Talk:Samuel Maverick (colonist)

Religious history and arrivant issues

1) I can't look into this right now, but most Boston histories suggest that Samuel Maverick came with the 1623/1624 Gorges company, that settled in what is now Weymouth, to the south of present-day Boston, and that he and two others (Blackstone and Walford) left that company when it decided to return to Old England. If that's in doubt, I'll be interested to see corroboration.

In fact, if his father became a Puritan, that doesn't have anything to do with him necessarily, his father's conversion took place after the son was already in New England, if the reported info is correct.

2) The naming issue about Anglicanism is a red herring. "Anglican" and "Episcopalian" are just two ways of saying "Church of England." The latter "episcopalian" reference was adopted in the US in particular after the Revolution because people remaining here were aware that anything that linked them to England (including the adjective "Anglican" was going to make things more difficult for them, so most NEng. churches started using the term "Episcopalian" instead.

3) One of the histories of colonial Anglicanism tries to make a case for the three men from Gorges' company all being disliked by the Dissenting arrivants who accompanied Winthrop but there is not any certain proof of that and several reasons to question it in my mind.

First, Rev. Blackstone, who appears to have started out as one of the Anglican priests with whom Gorges, a loyalist/royalist/Anglican had hoped to override the Separatist colony, also appears to have had a change of heart about his own loyalism at some point, and "left so I would not be under the thumb of the lords Bishop" of London. He stayed in the New World when the failed Gorges company left and first went to the Plymouth area, which he then left "because I found I wished not to be under the thumb of the lords Brethren." (I would need to locate the citations for these quotes, but I'm pretty sure they're correct. I only have a secondary source for them at the moment, but it's one I trust.)

So Blackstone, at least, stayed, and was probably no longer Anglican himself. If that is the case, one cannot make any inferences at all about the other two, about whom I've seen less to identify them (the Morehouse history of colonial Anglicanism is to my mind questionably reliable; N. Rohnan's more recent work is better).

So, in any case, this subject is complex and is not adequately (nor, I suspect, correctly) handled at present. Can't do more than point that out at the moment; maybe someone else can be pointed in the right direction and carry the ball.Dellaroux (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had time to work on this entry. As for Maverick's relationship with Gorges, and indeed his relationship with Winthrop, there are sources concerning this, and I'll address your points when I have time. As I've pointed out previously, the entry as now written is not sufficient nor is it likely correct in a number of instances. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican vs Episcopalian

The interesting thing about Samuel Maverick (also written Mavericke) was that he arrived in Massachusetts earlier than most Puritan settlers, including his father, a Puritan vicar who would follow him several years later. But from all indications (and they are numerous), Samuel Maverick was just that: a Royalist in a land of disaffected colonists, many of whom had fled the rigors of life under a stern taskmaster (Archbishop Laud operating from the right hand of the King). But it's important to note that for all Maverick's allegiance to the established church (versus the Separatists in Plymouth and the somewhat more muted Puritans), Maverick was basically an early venture capitalist. In any case, Maverick seems not to have had strong religious feelings, except that he wasn't opposed to the way the church was being run in England. That made him a strong Anglican, because the Church of England, as it was then called and is still called today, was an Anglican church. (The term Episcopal dates from the later split of the American colonists from the original Anglican church in England.) So I'd suggest changing the word "Episcopal" to "Anglican" in the description of this early enigmatic colonist, whose family, incidentally, gave rise to the word we use today to describe those who go off on their bent: maverick.MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the establishment of the Episcopal church in America, see wikipedia entry Episcopal Church in the United States of America MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun working on this entry of this important early New England settler and will add to it as time permits.MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Gye's Ancestry

I have seen accounts about Mary Gye's (or Guy's) ancestry before as related to the Plantagenets. That's possible, but will need better sourcing than what's here presently: a self-published source, which is not considered a reliable source at wikipedia; and a summary of a book's contents. Neither are adequate. The statement demands better sourcing. As for purported descent from Charlemagne, that's way more than a stretch, and no source will be able to nail that one down. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the controversy away to another page; is not this a subject that wikipedia ought to summarize and report? There is plenty of effort going into the work. jmswtlk (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and report, certainly, but there are so many exaggerated claims out there that wikipedia pieces should hew as carefully as possible to reliable sources, certainly avoiding self-published research. The NEHGS has done some work in this area, and their research is, I think, generally reliable, and certainly citable. Incidentally, you may want to have a look at the historian David Hackett Fischer's work Albion's Seed, which lays out the English (and other) backgrounds of early colonial American settlers. It's a fine piece of work, as one would expect from a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. There are some early American settlers who did have (usually distant) connections to the peerage and nobility. Some were in New England, but most were in Virginia, where the so-called 'distressed Cavaliers' made landfall. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as per our discussion, one can find this sort of thing about the purported royal descent of old New England colonial families, in this case the descent traced from Hugh Capet, the French monarch, through the distinguished Chauncey family to Mrs. George Inness, Jr. of New York City. [1] It's probably hogwash, but these sorts of sources are out there. Tread carefully. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning duly noted. See discussion on related page (Talk:Colonials and the peerage#Royal Gateway) which page deals with the topic of 'Royal Gateway' that ought to get more attention, IMHO. jmswtlk (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]