Related to real King Duncan of Shakespeare's Macbeth

 What do you do when you find out that you are related to the real version of a character in a Shakespeare play????

Yep, well - minus the tongue ........ while thinking ............. O.M.G.!

In Shakespeare's play Macbeth he met up with King Duncan of Scotland - and killed him.  Yep, Macbeth murdered my ancestor.....

ISN'T THAT COOL!?!?!!?! 

The things that amuse me.........   here are three "stories" attached to him on ancestry.com ....

Duncan I of Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Donnchad mac Crínáin (Modern Gaelic: Donnchadh mac Crìonain)^[2] anglicised as Duncan I, and nicknamed An t-Ilgarach, "the Diseased" or "the Sick"^[3] (died 14 August 1040)^[1] was king of Scotland (Alba). He was son of Crínán, hereditary lay abbot of Dunkeld, and Bethóc, daughter of king Malcolm II of Scotland (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda).

Unlike the "King Duncan" of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the historical Duncan appears to have been a young man. He followed his grandfather Malcolm as king after the latter's death on 25 November 1034, without apparent opposition. He may have been Malcolm's acknowledged successor or tánaise as the succession appears to have been uneventful.^[4] Earlier histories, following John of Fordun, supposed that Duncan had been king of Strathclyde in his grandfather's lifetime, ruling the former Kingdom of Strathclyde as an appanage. Modern historians discount this idea.^[5]

Another claim by Fordun, that Duncan married the sister, daughter or cousin of Sigurd the Dane, Earl of Northumbria, appears to be equally unreliable. An earlier source, a variant of the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba (CK-I), gives Duncan's wife the Gaelic name Suthen.^[6] Whatever his wife's name may have been, Duncan had at least two sons. The eldest, Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada) was king from 1057 to 1093, the second Donald III (Domnall Bán, or "Donalbane") was king afterwards. Máel Muire, Earl of Atholl is a possible third son of Duncan, although this is uncertain.^[7]
The early period of Duncan's reign was apparently uneventful, perhaps a consequence of his youth. Macbeth (Mac Bethad mac Findláich) is recorded as his dux, literally duke, but in the context — "dukes of Francia" had half a century before replaced the Carolingian kings of the Franks and in England the over-mighty Godwin of Wessex was called a dux — this suggests that Macbeth was the power behind the throne.^[8]

In 1039, Duncan led a large Scots army south to besiege Durham, but the expedition ended in disaster. Duncan survived, but the following year he led an army north into Moray, traditionally seen as Macbeth's domain. There he was killed, at Pitgaveny near Elgin, by his own men led by Macbeth, probably on 14 August 1040.^[9]

Duncan and MacBeth

Duncan and MacBeth - famous names thanks to Shakespeare and the Scottish Play, 'Macbeth'.  But how historically accurate is Shakespeare's story, if at all?

For centuries, the clans had been waging war on each other. Viking warriors had been raiding the coasts of Scotland. King Malcolm of Scotia, king of the Scots and Picts, routed the Angles of Lothian in the Battle of Carham in 1018 and became the most powerful man in Scotland.  When King Owen of the Britons of Strathclyde died later that year without issue, Duncan (Malcolm's grandson) became the rightful heir  through marriage. Malcolm was therefore able to unite the Four Kingdoms of Scotland under one throne. Scotland in the early 11th century had finally become a single nation.

Duncan - King of Scotland 1034 - 40

 Duncan became King of Scotland upon the death of Malcolm in 1034. He was a much weaker character than Malcolm and a terrible leader. He led a disastrous campaign into Northumbria and was forced to retreat ignominiously back to Scotland. His cousin MacBeth, chief of the northern Scots, also had a claim to the throne through his mother. MacBeth formed an alliance with his cousin the Earl of Orkney, and they defeated and killed Duncan near Forres in 1040.

MacBeth - King of Scotland 1040 - 57
   
Mac Bethad mac Findláich or MacBeth as he is known in English, the Mormaer of Moray, claimed the throne on his own behalf and that of his wife Grauch, and after the death of Duncan made himself king in his place.  Respected for his strong leadership qualities, MacBeth was a wise king who ruled successfully for 17 years. He lived in a fortified castle at Dunsinane north of Perth. His rule was secure enough for him to go on a pilgrimage to Rome in 1050.  However the peace was not to last: Duncan's son Malcolm had fled to Northumbria after the defeat of his father and had never given up his claim to the throne. In 1054 with the support of  Earl Siward, he led an army against MacBeth, defeating him at the battle of Dunsinnan. MacBeth remained king, restoring Malcolm's lands to him.  But in 1057 at Lumphanan in Aberdeenshire on 15th August, MacBeth was finally defeated and killed and Malcolm became King.

Shakespeare's 'Macbeth'

Shakespeare's 'Macbeth', written nearly 400 years ago, is widely accepted as one of his great tragedies and rated alongside 'Hamlet', 'King Lear' and 'Julius Caesar'. But how historically correct is it?

It is generally accepted that Shakespeare wrote the play sometime between 1604 and 1606, when there was a new king on the throne, King James I and VI of Scotland. Shakespeare would have gained approval for a Scottish play from the new King. Especially one with witches in it, for it was well known that the King was interested in witches, witchcraft and the supernatural (in 1597 James had written a book on spirits and witchcraft called 'Daemononlogie').

Shakespeare appears to deliberately mix fact and fiction in the play.  Apparently using Holinshed's 'Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland' (1587) as his source, Shakespeare sets the battle between Duncan and MacBeth in 1040 at Birnam Hill in Perthshire, rather than Forres where it actually took place.  In the play MacBeth dies at Dunsinane whereas in reality it was at Lumphanan where he was defeated and killed in 1057.

Shakespeare's play takes place over a year whereas in reality, MacBeth ruled for 17 years.

Charles Kean and his wife as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, in costumes aiming to be historically accurate (1858).

