A Collection of Thoughts and other Interesting Theories
By: Edgar Perry Ladd II
The Search for Ann
NOTE: The following is a compilation of several emails from Edgar Perry Ladd Jr., Houston, Texas. Since so
little is known about the origins of Daniel Ladd, his father Nathaniel or his wife Ann, I thought Edgar’s
comments provided “food for thought” and I wanted to share his ideas. It is my hope that
Edgar’s work sparks a little thought and discussion. If you have additional information regarding
Daniel’s origins or ancestors or wish to share a comment, please contact Edgar at:
It looks like everyone is convinced that Daniel married Ann Moore. I have not seen any proof of that. I suppose that it is the technical side of me, but who said her last name is Moore. I have seen several sites that claim she was the daughter of John Moore and Elizabeth Rice but if that were the case, then we would not be looking for her.
We may very well be chasing a nonexistent marriage. I think that we should be looking with the idea of not knowing her last name. It could have been Wells or anything else.
However - In looking for Ann Moore, daughter of John Moore and Elizabeth Rice, here is what I find so far:
There was a marriage between John Moore and Elizabeth Rice as follows:
John Moore - born London 1611, died 1674 in Worcester, Mass.
Elizabeth Rice - born England 1612, died 12/14/1690 in Sudbury Mass.
Married - England 11/27/1633
They came over on the “Planter”.
Mary Moore- born 9/8/1641
Lydia Moore- born 7/24/1643
Jacob Moore- born 4/28/1645
Joseph Moore- born 10/21/1647
Elizabeth Moore- born 1/10/1648
No ANN MOORE
I also found that there was an Ann Moore, born in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England in 1634, her father was John Moore who was married to Elizabeth Whale. Now, they purchased the property of Edmond Rice in Sudbury. He took his oath in 1645.
I just wonder if the two Moore’s got tangled up in somebody’s notes. I can find no other references to a John Moore / Elizabeth Rice or Daughter Ann. As you can see the kids would be way to young, and have the incorrect last name.
I still have not seen a birth record for Nathaniel or Daniel in the early 1600's.
According to Burkes Peerage and Gentry (a UK site) they state that Daniel
Ladd, (descendant) of Thomas, and his wife Ann Left for the Colonies. The date given by Burkes jives with what we have.
-DANIEL LADD, a descendant, it is said, of one Thomas Ladd, who in 1515 was in possession of the estate of Bowyck Manor, Hundred of Loringsborough, in the parish of Elham, in company with his wife, Ann, lef...”
My theory is as follows: Daniel and Ann were married in England. At the time of their boarding the Mary and John for passage to the Colonies, they were detained to sign an agreement of loyalty to the King and agreeing to abide by the Anglican Church rules. I think at that time they split up, Daniel came on the Mary and John and Ann followed shortly after on another boat. I think that this was done due to the fact they may not have been married in an Anglican Church, but in a different one such as Quaker, Baptist, Methodist etc. I read the agreement that they had to sign, and it, to a point, says that everyone will abide by the Anglican rules and that they were the governing entity. I think that once they both arrived, to be legal, they re-married in the Anglican Church here. Since they were already married it just shows her first name on the colony (Anglican) marriage.
I think we should be looking in the Churches in England, around the Parish of Elham. They also spent time in the Dover area.
I don't have much trouble with Ann getting married at 12 to 14 years old. Up until the 1950s or so, it was not that uncommon here in the United States. They also had a system of early betrothal and marriage, but had to wait until 18 years old to live together. The families would contract the marriage way ahead of time. Since Daniel’s family had a manor this was fairly common among the gentry. It was a way of sealing competitive families together in business.
Since (as I understand it) Bowyck went to the oldest son, if Daniel and Ann were engaged or contracted to marry by their fathers. And the Manor (Bowyck) went to the oldest son, Daniel left since he did not want to be a vassel or indentured servent to his older brother. As I understand it, all of the younger brothers left home since they did not want to work for him either.
Ann and Daniel could have married then and he left her behind to make a home for them here in the Colonies. We do know from the records that they brought a lot of stuff (household) with them. That would suggest to me that Daniel did not come over here as a bachelor.
There were a lot of ships running back and forth and she could have landed in New Jersey, Virginia, or most anywhere. As a guess I would think that since money may be an issue here, she might have traveled the least expensive route to get here.
Here are some notes I made about the British history and system. Just for information:
1598-1640 The Parishes kept the records on slips of paper (birth/death/marriage) and entered them into a ledger when they got around to it.
1640 - 1660 Big gaps in the records due to the English civil war.
1751- England changed from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar (modern) and tossed a twelve-day error in records.
1754- The Hardwick Marriage act- required all marriages to be held in the Church of England using banns. (Banns are where they announce and hand out slips of paper with the intention of marriage. They did this three Sundays in a row. If no one contested the marriage then it was scheduled and done.) We did the same thing here in the colonies in the 1600's.
