Elizabeth _____1

Relationship8th great-grandmother of William David Lewis


Samuel Packard b. c 1612, d. bt 1684 - 1685
Children 1.Mary Packard+1 (c 1636 - 1684)
 2.Elizabeth Packard+3 (c 1639 - b 1684)
 3.Samuel Packard Jr+3 (c 1641 - )
 4.Hannah Packard3 (c 1643 - )
 5.Israel Packard3 (c 1647 - b 1684)
 6.Jael Packard8 (c 1647 - )
 7.Deborah Packard3 (c 1648 - )
 8.Zaccheus Packard+3 (c 1650 - 1723)
 9.Jane Packard3 (c 1651 - )
 10.Abigail Packard3 (c 1651 - )
 11.Deliverance Packard3 (c 1652 - )
 12.Thomas Packard8 (c 1653 - b 1684)
 13.John Packard+3 (1655 - c 1741)
 14.Nathaniel Packard3 (c 1657 - )
Her married name was Packard.1 
One major issue is the maiden surname of Samuel's wife, Elizabeth, which does not appear in any of the known records. Efforts have been made to find a marriage record for Samuel in both Suffolk and Norfolk parish registers, but without success.
In the very recent past someone has suggested that her maiden surname might have been Stream, and, unfortunately, this has been accepted uncritically by some, without any supporting evidence. Brig. J. J. Packard has pointed out that Stream is a name that is unusual for East Anglia. At the present state of our knowledge, Elizabeth's maiden surname must be considered as unknown. Some day a record of their marriage may be found, or a probate record might provide sufficient evidence of her name.2 
Marriage*circa 1635She married Samuel Packard, son of George Packard and Mary Wyther, circa 1635.1 
10 August 1638She and Samuel Packard migrated to MassachusettsG from England aboard the Diligent on 10 August 1638.3,4 
circa 1653She and Samuel Packard removed to Weymouth, Norfolk Co., MassachusettsG, circa 1653 poss. for children see birth order.3 
circa 1663She and Samuel Packard removed to Bridgewater, Plymouth Co., MassachusettsG, circa 1663.5 
29 October 1684In Samuel Packard's will dated 29 October 1684 at Plymouth Co., MassachusettsG, Elizabeth _____ was named as executor and heir, "all that my farm in the said Towne of Bridgwater which I now Dwell upon Containing" 36 acres "with all the houses Lands and Meddowes belonging to the said farme."; names 4 sons and 5 daus., wife and gr. ch.6,7 
ChartsAncestors of William D. Lewis


  1. [S572] Lineage of John George Phillips Buczek, online \http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/…\, Eldest son of Deacon Nicholas Phillips married 1656 - 57 first Mary Packard of Easton daughter of Samuel and Elizabeth Packard ; Mary died 17 October 1695. He married 8 May 1678 second, widow Elizabeth Edson Kingman of Easton, former wife of John Kingman and daughter of Samuel Edson and Susanna Orcutt.

    Although the marriage to Mary Packard does not appear in either the Dedham or Weymouth records, it would appear that the marriage occurred in 1657 for there is recorded, Son (not named), born 7 December 1657 died soon. I suspect that a search of the Easton Massachusetts records would show the marriages of both Mary Packard and Elizabeth Edson Kingman to Richard.Kingman and daughter of Samuel Edson and Susanna Orcutt.