As for the personalities of the two main characters, Duncan and MacBeth, again Shakespeare's portrayal is not historically correct. In the play Duncan is portrayed as a strong, wise and elderly king whereas in reality he was a young, weak and ineffective ruler. Shakespeare's Macbeth has virtually no legitimate claim to the throne whereas the real MacBeth had a respectable claim through his mother's side - indeed both MacBeth and his wife were descended from Kenneth MacAlpin. Shakespeare also gives MacBeth the title 'Thane of Glamis' but in fact Glamis was not known as a thanage in the 11th century.

In Shakespeare's play, MacBeth's friend Banquo  is shown as a noble and loyal man, resisting evil, a contrast to the character of Macbeth. In Holinshed's 'Chronicles' however, Banquo is shown as exactly the opposite: he is an accomplice in MacBeth's murder of Duncan. The new king,  James I and VI of Scotland, claimed ancestry from Banquo through the Stewart line of kings. To have shown Banquo as a murderer of kings would not have pleased James! Indeed there is debate as to whether or not Banquo actually existed at all in history.

All in all, the confusing mix of fact and fiction which runs through the play is bewildering.

However it has to be asked - who would have heard of these two Scottish kings had it not been for Shakespeare and the 'Scottish Play'?

 

KING DUNCAN I MACCRINAN² OF SCOTLAND (Crinan the Thane¹) of Scots, son of (1) Crinan the Thane¹, Abbot of Dunkeld and (ABS-21) Bethoc (or Beatrix) (of SCOTLAND), was born between 992 and 1017, and died on 14 Aug. 1040 near Elgin. He married (AK-2) (WIFE), daughter of (AK-1) Siward, Earl of Northumbria. ^{[11, 4]}
King of Scots 1034-1040
Murdered by Macbeth
He besieged Durham, 1035.
"1034. Duncan, the son of Crinan, abbot of Dunkeld, and Bethoc, daughter of
Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, reigned six years." Now being on solid ground,
with the backing of CP and SP, we leave Ritson's Annals of the Scots. The
above unbroken succession of the kings of the Scots from Fergus to Malcolm II is
thus soundly and convincingly authenticated.
AR: (170-20)
Children:

+	4	i.	KING MALCOLM III CANMORE3 OF SCOTLAND of Atholl, Perthshire, Scotland, b. in 1031; d. on 13 Nov. 1093 in Alnwick, Northumberland, England, United Kingdom; m. (1) in 1059 INGEBORG; m. (2) in 1067 in Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland (AOS-34) MARGARET "ATHELING" OF ENGLAND, QUEEN OF SCOTLAND, b. in Hungary in 1045[46, 59], d. in Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland on 16 Nov. 1093, daughter of (AOS-32) Prince Edward the Aetheling and (VP-12) Agatha (of HUNGARY).
+	5	ii.	DONALD III BANE, KING OF SCOTLAND, d. in 1094.

House of Mortimer

Genealogy of the House of Mortimer †

Roger, seigneur de Mortemer-sur-Eaulme in Normandy, married Hawise, daughter of Raoul III de Valois (see Amiens). He may have been the son or grandson of William de Warrenne, ancestor of that family, the later earls of Surrey. He was the father of Ralph de Mortimer (died 1104), seigneur de St Victor-en-Caux and one of the commanders at the Battle of Hastings. Ralph married Melisende, whose parentage is unknown. They were the parents of (1) Hugh, see below; (2) William de Mortimer, lord of Chelmersh and Netherby; and (3) Hawise, married Étienne, comte d'Aumale, Lord of Holderness - see Blois - possibly but not certainly an ancestor via Bruce and Percy.

Hugh de Mortimer (died c1149) was the father of (1) Roger, who died young c1153; (2) Hugh, see below; and (3) William.

There is some disagreement about the number of generations here, but I follow Stirnet and The Complete Peerage. Hugh de Mortimer (1108-1181) married Maud, daughter of William de Meschines of Copeland and Cecilie de Rumilly (seeKevilioc). They were the parents of (1) Hugh, died young; (2) Roger, see below; (3) Robert; and (4) Philip.
Roger de Mortimer, lord of Wigmore (died 1214) married Isabelle, daughter of Walkelin, seigneur de Ferrieres and Chambrai, lord of Oakham and Lechlade (see Ferrers). They had (probably) four children: (1) Hugh de Mortimer, lord of Wigmore (died 1227), married but no children; (2) Ralph, see below; (3) a daughter who married Stephen le Gross; and (4) Joan, married Walcheline de Beauchamp of Elmley.

Ralph de Mortimer, lord of Wigmore (died 1246) married Gwladys 'Ddu," (died 1251) daughter of Llywellyn the Great, Prince of Wales, by his mistress Tangwystsl Goch (daughter of Llowarch ap Bran, Lord of Menai). This marriage linked the Mortimers to Welsh affairs for some time to come; it makes Llywellyn 'the Last' and Roger de Mortimer first cousins. The children of Ralph and Gwladys are (1) Roger, see below; (2) Joan, married Peter, first Lord Corbet of Caus Castle (two sons but no grandchildren); (3) Janet, married Sir Andrew Perrot; (4) Peter; (5) John, an Augustinian monk; and (6) Hugh of Chelmersh.

Roge r Mortimer, lord of Wigmore (died 1282) married (1247) Maud, daughter of William de Braose of Brecknock and Abergavenny and Eve Marshal. They were the parents of seven children: (1) Sir Ralph de Mortimer, Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire, who died unmarried in 1274; (2) Edmund, see below; (3) Roger Mortimer, Lord of Chirke, who had descendants - it was he who executed his close relative Llywellyn the Last and brought his head to Edward I; (4) Sir William de Mortimer, no children; (5) Sir Geoffrey de Mortimer, no children; (6) Isabel, first married John FitzAlan, parents of the 7th Earl of Arundel; second Ralph Arderne; and third Robert de Hastang; she is our ancestor by the first and third marriages; and (7) Margaret (died 1297), married Robert de Vere, 6th Earl of Oxford (one son, no grandchildren)

Sir Edmund de Mortimer, 1st Lord of Wigmore (died 1304) married Margaret  (died 1334), daughter of William, 2nd Baron de Fiennes and Jeanne of Brienne. They were the parents of nine children: (1) Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, see below; (2) Maud (died 1312), married (1302) Theobald, 2nd Lord Verdon, Justice of Ireland, our ancestors via several lines; (3) Isolde, married first Sir Walter de Balun of Much Marcle, second Hugh Audley of Stratton Audley, by whom she is our ancestor; (4) John (1266-1284); (5) Hugh, (6) Walter, and (7) Edmund, all priests or monks; and (8) Joan and (9) Elizabeth, both nuns.

Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March (1287-1330) is probably the most famous of the family. He was involved in an affair with Queen Isabelle, wife of Edward II, and may in fact be the 'real' father of Edward III (though many historians think the relationship did not begin until 1324, and Edward was born in 1312). He was the chief conspirator in the overthrow of Edward II in 1327, who had made him Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In 1327-1329 he was the real ruler of England, acquiring new estates and titles (as Edward III was a minor). But in 1330 the king seized power and imprisoned his mother and Mortimer. He was hanged on November 29, 1330 at Tyburn, as a common criminal. Mortimer's wife (married in 1306) was Joan, daughter of Piers de Genville and Jeanne de Lusignan (and widow of Bernard, seigneur d'Albret); from her he acquired the Lordship of Trim and vast estates in Ireland as well as Ludlow Castle and estates on the Welsh Marches (as a result he forced Edward III to make him Earl of March). They were the parents of (1) Edmund, see below; (2) Roger, married but no children; (3) Geoffrey, lord of Towyth in Wales; (4) John, died young; (5) Katherine, married (1328) Thomas de Beauchamp, 3rd/11th Earl of Warwick - our ancestors via several lines; (6) Joan, married James, 2nd Lord Audley - our ancestors via the Touchet Audleys; (7) Agnes (died 1368), married first Laurence Hastings, 1st Earl of Pembroke (one son, one grandson, no further descendants), and second John de Hakeluyt; (8) Margaret, married (1320) Sir Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Lord Berkeley; (9) Maud, married John de Cherlton, 3rd Lord of Powys, no children; (10) Blanche (died 1347), married Sir Piers de Grandison, 2nd Lord, no children; (11) Beatrix (died 1383), married first (1327) Edward Plantagenet, a nephew of Edward II, who died at 15; and second Sir Thomas de Braose of Manningford Bruce, etc, Lord Braose - descendants through the female line, but not us.

Sir Edmund Mortimer, Lord Mortimer (1306-1332) was denied the title Earl of March because of his father's attainder. He married Elizabeth, daughter Bartholomew deBadlesmere of Badlesmere and Chilham Castle, 1st Lord; they had one son, Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March (1328-1360). While still a minor, he received some of the family property back from Edward III, and served in the army in France; he was at Crécy, and was made a Knight of the Garter. In 1355 he was summoned to Parliament as Earl of March, and was later Constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports, among other honors. He died in Burgundy during a military campaign, age about 31. He married Philippa, daughter of William Montacute, 1st Earl of Salisbury- interestingly, he was one of the chief nobles who arrested the first Earl of March, and had received some of his estates. They were the parents of three children: (1) Roger, died young; (2) Edmund, see below; and (3) Margery, married John Touchet, who became Lord Audley by inheritance from his mother; we are descended from them via several lines.

Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (1352-1381) was an infant when his father died. At age 17 he married Philippa (died 1378), only child of Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, second son of Edward III. This marriage is the fundamental cause of the Wars of the Roses. At the time, there was no reason to think that Philippa would become heir to the throne by the strict rules of primogeniture; but her grandson did, upon the death of her cousin Richard II in 1400. As father of the heir presumptive (see below), Edmund was hated and feared by John of Gaunt, who wanted the throne for himself or his son; he forced Edmund to accept the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, to get him out of the country. The Earl and Countess of March had five children: (1) Roger, see below; (2) Edmund (1376-1411), who married Catherine, a daughter of Owen Glendower, and had daughters and further descendants; (3) John, lived to adulthood but died childless; (4) Elizabeth (1371-1417), married first Henry 'Hotspur' Percy and second Thomas, first Lord Camoys (two children by the first marriage); and (5) Philippa (died 1401), married first John Hastings, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, no children; second Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel, no surviving children; and third John Poynings, Lord St. John, no known children. 


Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March (1374-1398) was recognized as heir to the throne by Richard II, but died before the King did, in a battle at Kells in Ireland . He was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at age seven, and married Alianore, daughter of Thomas Holand, second Earl of Kent (and a great-great-granddaughter of Edward I). They were the parents of three children (1) Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (1391-1425), married but no children; (2) Roger, died young; and (3) Anne (1390-1411), whose son became de jure heir to the throne when her brother died in 1425. She and Edmund had, however, been treated well by Henry V, and were never imprisoned. Edmund was even one of the regents for the infant Henry VI.

Anne Mortimer married her cousin Richard Plantagenet (1375-1415), a grandson of Edward III, who became the leader of the Yorkist opposition to the House of Lancaster in the name of his wife and son. They were the parents of two children (see Plantagenet), and grandparents of Edward IV and Richard III, as well as great-grandparents of Henry VIII.

This family was closely intertwined with the house of Plantagenet throughout the Middle Ages, and in fact was the de jure royal family for a time during the Wars of the Roses. The arms shown above were used by Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March (c. 1328-1360).

 (click on the photo to enlarge and see my de Mortimer line)

Tuttle Crazyness Ensues .... with more murder!

Yes, that's right ........ the Tuttle family CRAZYNESS continues!  (My 10x Great Grandmother was Sarah Tuttle, who was murdered by her brother infront of her children) .... 

This story is about Sarah's sisters, Mercy who killed her son, and then Elizabeth who was ... wild with her ways and disappeared after her divorce......

I found these stories of the Tuttle Sinister Sisters .... HERE ....  I can take no credit for writing these, I am just sharing ....

Mercy Tuttle, the eleventh child of William & Elizabeth, was born April 27, 1650. When only a young girl of 14 years old in 1664, she was accused, probably unjustly, of stealing and drinking liquor.

She married Samuel Brown in 1667. When she was 41 years of age, Mercy killed her seventeen-year-old son, Samuel, Jr. with an axe in the town of Wallingford. Samuel was wounded on June 23, 1691 and died six days later. The examination of his father, Samuel Brown, Sr., took place June 30, 1691:

1. Who gave the wounds? Ans. His wife. He heard heavy blows, started from his bed, and went to the chamber; found her by the bedside, striking with an axe in her hand. He stopped her and threw away the axe and went to the bed. She again got hold of the axe, and he seized it.