1783- The British Stamp Act imposed a 3 pence charge by the King on every line item on the Church records, every birth / death / marriage had to pay the 3 pence charge. This kept some of the poor folks from entering their births, deaths and marriages.
1812- All records were to be entered into separate books. Prior to that they were all entered according to date almost like a diary.
We have to remember that marriages took place at the brides parish, not the grooms and would be listed as the bride’s maiden name first then the fellow she married.
Under the circumstance such as having to work for his brother after the father died and a possible contract marriage or engagement before he left, I can see them getting married when she is about 12 years old, and then waiting until she is of age to send her here. Also, it could have been done so that he had time to make a life here for them.
I still think they were re-married here by the Anglican (Church of England) to be legal here under their rules since they were in charge. As I understand it, if you did not belong to the Church as a freeman, then you could not own property.
Looking through the Kent, U.K. website in the genealogy section, I found a lot of history. Here is what it says regarding the age of marriage:
Prior to 1753 there was no minimum age a girl could marry. (There are recorded instances of 5 and 6 year olds married by order of the courts or King, to keep peace in the families or for business relations.)
1753 until 1929 - the minimum age for girls to marry was 12 (twelve)
1929 until now - the minimum age for girls to marry is 16.
Therefore, it is very possible he married Ann when she was very young, and then either went and got her or sent for her.
It would stand to reason that he would marry in class. i.e. someone of the same standing as his family. One of the problems I have is that I have not seen any evidence of her actual age, since we do not know her name, how do we know how old she was. Since the English are very class aware it would seem unlikely for him to marry beneath his status or above his status. We could look at the families of the same status as his and see who had kids about the right age. Once we find likely candidates then we could look and see where the brides were married. Since they recorded the marriages in the brides name and used the bride’s parish. It could help narrow the search down.
I have run across some interesting things, besides the History of England with King Charles I, and the civil war that ran from 1630 until 1649. The nuts and bolts of it, was almost a religious - class war between the upper class Episcopalians and the middle class Anglican Puritans. In that context I would like to point out several items of interest that might have a to do with Ann and Daniel.
Thomas Ladd’s will of March 2, 1655 stated that he wanted to be buried next to his father Thomas Senior at St. John the Baptist in the Isle of Thanet. He also mentioned that if his son John came home he would like him buried there also. This would indicate that they, or part of the family, were Baptists.
Due to the war going on, and the Anglican/Puritans winning, they had little use for any other faith. They had virtually no tolerance. As far as I can tell even during the war they banned or disallowed any marriage that was not in the Church of England. Prior to the Anglican win, the local magistrate or town clerk performed marriages. The Church had nothing to do with them.
I would think, since I cannot locate anything on Daniel (so far) in England. It could be (just thinking here) that he married outside of the faith of either his family or his wife’s family and was rejected by them. Tracing Thomas and the rest of the Ladds, I find many references, marriages etc of brothers, cousins but so far no reference to Daniel.
I just wonder if he came to the colonies by himself, and then sent for her and she slipped out of town under an assumed name. I have searched over a hundred ships passenger list and can find no reference to her from 1630 to 1700.
I did find a good candidate named Ann Wells, age 15, arrived on the ship Planter in Boston on 6/7/1635. She came across single and unattached which seems unusual for one that age. By claiming 15 she may have avoided signing the declaration and she may have used an assumed name. On the same sail date there was another Ann Wells age 20 who was on the ship Susan and Ellen.
Nathaniel – Daniel & Joseph
Since there are no notes in Prerogative Court, Consistory Court, or Archdeaconry Court of Canterbury, which is where wills were proven and inventories taken for those who do not have wills, referencing an inheritance from Thomas to Nathaniel or to Nathaniel’s children (Joseph and Daniel) It makes one wonder if Thomas was the Father of Nathaniel. I think I sent you information on the Wills proven during that time frame. I just suppose that if the linage was as we think, there should be some reference to gifts, etc in the wills to the children and grandchildren of Thomas or Nathaniel. If you check other wills of the family during that time, you can see gifts to all of the living relatives and mention of the deceased ones, all except Nathaniel, Daniel and Joseph. It does seem curious that there is no mention.
I also would like to point out that if Daniel and Joseph were given ten pounds cash each and all of the rest of the stuff, which is a considerable amount on their departing England. Then that would indicate that Daniels brother was very wealthy. Now if Daniels brother was very wealthy and could afford such parting gifts, it would stand to reason that he inherited a fortune from his father. This would seem unusual for a farmer and fisherman in Deal. It also would be unusual for a rich family to have no records of marriage, birth or death. I find no reference to Nathaniel’s death at sea, but have seen several who claim he died much later and was buried in Deal. I cannot find any birth, marriage etc for any of them, at least as we have them listed.
If Nathaniel was wealthy, then there should be birth and marriage records not only for Daniel, Joseph and the older brother but also marriage, tax and death records for Nathaniel and his wife.