Paddock.
Mrs. John E. Barclay in TAG (32:56) clarified the family confusion somewhat
when she mentioned with certainty that the year 1634 as transcribed should
have read 1638 and that William Palmer Jr.  was born 27 June 1638. While
Mrs. Barclay was close to the truth, she did not have the benefit of the
Paddock genealogy issued some twenty years later. (The Paddock Genealogy,
Robert J. Curfman.) An excerpt from Mrs. Barclay's fine article: "Evidently
the record calling William Palmer son-in-law of Robert Paddock is the reason
why it has been stated in various articles that William Palmer Sr. or Jr.
married a daughter of Paddock. From the facts it seems incredible that
Paddock was old enough to have a daughter who could have married William
Palmer Sr. and it is certain that the first William Jr. did not marry any
daughter of Robert Paddock and the posthumous William Jr. married someone
else." (TAG, Vol. 32:56, Mrs. John Barclay.)
"William Palmer (JR.) of Plymouth, cooper, son of William of Duxbury,
nayler (William Sr. was a nailer, a maker of nails. This was a skilled craft
as nails were expensive and made by hand.) deceased, acknowledge the receipt
of Mr. William Bradford, Mr. Edward Winslow and Mr. Thomas Prence in full of
my partion left unto me by my father's last will and release them from any
further claims arising from said will. Signed, William Palmer. (Plymouth
Colony Deeds, II pt 2:26.) To understand the events which surrounded the
family of William Palmer Sr. during the period 1636 to 1640, one might
consider the following facts and conjectures.
1. William had lost his young wife, Frances, and daughter, Sarah, a few
years before and he had just lost his son William Jr. in August 1636.
2. He apparently had no communication with his other children in England,
Henry and Bridget, "if they are still living."
3. By colonial standards of that time, his estate was of a sizeable amount.
4. The conception of his expectant child was performed just a few months
before his death.
5. From the wording of the will, it appeared that his marriage was recent.
6. Included in the inventory of debts of William Palmer's estate "for Robert
padock a pair of shoes, 9 pence (at this value child's shoes) and to
goodwife padock for ye child £1, 5 shillings, pence," which would indicate
that the baby was placed in the home of the Padocks for care.
1. William wanted a child in America.
2. The marriage of a young girl to an older man with an attractive estate
appeared to be an agreement of a sort. A child in exchange for security.
3. Edward Winslow may have performed the marriage ceremony in the home.
Winslow was chastized at one time by the authorities in England for
performing these rites in the Colony. Marriages were not church affairs, but
4. Mary Trine had to have been close to William Palmer Jr for quite a while.
She may have been a maid servant. If one can believe the statement by B. F.
Wilbour in Little Compton Families that Mary was one of the unnamed children
who came on the ship Fortune with William.
5. The Paddocks and Palmers were neighbors or so it appears, as servant
Carvanyell was caught stealing a chest from the Paddock home in 1638
6. The affection that William Palmer Sr. had for Mary Trine may have
developed from one of a platonic nature to a deeper love as she matured.
After the death of William Palmer Sr., Mary Trine, "great with child," was
probably assisted in her coming delivery by the goodwife Paddock, acting as
midwife. The "yeong woman" may have lived with the Paddocks for a time and
this may have occurred after the settlement of the estate and the sale of
the family home. It is possible that Mary remained with the Paddocks as they
had a houseful of children to care for by 1640: Elizabeth, 7-8 years Robert,
6 years Zacharias, 4 years Mary, 2 years William Palmer Jr. , 2 years
Alice, 1 year Five years later on 1 April 1643 Mary (HOLMES) Paddock had her
last child, John, after which she may have died as Mary (TRINE) Palmer,
widow, married Robert Paddock between 1644- 1646.23 They had a daughter
Susanna born in 1649. (Plymouth Colony Records of Birth, Marriages, Burials,
"born to Paddock 1649." General Guide to the Early Settlers of America,
Henry Whittemore, "Susanna Paddock born 1649.") Robert Paddock died on 25
July 1650. (MD 16:235.)