2. What was and had been the state of her mind? As rational as ever. She had attended to her business as usual. She hid the axe at night, under her apron.

Despite Samuel Brown's testimony as to the rational state of his wife's mind, he later added the information that "his poor wife said the day before, she would have the children buried in the barn." He replied, "They are well. Why talk so foolishly?" She replied, "Dreadful times are coming." Samuel and Sarah B[rown], hearing their mother talk so, Samuel asked her if she could kill him. "Yes," she replied, "if I thought it would not hurt you." Samuel Brown also noted that Mercy had "slept but little for two or three nights before."

Her husband stated that he had seen her give the blow with the axe and that he had "thought her sane that day", though he later pleaded in court that his wife's act had not been from malice but from "distraction". Joseph Brown, aged 24, lived in the house with his father, and testified October 2, 1691 that "she threw scalding water at him...he thinks her much out of her head." Simon Tuttle and his wife Abigail "think their sister Mercy was distracted that morning and before." Mary [sic s/b Martha], wife of John Moss, testified that "Mercy came to their house a little before the sad accident and wished Mr. Moss to look after her husband."

John and Mary Beach swore October 6, 1691 that Mercy had come to their house for fire that morning and appeared as usual, but Rachael Beach, aged 16, heard Mr. Beach say, "When she came out with the fire, she went down the hill towards the swamp, and he thought she was distracted." Jonathan Tuttle, Samuel Street, Jr. and J. Westwood thought Mercy "was shaken in her understanding," an opinion shared "by those who carried her to New Haven." Daniel Clark testified that "at times in prison she appeared distracted. About once a week she would exclaim against some person; and of late appears much grieved at giving offense to a person present, of which he was ignorant."

Mercy was tried for murder before the Grand Jury under an indictment dated October 1, 1691. The Jury of Inquest on the body of Samuel Brown, Jr. found three wounds in his head which caused his death. Gerhsom Bulkley was attorney for the defense and Samuel Brown, Sr. was permitted to address the jury. He told the jury that Mercy could have no knowledge of her action, and reminded its members that an asylum was provided for the distracted. The jury's verdict was, however, "She wilfully killed her son Samuel." The judge intoned, "Mercy Brown, ye hath committed a most unnatural act...at the instigation of the divill...for which thou oughtest to die." Yet many in the town spoke in favor of Mercy's being exonerated, albeit by virtue of insanity. It is fair to say that Mercy was delusional and psychotic.

Sir Edmund Andros, who had been appointed in 1686 as governor of the Dominion of New England, had interfered with colonial rights and customs. In 1689 the resentful colonists deposed and arrested him and in the following year shipped him to England for trial. In the confusion of the law and authority resulting from the removal of Sir Edmund from office, Mercy (Tuttle) Brown escaped execution. She was still living in 1695.

 

Elizabeth Tuttle, the eighth child of William & Elizabeth Tuttle, married Richard Edwards November 19, 1667. Elizabeth early on showed signs of an impetuous nature and lack of decorum which was quite at odds with the Puritan standards of the day.

From the minutes of "A County Court holden by adjournment at Hartford, 1668" came this note:

Richard Edwards and Elizabeth his wife, being called to an account of incontinency before marriage, the Court having considered what hath been presented, with the acknowledgement of the said Richard that he was upon the bed with her at Mr. Wells, his house, before marriage, the best part of one night, and in company with her at New Haven (according to which the child was borne), this Court cannot but judge and declare the child borne of the said Elizabeth to be and be reputed child of the said Richard Edwards, and for their incontinency [sex] before marriage, they are adjudged to pay [as] a fine to the public treasury of the County of Hartford, the sum of five pounds.

Richard subsequently learned that he was not the father of the first child, Mary, and on July 2, 1689, he filed a petition to divorce her. He rather plaintively based his divorce action on the following four reasons: "(1) Her being guilty at first of a fact of ye same nature; (2) Her refusing me so longer together; (3) Her carage having been observed by some to bee very fond and unseemly to some other man than my self; (4) Her often comending on other man with show or ye like wordsÉhee was worth a thousand of my self." That "other man" may have been one William Pitkin, for he brought suit against Richards Edwards in May of 1691 for using a term in his divorce case that was "derogatory of his (Pitkin's) honor." The records found in "Crimes and Misdemeanors, Divorces, 1664-1732, Document No. 235" read:

He found, three mo. after marriage, that she was with child by another (Mr. Randolph), who she accused before 2 magistrates; and her father [William Tuttle] took and brought up the child; which from regard to her and relying upon her fair promises, he [Richard] neglected to take advantage of her, for which he had bitter cause to repent. He lived with her eight or nine years, when she obstinately refused conjugal communion with him, and deserted his bed; and her conduct was so intolerable that by advice, he traveled abroad, hoping by his absence she would relent. On his return, for a while, she behaved herself, but soon, in answer to some question, she said she had committed folly with another man, whom she named, and fell into her old fits of obstinacy; and he renounced her as a wife, and so has since lived. She has caused him intolerable and insupportable afflictions. He enters into a long scriptural argument for divorce and quotes early Christian examples and authorities. She is guilty of adultery, and he prays a release.

Edwards' plea for divorce was denied despite the fact that Elizabeth's two eldest children by Edwards, Timothy and Abigail, testified against her, "to the great obstinacy of their mother and to her absenting herself from their father's bed and society."

Two years later, in October 1691, a council of "able divines" (including the famous Rev. Thomas Hooker and Rev. Increase Mather) were assembled to consider the divorce action again. At that time Richard Edwars made a second, more long-winded plea. By then he was calling himself an attorney, though he was self-taught. Besides, he needed to be free to marry Mary Talcott, with whom he was having sex. In fact, Mary Talcott had been fined for fornication with him.