  2. [S578] Karle S. Packard, "Samuel Packard of Bridgewater, Massachusetts and His Family", Packard's Progress 17 (Feb. 1991).
  3. [S576] History of Weymouth Massachusetts (Weymouth, Mass.: Weymouth Historical Society, 1923), vol. 4, pp. 454.
  4. [S578] Karle S. Packard, "Samuel Packard of Bridgewater", Samuel, his wife and their eldest child came on the Diligent, which sailed from Ipswich, England Jun-1638 and arrived in Boston 10-Aug-1638, under Master John Martin and carrying about 100 passengers [Charles Edward Banks, The Planters of the Commonwealth. A Study of the Emigrants and Emigration In Colonial Times ... 1620-1640 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930; reprinted Baltimore, multiple editions), 191]. The family was said on the passenger list to be "from Windham" in Norfolk [Planters 194]. This is undoubtedly an error for Wymondham. Many of the early settlers of Hingham in the Bay Colony came from Hingham, Norfolk, England. Some of those settlers or their families have documented ties to Wymondham, Norfolk, which is about five miles east of Hingham, Norfolk, and about ten miles southwest of the shire town of Norfolk. There seems to be no record of Samuel or his family in Wymondham so that may have been just a gathering place for some of the Diligent passengers.
  5. [S576] History of Weymouth (WHS), 4:454.
  6. [S355] Mayflower Families "Thru the Looking Glass", online \http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/\, http://www.mayflowerfamilies.com/wills/samuel1_packard.htm
    http://mayflowerfamilies.com/?page_id=683. Hereinafter cited as Mayflower Families.
  7. [S578] Karle S. Packard, "Samuel Packard of Bridgewater", In his will [Mayflower Descendant: A Quarterly Magazine of Pilgrim Genealogy and History (Boston: Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, 1899-1937, 1987 to present). Edited by George Ernest Bowman, v. 1 [1899] to v. 34 [1937]; Alicia Crane Williams, v. 35 [1985] to v. 48 [1998]; Scott Andrew Bartley, v. 49 [2000] to date: v.15:253-256] dated 29-Oct-1684 Samuel named his wife Elizabeth Packard; eldest son Samuel Packard; sons Zaccheus Packard, John Packard and Nathaniel Packard; grandchild Israel Alger; daughters Mary Phillips wife of Richard Phillips, Hannah Randall wife of Thomas Randall, Jael Smith wife of John Smith, Deborah Washburn wife of Samuel Washburn and Deliverance Washburn wife of Thomas Washburn; grandchild Deliverance Alger; and grandchildren Samuel Packard, Daniel Packard son of Samuel Packard, Israel Packard son of Zaccheus Packard and Caleb Phillips son of Caleb Phillips [Bowman's published transcription of the will reads "son of Caleb Phillips," but he was the son of Richard Phillips]. It named wife Elizabeth Packard and son Samuel Packard as executors, and James Keith and William Brett as overseers. The will was signed by mark and witnessed by John Field, John Ames Jr. and Shadrack Wilbore. On 03-Mar-1684/85 the first two witnesses testified that when Samuel signed and sealed his will he declared that he intended Thomas Washburn to be a joint executor with the two executors named in the will, which the court allowed. The inventory of Samuel's estate was dated 07-Nov-1684, mentioned no real estate and totalled £133, 6s., 6d. as appraised by Mark Lathrop and John Field on 11-Nov-1684. Samuel Packard Jr. swore to the inventory at court in Plymouth on 05-Mar-1684/85.
  8. [S578] Karle S. Packard, "Samuel Packard of Bridgewater", The birth order and birthdates for the children in these accounts are widely variant and often obviously incorrect. The first common error to be corrected is the identity of the first child, born in England, but whose baptism has not yet been found. The name of this child does not appear in any of the early records, but there has arisen an unfounded practice of using the name Elizabeth, presumably because that was the mother's name. This must be incorrect as it leads to obvious contradictions, and the only reasonable conclusion is that the first child was Mary. This is based on the following argument:
    1. The earliest baptism we have for this family is that of Elizabeth, Samuel, Hannah and Israel on 19 July 1646 in Hingham. ("The Hobart Journal", NEHGR, CXXI, 19)
    2. If Elizabeth were baptized in England it is unlikely that she would be baptized again, and even more unlikely that a baby would be brought on such a dangerous voyage without baptism.
    3. Mary was not among those being baptized on the above date, but she was there and probably about nine years old as she was married and a mother eleven years later. Therefore, she must have been baptized earlier and that in England.
    4. Mary was married about 1656, or nine years before Elizabeth, and therefore, probably the older of the two. In fact, she had five children by the time Elizabeth was married.

    Assuming that the order listed in the baptismal record is in order of age, and using the common two year birth interval, we can establish a probable birth order and approximate birth dates for the first five children as:
         1.      Mary      b. England, ca 1637
         2.      Elizabeth b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1639
         3.      Samuel      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1641
         4.      Hannah      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1643
         5.      Israel      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1645

    The next baptisms we have are those of Zaccheus, Jane and Abigail on 20 April 1651 and that of Deliverance on 11 July 1652. 8 Jane and Abigail are always omitted from accounts of the family, suggesting that they died young. It is likely that they were twins and too weak to survive. Before listing these four children, however, we must consider the other children and what we know about them. In particular, Samuel Packard's will lists five (surviving) daughters as Mary, Hannah, Jael, Deborah and Deliverance, thus implying that Jael and Deborah were older than Deliverance. Furthermore, since Jael had her second marriage in 1672, and her first probably about 1665, she would have to be born before 1652. This leads to the following listing:
         6.      Jael      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1647
         7.      Deborah      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1648
         8.      Zaccheus b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1650
         9.      Jane      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1651
         10.      Abigail      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1651
         11.      Deliverance b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1652

    The remaining children are Thomas, John and Nathaniel, the latter two being named in that order in Samuel's will and Thomas not named. Of all the children, John is the only one whose recorded birthdate has been found, being 20 July 1655 (because July was the fifth month in the Julian calendar this has been given, mistakenly, as May). While the placement of Thomas is arbitrary, we can complete a logical listing of the children as:
         12.      Thomas      b. Hingham, Mass., ca 1653
         13.      John      b. Weymouth, Mass., 20 July 1655 (NEHGR, XII, 349)
         14.      Nathaniel b. Weymouth, Mass., ca 1657

    Some accounts place the births of some of these children in Bridgewater, which is clearly in error. The above birthdates are, with one exception, approximate and subject to future correction. They are, however, consistent with all known facts.