An article (CURFMAN WRITES THIS PARAGRAPH IN 1979) on the Palmer family of
Plymouth Colony by Florence Harlow Barclay contains information valuable in
clarifying some problems relative to the marital status of the emigrant
Robert Paddock of Plymoutn and Duxbury, Massachusetts, namely "Notes on the
Palmer Family of Plymouth," by Mrs. John E. (Florence Harlow) Barclay of
Whitman, Massachusetts (The American Genealogist, Jan. 1956, Vol. 32, No. 1,
PP. 39-45, herein designated TAG). From her findings about the Palmer family
it appears Robert Paddock married three times and that each of his wives was
named Mary, the third having been Mary (--) Palmer, widow of William Palmer,
Sr., of Plymouth and Duxbury who died in 1637. It has also been alleged that
Robert married one Mary Trine, but evidence supporting this did not come to
the attention of the present writer while compiling his Paddock genealogy.
[See Robert Joseph Curfman, The Paddock Genealogy: Descendants of Robert
Paddock of Plymouth Colony, Blacksmith and Constable 1646, Fort Collins 1977
herein designated PdkGn.] (The first printing of this genealogy is now sold
out.) Thus, as the various compilers had stated that a William Palmer
married a daughter of Paddock, Elizabeth and William Palmer Jr.  probably
married about 1659/6 after he had received his inheritance. Also, as the
compilers had stated he married a Susanna" as his second wife, which
occurred in 1662 when he married Susannah Briggs. (Shurtleff, Nathaniel B,
Records of the Colony of Plymouth) This would indicate that Elizabeth must
have died soon after the marriage.
(CURFMAN ALSO WRITES IN HIS ARTICLE:) Robert Paddock married (3) at Plymouth
or Duxbury, Massachusetts about 1646 (before October) MARY (...)PALMER,
widow of William Palmer, Sr. of Plymouth and Duxbury, a Fortune passenger
1621, who died at Duxbury November 1637 (between 7 and 13, the dates of his
will and inventury-~Ply. Col. Wills 1:28). She had married William Palmer,
Sr, following the death of his wife Frances and was described in 1637 as "a
young woman"--parentage not disclosed (TAG 32:1:40, 42). Mary had by this
husband a son William born posthumously 27 June 1638 (as corrected, not 1634
as stated in the records). [See TAG 32:1:41.] The appearance of this
posthumous son in the Plymouth record of "The Register of the age of some of
the Children of Robert Paddocke Deceased" as "William Palmer the son in law
of the said Robert Paddocke" (Ply. Col. Rec. 8:25; MD 17:185) has long
presented a problem to Paddock compilers, including the present writer, who
generally considered William to have been the husband of a daughter
Elizabeth Paddock. In fact William Palmer Jr. (2) actually married 1662
Susanna, parentage not given (TAG 32:1:44), but Little Compton records give
her maiden surname as Cook. Public records offer no proof that Robert
Paddock had a daughter named Elizabeth. She has been included among the
children of Robert Paddock by some of his descendants along with an eldest
son Robert, Jr. claimed to have removed to Dartmouth. The posthumous
Register" of the children of the emigrant stated: "there are two other that
are before registered in this booke" (Ply. Col. Rec. 8:25 and MD 17:185).
There is no doubt that Susanna (Paddock) Eddy of Dartmouth, Massachusetts
was his daughter. She is sometimes considered as one of the "two other." In
the phrase "to goodwife padock for ye child 01.05.2" in the accounting of
the William Palmer, Sr. Estate, "ye child" is now known to have refered to
this posthumous son William Palmer Jr. (2). Mary (TRINE) Palmer Paddock the
widow married (2) 24 March 1650/1 Thomas Roberts. Additional Comments The
above mentioned Paddock Manuscript (about 1835-50), the earliest known
manuscript genealogy of the Paddocks, was found among the possessions of
Judge Frederick Gove9 Paddock (1859-1931) of Malone, New York (Hon. Henry
Augustus8 Dr. Ora Farnsworth7 Stephen6 Thomas5 Dea. Ichabod4 Zachariah3
Zachariah2 Robert1) and is now owned by his grand daughter Mrs. Frederick
(Mary Gove Griswold) Koehler of Torrance, California. It was loaned by her
to the present writer while compiling his Paddock genealogy, published in
1977. A typewritten copy of this manuscript is in the "The Paddock
Collection" of Edwin Loveland Paddock II, Esq. (1893-1955) in the Flower
Memorial Library, Watertown, New York.