On top of that, Mercy Brown, Elizabeth's sister, had killed her son the previous spring and her brother Benjamin had been executed for murdering their sister, Sarah prior to that. It became clear that Elizabeth herself was, at times, not in her right mind, and often threatened to murder her husband while he was asleep. Surely the judges would understand that Richard's fear of Elizabeth was not unfounded. The upshot of this second plea was that the ministers decided "it is not within the compass of human power to deny him a divorce." Edwards was granted the divorce and eventually married Mary Talcott, with whom he had six children.

After the divorce, there is no record of Elizabeth ever marrying again. Nor was the date of her death recorded, which leads one to believe that she may have been leading a marginal existence by the time she died. It is possible, too, that she committed suicide. Suicide was a grave sin in those times, and a person who had committed suicide could not be buried in a cemetery. Perhaps she had wandered to another, wilder part of the country and died in an area where records were not kept.

Ironically, Elizabeth Tuttle was the ancestor of a family that was to have an amazing impact on American history. Her son Timothy married a Stoddard, and he became the father of Jonathan Edwards, the brilliant, neurotic minister who has been called the last of the great Puritans who helped fuel the religious revival movement known as the Great Awakening. Jonathan Edwards married a Pierpont. His descendants went on to be influential ministers, college presidents, financiers, surgeons and judges. Perhaps the most famous descendant was Aaron Burr.

I send many thanks to Sam Behling at THE WEBSITE I found the story at for putting it together!!  There will be more I share too :)

Murder in the Family ...

Oh those Tuttles..... My 10x Great Grandmother Sarah (Tuttle) Slawson was murdered by her brother AXE MURDERED ..... wow, Lizzy Borden Family anyone?.....  imagine my surprise when I found a story about it!!  So here I share - the story I read ...  found HERE.

Several of William & Elizabeth Tuttle's children left an array of bizarre court records. Daughter Sarah Tuttle was merely a flirt, but two separate incidents have guaranteed her place in history. At a court held in New Haven, May 1, 1660, Jacob Murline and Sarah Tuttle were prosecuted for "sinful dalliance". They were accused of "sitting down on a chest together, his arm about her waist and her arm upon his should or about his neck, and continuing in this sinful position about half an hour, in which time he kissed her and she kissed him, and they kissed one another", as the witnesses testify. This complaint was made by Sarah's father under a law that whosoever should inveigle or draw away the affections of any maid or maid servant for himself or others, without first obtaining the consent of her parents or guardians, should pay, besides all the damages the parent might sustain, 40 shillings for the first offense, and for the second towards the same person, 4 pounds and for the third, fined, imprisoned and corporally punished, as the Plantation court may direct.

The term "inveigling" appears to have had rather wide implications. There were cases in which the young man charged with this offense had done nothing more than to walk with the girl on a country road. Young women who consented to advances from the men were also looked upon with legal disfavor. William Tuttle pleaded that Jacob had endeavored to steal away his daughter's affections.

Additionally, Governor John Winthrop, Jr. declared that "the business for which they were warned to the Court he had heard in private at his house which he related to stand thus; on the day John Potter was married, Sarah Tuttle went to Mr. Murline's for some three hours. Mr. Murline bid her go to her daughters in the other room, where they fell into speech of John Potter & his wife, that they were both lame, upon which Sarah Tuttle said that she wondered what they would do at night whereupon Jacob came in a tooke away or took up her gloves; Sarah desired him to give her the gloves, to which he answered he would do so, if she would give him a kiss, upon which they sate downe together, his arme being about her & her arme upon his shoulder or about he necke & he kissed her & shee him, or they kissed one another, continuing in this posture about half an houre. Mrs. Murline now in Court said that she heard her say, she wondered what they would doe at night & she replied they must sleep, but there was company with her in the roome, and she was in a strait; but it is matter of sorrow & shame to her."

Jacob was asked what he had to say to these things; to which he answered, "yes he was in the other roome & when he heard Sarah speake those words he went in, where shee haveing let fall her gloves, he tooke them up & she asked him for them; hee told her he would if shee would kisse him which she did; further said that he tooke her by her hand & they both sate downe upon a chest, but whether his arme were about her & her arme upon his shoulder or about his neck, he knowes not, but he never thought of it since, till Mr. Raymond told him of it; for which he was blamed & told that it appeares that he hath not layd it to heart as he ought. But Sarah Tuttle replyed that shee did not kiss him; but Sarah being asked if Jacob had inveigled her, she said, no; tho Tuttle said that he came to their house two or three times before he went to Holland & they two were together & to what end he came he knowes not unless it were to inveigle her & their mother warned Sarah not to keep company with him. Jacob denyed that he came to their house with any such intention nor did it appeare so to the Court. Governor Winthrop told Sarah that her miscarriage is the greatest that a virgin should be so bold in the presence of others, to carry it as she had done & to speake such corrupt words, most of the things charged being acknowledged by her self, though that about kissing him is denyed, yet the thing is proved. Sarah professed that she was sorry that she had carried it so foolishly & sinfully which she sees to be hateful; she hoped God would help her to carry it better for time to come. The Governor also told Jacob that his carriage hath beene very evil and sinfull, so to carry towards her; & to make such a light matter of it as not to thinke of it (as he had exprest) doth greatly aggravate."

Sarah was characterized by the court as a "bold virgin" who had better mend her ways. She said meekly that she would. Jacob was set free and told to shun such virgins as Sarah. The Court declared, "that we have heard in the publique ministry that it is a thing to be lamented that younge people should have their meetings, to the corrupting of themselves & one another; as for Sarah Tuttle, her miscarriages are very great, that she should utter so corrupt a speech as she did concerning the persons to be married & that she should carry it in such an imodest, uncivil, wanton, lascivious manner, as hath beene proved; & for Jacob, his carriage hath beene verry corrupt & sinfull, such as brings reproach upon the family & place; the sentence therefore concerning them was, that they shall pay either of them as a fine 20 shillings to the Treasurer."

Sarah Tuttle died at the hands of her brother, Benjamin on November 17, 1676. Twenty-nine year old Benjamin made his family's name in history with that rather indelicate instrument, the axe. That night he began quarreling with sister, Sarah. A fragment of paper preserved in the CT State Archives contains a statement by Benjamin.