A biographical account of Hiram Lester Paddock (I SUSPECT THE WEALTHY HIRAM
WAS TAKEN IN BY THE INFAMOUS ANJOU. ESTABLISHING HONORABLE ANCESTRIES BY
PAYING A RESEARCHER WAS A PASTIME OF THE RICH AND QUITE THE STATUS THING TO
DO), who had the ancestry of the emigrant Robert Paddock researched in Irish
and French records, is in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography
(James T. White & Co., New York) 36:375-6. The following is quoted from page
7 of the writer's The Paddock Genealogy (1977). "The researcher of the
French part of this lineage was not identified. Correspondence between
William Waterman Paddock of Boston, Massachusetts, and Edwin Loveland
Paddock II of Watertown, New York, made mention of an 'Anjou manuscript' but
no comments were made about it other than an expression of interest in
studying it. An unsigned letter dated Lynbrook, L.I., N.Y. 8 February 1910
contained the following curious and unexplained statement: 'Beware of Gustav
Anjou who writes bogus genealogies.'" The writer(CURFMAN) learned, after
publication of his book, that during the early part of this century there
was a researcher called Anjou, capable of falsification as well as accuracy,
who was known of by genealogists then. However, no direct evidence was found
to establish whether Anjou actually worked on this Padoc-Paddoc lineage, and
if he had done so whether his work was valid or not. (I FIND IT CURIOUS THAT
CURFMAN, A PROFESSIONAL RESEARCHER WAS UNAWARE OF ANJOU'S BOGUS GENEALOGIES
WHEN HE PUBLISHED "THE PADDOCK GENEALOGY". HE LEAVES THE FRENCH ANCESTRY UP
IN THE AIR. AS I MENTIONED A YEAR OR SO BACK IN AN EARLIER POST, HIRAM
LESTER PADDOCK WAS WEALTHY ENOUGH TO HAVE HIRED ANJOU; THUS THE REASON FOR
THE EXCHANGE ABOUT BOGUS GENEALOGIES. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE FRENCH ANCESTRY
IN A FAMILY HISTORY WITHOUT SOME MENTION OF IT AS A CAVEAT, BEING UNPROVED
AND PERHAPS INVENTED.) The above mentioned find of the Somerset Herald of
Arms in 1972 relative to the claim of Banks that Robert Paddock, the
emigrant to Plymouth Colony, came from High Ham, Somersetshire, England,
entailed the following. Had the emigrant come from this Somerset family, he
would have to have been the Robert, baptized 5 August 1605, son of Thomas
and Agnes (Wilcox) Paddock, who had by his wife Alice four children, Thomas,
Mary, Joanna and Robert, all baptized from 1640 through 1646. And so this
Robert was living in England in 1646 the year the emigrant ivas appointed
Constable of Plymouth Colony.
In summary, I see three main conclusions from the articles (Cited below).
Curfman amended his 1977 book in 1979 to more clearly explain William Palmer
son in law in the PADDOCK household, but Carleton Palmer really put hings
Curfman further indicated the lack of hard proof and possible
falsification of the French part of his "Paddock Genealogy".
Most importantly, Robert PADDOCK indeed did have three wives.
Extracts (modified) above taken from:
1. (The COLONIAL GENEALOGIST , Volume XIII, No. 2,Issue 48, 1990 page 33)
Augustan Society, Inc. P.O. Box 771267 Orlando, FL 32877-1267 OMNIBUS 9 :
101 The William Palmers of Plymouth Colony Revisited The Two Wives of
William Palmer, Jr. (2) Another Version by Carlton A. Palmer, Jr. .
2. THE COLONIAL GENEALOGIST Numbers 1-2, Issues 43-44, 1984, Page 3.
Augustan society, Inc. P. O. Box 771267 Orlando FL 32877-1267 THE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LEADING TO A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE
PALMER-PADDOCK PUZZLE" AND OTHER PUZZLING EVENTS IN EARLY PLYMOUTH COLONY By
Carlton A. Palmer
3. THE COLONIAL GENEALOGIST Volume XII, Number 3, Issue Number 45 Page 112.
1985 Augustan Society, Inc. P.O. Box 771267, Orlando, FL 32877-1267
Genealogical Gleanings of the Early Palmer Families of New England and some
Circumstantial Conclusions Regarding the Origin of William Palmer of
Plymouth Colony By Carlton A. Palmer, Jr., MAS
4. THE COLONIAL GENEALOGIST Volume IX, Number 4, Number 34, Page 195. May
1979 The Augustan Society, Inc. P.O. Box 771267, Orlando, FL 32877-1267 The
Wives of Robert Paddock of Plymouth Colony by Robert Joseph Curfman, MA,