In it he said that he was with his sister, that they had had a falling out, that he was afraid she would do to him what he had done to her, and that he had no love for her. He and Sarah may have been arguing about the division of their dead father's considerable property, or perhaps Sarah made a disparaging remark about their sister, Elizabeth, who was showing the same flirtatious nature as Sarah had. Benjamin may have reminded Sarah that she was no angel; she had scandalized the town in her youth by publicly exchanging kisses with a Dutch sailor, for which she and the sailor were fined.

Whatever the quarrel was about, Benjamin resolved it in a terrible, final manner. He went to the barn, got an axe, returned to the house and struck Sarah on the head, "maulling & mashing her head to many pieces in a barbarous and bloudy maner." Benjamin then ran away and hid in the woods, but was later apprehended and tried and convicted for the murder May 29, 1677.

An official record of the case appears in Crimes, op. cit. Document No. 80:

A veardet of a Jourey's Inqest in Stamford, novemb'r 18th 1676 one the death of Sarah Slason, wif to Jno. Slason; howe was found barbarsley Slayen In hur one hous, as followeth -

We hous names are hear undar wretten (of the Jourey) and how a greed undar outh decleare: the body of the womman we found leyeng dead a cros the hearth, with hur head In the cornar of the chem[ney], wounded after this mannar: the Skull and Jaw, eaxtremly broken, from the Jaw to hur neack, and soo to the crown of the head, one the right Sied of the Same, with part of her brayens out, wich ran out at a hool, wich was Struck through her head, behind the ear. Judgeng the weppon with wich It was dune to be with a narro ax that laye near hur, wich was much bloddy a bout the pooll of the same, and a pone Inqisishon from the children of Jno. and Sarah Slasson, Jno. Slasson, sune to Jno. and Sarah, as a boye aged a bought twelief years, sayeth that, beeng In his fat[her's] hous one Sattarday night, the 18th of this Instant, a bought one houar and half with In the night, his mothar, him self and the rest of the children beeng thare, his mothar beeng at the fiare, Sitteng In a chare, and bengimun tuttell Setteng [at] the chimny cornar near his mothar, his mothar was saying to hur children [that] She was Sorry hur husband was gone to mr. bishops without his Suppar, exspecteng he was gon to watch, for She feard he would be Sick for want of It. Bengiman tuttell replyeng verry Short, that he might have had It befor he went If he would. his mothar ansreng him a gaiene with this reply: you ned not be Soo short, a pone wich he went out of the dooars, an when he was out his bothar bead his Sistar Sarrah, Shutt the dore, beang It Smockt, and as She went to Shut It, bengiman tuttall came In with Sumtheng In his hand and Spock these words anggarly: Ile Shut the doar for you and soo went to his mother and struck her one the right Sied of the heed with that he broght In his hand, but knoes not whethar It was an ax or other weppon; at wich blow She fell and nevar Spock nor groned more; and followd with Sevrell blows aftar She fell, Standeng over hur, a pone wich he rune out of doars and cried [two illegible words]. Just as he struck his mothar the furst blow, bengiman tuttell Sayed I will tech you to Scold and a pone thaire criyeng out, bengiman tuttell fled; There beeng no parson In the hous when the mistchef begun, to help them. Sarah Slason, dafter to Jno. and Sarah Slason, was a bout aged a bout niene yeares, declared the same varbattom.

Wee, the Juary, doe declare that the decklaratshon of the boy and the gurl as above was declared befor us by them, and doe Judg that the wund one her heed was the caus of her death, as witnes our hands.

henary Smith 
Danyell Scofeld 
Samuel dibboll
Caleb hiatt 
Jno. Asten 
Jno. Selleck 
Rich: Law 
Frances Bell 
Jno. homs 
Jno. Grene 
Isak [illegible]
[illegible]

[Translated into modern English]

A verdict of a Jury's Inquest in Stamford, November 18th 1676 on the death of Sarah Slauson, wife to John Slauson; who was found barbarously slain in her own house, as follows -

"We whose names are here under written (of the Jury) and how agreed under oath declare: the body of the woman we found lying dead across the hearth, with her head in the corner of the chimney wounded after this manner: the skull and jaw extremely broken, from the jaw to her neck, and so to the crown of the head, on the right side of the same, with part of her brains out, which ran out at a hole, which was struck through her head, behind the ear. Judging the weapon with which it was done to be with a narrow ax that lay near her, which was much bloody about the pool of the same, and upon inquisition from the children of John and Sarah Slauson. John Slauson, son to John and Sarah, as a boy aged about twelve years, says that, being in his father's house one Saturday night, the 18th of this instant, about one hour and half within the night, his mother, himself and the rest of the children being there, his mother being at the fire, sitting in a chare, and Benjamin Tuttle sitting [at] the chimney corner near his mother. His [John's] mother was saying to her children [that] she was sorry her husband was gone to Mr. Bishop's without his supper, expecting he was gone to watch, [citizen night patrol] for she feared he would be sick for want of It. Benjamin Tuttle replying very short, that he might have had it before he went if he would. His [John's] mother answering him again with this reply: "You need not be so short", upon which he went out of the doors, and when he was out his brother bade his Sister Sarah [John's sister Sarah, not his mother Sarah] shut the door, being it smoked, and as she went to shut it, Benjamin Tuttle came in with something in his hand and spoke these words angrily: "I'll shut the door for you," and so went to his [John's] mother and struck her one the right side of the head with that he brought in his hand, but knows not whether it was an ax or other weapon; at which blow she fell and never spoke nor groaned more; and followed with several blows after she fell, standing over her, upon which he run out of doors and cried [two illegible words]. Just as he struck his mother the first blow, Benjamin Tuttle said, "I will teach you to scold," and upon their crying out, Benjamin Tuttle fled; there being no parson in the house when the mischief begun, to help them. Sarah Slauson, daughter to John and Sarah Slauson, was about aged a bout nine years, declared the same verbatim.

We, the Jury, doe declare that the declaration of the boy and the girl as above was declared before us by them, and do judge that the wound on her head was the cause of her death, as witness our hands."

The Grand Jury haveing heard the accusation against Benjamen Tuttell did return that they found the Bill here followes the Indictment: Benjamen Tutle thou art indicted by the name of Benjamen Tutle late of Stamford that not haveing the fear of God before thine eyes thou hast most wickedly risen up against thy sister, Sarah the wife of John Slawson of Stamford afoarsayd some time in November last about the 18th day & by smiteing her with an axe or some other instrument of death thou hast slayne her for which according to the law of God & the lawes of this colony thou deservest to dye. The prisoner haveing heard the Indictment read was required to Answer Guilty or not guilty; he Answered not guilty & referred himselfe to be tryed by God & the country. The former Jury being called man by man & the prisoner ordered to look upon them & accept or except against them, he accepting of them the case was comitted to the sayd Jury. The Jury return that they finde Benjamen Tutle Guilty according to the Inditment. The court haveing considered the return of the Jury doe approve of the same. And accordingly did sentence the sayd Benjamen Tutle to be carryed hence to the place from whence he came & at a convenient time to be carryed thence to the place of execution & there to be hanged by the neck till he dyes & then out downe & buryed. This court appoynts that execution be done upon the prisoner according to sentence the 13th of June next & the secretary is appoynted to signe a warrnt to the marshall to see execution done according to the sentance. And the reverend Mr. Nath. Collins is desired & appoynted to preach the lecture that day execution is to be done.

Benjamin was hanged at New Haven, June 13, 1677.

I totally thank Sam Behling at THE WEBSITE I found the story at for putting it together!!  There will be more I share too :)

Salem vs. the Witches ..... (part 2)

You can read part 1 of Salem vs. the Witches here if you haven't already .......

Susannah (North) Martin wasn't a young woman with bewitching looks who's eyes lingered on a jealous wife's husband for too long.   No, she was well into her life - aged 67 years and a widow, no longer protected by her husband. 

The BACK Story ...

Susannah North was one of a handful of accused witches during the Salem Witch Trials who did not actually live in Salem. She was born, 30 Sept 1621 in Buckinghamshire, England to Richard North and his wife Joan (Bartram). Her mother died only a few short years after Susannah's birth.  Now, my records indicate Susannah's mother Joan died in 1624 (possibly 1630), but her Father Richard had already married his second wife, Ursula, in 1620... most likely they got married in 1623, though, after Joan had died and he needed help with the five surviving children.  I also have records of several other children. Only one of which I could solidly confirm with a baptismal record, but I haven't dug too far yet.   There was Martin North who was born in 1611, died around the age of 6 in 1617.  John North was born in 1617 and died in infancy in 1617 or 1618.  Mary North was also born in 1617, I'm assuming her and John were twins.   Hester North was born in 1618 and died before her father did in 1648.  Sarah North was born in 1619 and had possibly married a man by the name of Oldham, and having a daughter named Ann.   I wonder if Sarah had died in childbirth of Ann, as that was pretty common in those days.  There is no record of her husband's first name, or when they were wed.  After Sarah was born there was another John North born in 1620.  He survived until 1649.  Then Susannah had been born in 1621.    I wonder if, after Susannah, childbirth had just taken so much of a toll on Joan.  She was older then most woman having babies, as her and Richard had started late .....  It is suggested they got married in 1610 Nov. 29.   I found several birth years for Joan, the two making the most sense would be 1585 (her mother would have been about 17) or 1590 (her mother would have been about 22.) .... So lets go with 1590, just cuz.  Richard was also born in 1590.  That would have made them 20 when they got married in 1610.  They started having children in 1611.  By the time Susannah was born she would have been in her 30s.  And she died shortly after Susannah's birth.  At least two of her children had died, and possibly more we don't really know about.  It's hard.

I have found some things that might suggest that Joan and Ursula were related, possibly cousins?

Susannah relocated with her father and stepmother to the Merrimack plantation in Salisbury, Massachusetts in 1639.  Records indicate Mary went with - also, as she died in Massachusetts ... however - records show - whatever reason, true of false, that Hester died in England.

The North family were some of the first settlers of Salisbury, which is located 40 miles north of Boston and was originally called Colchester before being renamed Salisbury in 1640. The family lived with the other settlers on plots along the “circular road,” now known as the triangle formation of Elm street, School street and Bridge road in Salisbury square.

At the time, the area was inhabited by Pennacook Native Americans, wolves and wild animals. The Pennacook, also known by the names Merrimack and Pawtucket, were a North American people that primarily inhabited the Merrimack River valley of present-day New Hampshire and Massachusetts, as well as portions of southern Maine.

After Susannah grew up, she married a blacksmith from Salisbury named George Martin in 1646 and eventually gave birth to eight children. In 1654, George and Susannah moved to nearby Amesbury.

 Susannah wasn't any sort of stranger to being accused of witchcraft.   Much like the other accused witches, Susannah was also viewed by others as a troublemaker and her name appears numerous times in court records prior to the Salem Witch Trials. Like Bridget Bishop, Susannah had also been accused of witchcraft twice before 1692.

During her first witchcraft case, she was accused by William Browne of tormenting his wife Elizabeth with her spirit. After her arrest, Susannah was released on bail and the charges were eventually dropped.

She was accused again in 1669, this time by William Sargent Jr, who also said he witnessed Susannah give birth to and kill an illegitimate baby. Susannah posted bail, promising to return to court for her trial but, again, the charges were dropped. Her husband, George, later sued Sargent for slander. The court held Sargent libel for slander in accusing Susannah of fornication and infanticide but the court sided with Sargent on the witchcraft accusations.

In public gossip, however, her reputation as a witch appears to have continued.

At the same time as the first accusations of witchcraft Susannah and her husband were involved in a series of legal battles over her inheritance. In 1667 (possibly 1668) her father, Richard North, died leaving two daughters (Susannah and Mary, the rest of the children had died), a granddaughter, and his second wife to share his sizable estate.  **Now, as a note, Susannah and Mary both had several children by the time their father died, so saying he was survived by ONE granddaughter is an understatement, as there were - by my count - eleven boys and eight girls between them, they each had lost at least one child at this point)....  it is possible and he and Ursula had raised Sarah's  daughter, Ann, however, and that is the one granddaughter they are referring to.  Seems to make sense if you think about it that way ....

To the surprise of Susannah and her sister, they received only a tiny portion while the bulk of the estate passed to his second wife, who died soon after her husband. Susannah's stepmother left the majority of North's estate to his granddaughter, continuing the exclusion of Susannah and her sister. From 1671 to 1674 Susannah's husband and her sister pursued a series of appeals, all of which were ultimately unsuccessful.

With the death of her husband in 1686, and all the failed attempts at acquiring her due inheritance, Susannah was left a poor, defenseless widow.

When she was accused of witchcraft for the final time in 1692, she had no one to come to her rescue.

According to Susannah’s arrest warrant, she was accused by the afflicted Salem village girls: Mary Walcott, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam and Mary Lewis. Since they lived in different villages, it is not known how these girls knew Susannah, but it is possible they heard about her bad reputation from others and made the decision to accuse her.

Arrest Warrent

Susannah Martin's Arrest Warrent .... 30 April 1692

To the Marshall of the County of Essex of his Lawful Deputies or to the Constable of Amesbury:

You are in their Majests names hereby required forthwith or as soon as may be to apprehend and bring (before us) Susanna Mertin of Amsbury in ye county of Essex Widdow at ye house of Lt. Nathaniel Ingersalls in Salem village in order to her examination Relating to high suspicion of sundry acts of Witchcraft donne or committed by her upon ye Bodys of Mary Walcot, Abigail Williams, Ann Putnam and Mercy Lewis of Salem village or farmes whereby great hurt and damage hath beene donne to ye bodys of said persons according to complt of Capt. Jonathan walcot & Serg Thomas putnam in behalf of their Majests this day exhibited before us for themselves and also for several of their neighbors and here you are not to fail at your peril.

Dated Salem Aprill 30th 1692.

John Hathorn

Jonathan Corwin

Assistants

Apprehension Document

APPREHENSION - 2 May 1692

According to this Warrant I have apprehended Susanna Martin Widdow of Amsbury and have brong or caused her to be brought to the place appointed for her examination pr Me.

Salem Village this 2d May 1692

Orlando Bagley
Const of Amsbury

 There are two documents out there with initial testimony on it.  In this transcrpt they have been combined for better understanding...

Preliminary Trial

Preliminary Trial, May 2nd 1692


For the crime of witchcraft and sorcery, Susanna Martin pled not guilty. As soon as she came in many had fits.
Magistrate: Do you know this woman?
Abigial Williams saith it is Goody Martin, she hath hurt me often. Others by fits were hindered from speaking. Eliza Hubbard said she hath not been hurt by her. John Indian said he had not seen her. Mercy Lewis pointed to her and fell into a little fit. Ann Putnam threw her glove in a fit at her. The examinant laughed.
Magistrate: What! Do you laugh at it?
Martin: Well I may at such folly.
Magistrate: Is this folly, the hurt of these persons?
Martin: I never hurt man or woman or child.
Marcy Lewis cried out, she hath hurt me a great many times and pulls me down. Then Martin laughed again. Mary Walcott saith this woman hath hurt me a great many times.
Magistrate: What do you say to this?
Martin: I have no hand in witchcraft.
Magistrate: What did you do? Did not you give your consent?
Martin: No, never in my life.
Magistrate: Pray, what ails these people?
Martin: I don’t know.
Magistrate: But what do you think ails them?
Martin: I do not desire to spend my judgment upon it.
Magistrate: Do not you think they are bewitched?
Martin: No, I do not think they are.
Magistrate: Tell us your thought about them then.
Martin: No. My thoughts are my own when they are in, but thwen they are out they are another’s. Their master.
Magistrate: You said their master. Who do you think is their master?
Martin: If they be dealing in the black art, you may know as well as I.
Magistrate: Well, what have you done towards this?
Martin: Nothing at all.
Magistrate: Why, ’tis you or your appearance.
Martin: Well, I cannot help it.
Magistrate: Is it not your master?
Martin: I desire to lead myself according to the word of God.
Magistrate: Is this according to God’s word?
Martin: If I were such a person I would tell you the truth.
Magistrate: How comes your appearance just now to hurt these?
Martin: How do I know?
Magistrate: Are not you willing to tell the truth?
Martin: I cannot tell. He that appeared in the shape of Sam[uel] shape a glorified saint may appear in anyone’s shape.
Magistrate: Do you believe these do not say true?
Martin: They may lie for aught I know.
Magistrate: May not you lie?
Martin: I dare not tell a lie if it would save my life.
Magistrate: Then you will speak the Truth.
Martin: I have spoke nothing else. I would do them any good.
Magistrate: I do not think you have such affections for them whom just now you insinuated had the devil for their Master.
Eliz Hubbard was afflicted and then the Marshall who was by her said she (Martin) pinched her hard. Several of the afflicted cried out they saw her upon the beam.
Magistrate: Pray God discover you, if you be guilty.
Martin: Amen, Amen. A false tongue will never make a guilty person. < P> You have been a long time coming to the Court today; you can come fast enough in the night, said Mercy Lewis.
Martin: No, sweetheart.
Then Mercy Lewis and all many of the rest were afflicted. John Indian fell into a violet fit and said it was that woman, she bites, she bites, and then she was biting her lips.
Magistrate: Have you not compassion for these afflicted?
Martin: No, I have none.
Some cried out there was the black man with her and Goody Vibber who had not accused her before confirmed it. Abigail Williams upon trial could not come near her. Nor Goody Vibber, nor Mary Walcott. John Indian cried he would kill her if he came near Hear but he was flung down in his approach to her.
Magistrate: What is the reason these cannot come near you?
Martin: I cannot tell. It may be the Devil bears me more malice than another.
Magistrate: Do not you see how God evidently discovers you?
Martin: No. Not a bit for that.
Magistrate: All the congregation think so.
Martin: Let them think what they will.
Magistrate: What is the reason these cannot come near you?
Martin: I do not know, but they can if they will, or else if you please I will come to them.
Magistrate: What is the black man whispering to you?
Martin: There was none whispered to me.

Be sure to tune into more about Susannah and the other Witches from Salem ....