Mary BARTLET

1655 - 1724  (69 years)

• Name	Mary BARTLET  [1, 2]
  Birth	1 Feb 1655	Guilford (Now Madison), CT
  Gender	Female
  Death	Nov 1724	, , Connecticut, USA   [3]
  Person ID	I13119	Ancestrees
  Last Modified	30 Sep 2024

  
  

  Father	Deacon George BARTLET,   b. Abt 1627, , , , England d. 2 Aug 1669, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA (Age 42 years)
  Relationship	natural
  Mother	Mary CRUTTENDON,   b. Bef 29 Apr 1632, Hawkhurst, Kent, ENG d. 11 Sep 1669, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA (Age > 37 years)
  Relationship	natural
  Marriage	14 Sep 1650	Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA   [4]
  Family ID	F4479	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

  Family	John DOUD,   b. 24 May 1650, Guilford (Now Madison), New Haven, CT d. Feb 1712, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA (Age 61 years)
  Marriage	15 Jan 1688	Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA
  Children	1. Mary DOUDE,   b. Oct 1688, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. Yes, date unknown  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   2. Ebenezer DOUD,   b. 3 Dec 1706, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 1789 (Age 82 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   3. Isaac DOUD,   b. 30 Jun 1700, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 1769, Middletown Twp, Middlesex, CT, USA (Age 68 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   4. Abraham DOUDE,   b. 1 Oct 1697, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 9 Feb 1781 (Age 83 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   5. David DOUDE,   b. 15 Mar 1694, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 6 Sep 1740, Middletown, Hartford, CT (Age 46 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   6. Hannah DOUDE,   b. 8 May 1703, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 20 Jan 1732 (Age 28 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   7. John DOUD, Jr.,   b. 3 Feb 1691, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 3 Sep 1745, Saybrook, New London, CT (Age 54 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   8. Elizabeth DOUDE,   b. 4 May 1708, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. Yes, date unknown  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]   9. Jacob DOUD,   b. 3 Jan 1692, Guilford Twp., New Haven, CT, USA d. 18 Oct 1735, Middletown, Hartford, CT (Age 43 years)  [Father: natural]  [Mother: natural]
  Family ID	F3229	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart
  Last Modified	30 Sep 2024

  
  

• Photos

  dvm_GenMono004426-00114-1.jpg

  
  

• Notes

  "Bartlett" comes from an old Norman French surname, "Barttelot" The Bartlet name is first found in England with an Adam Barttelot, Esq., who served under William the Conqueror and died in Co. Sussex in 1100 A.D. He was given lands for hisce in Ferring, Susex where the next 5 generations lived. In the 5th generation, his descendant, John Bartlett bought lands in Stopham, Sussex, England where his descendants still live today. It is not known how our Mary ties into the lineage. (F-531, 633) It is conjecture at this point, who Mary's parents are. A Mormon Ancestral file record gives her birth date as Sept. 11, 1669 of Guilford, New Haven, CT. It also states that she is the daughter of George and Mary Cruttenden Bartlett. However, upon checking the Barbour Collection which is an excellent second hand index made of the vital records for Connecticut, Mary's birth date is not in them. This birth date is likely a misinterpretation of Mary Crittendon Bartlett's burial date which is listed as bd, Sept. 11, 1669. In the Barbour Collection, bd means burial date. However, I still find the most proof supporting the belief that Mary is the daughter of Mary Crittendon and George Bartlet and likely to have been born near her mother's death. First, our Mary was from Kenilsworth/Killingworth at the time of her marriage, a town ten miles Northeast of Guilford Twp., Connecticut where George and Mary had lived. In fact, Kenilsworth/Killingworth abutted Guilford, divided by the Hammosett (River?), which had an original size ten miles in length. (F-503) Another child of George and Mary Bartlett also lived in Killingworth at the time, Daniel Bartlett. The fact that Mary is not in the vital records as the child of Mary and George Bartlet is also not surprising. Another daughter tied to George and Mary in Talcott was not placed in the town records either, i.e. Deborah, until her marriage. (F-499) There is also one more unaccounted for female Bartlett that was only in the vital records at the time of her marriage, that is also highly likely to be the daughter of George and Mary. A Judeth Bartlet married John Boyd on Mar. 28, 1676/7 in Killingworth, CT. (F-502) So what we have is only one Bartlet, Deacon George Bartlet, living in the Guilford/Killingworth area of an age appropriate to be the father of all the other Bartlet's known living in the area. Our Mary, Deborah and a Judeth are listed in the marriage records, but were not recorded in the birth vital records as the daughters of George. Also note that all three of these ladies had their last name spelled the same as George's name was spelled, Bartlet. It is my belief that these daughters had to be daughters of George and Mary Cruttendon Bartlet. Since both these parents died while having young children, it seems likely that recording of their births was simply not made. (F-463) The only other Bartlets in Connecticut at the time that could be parents to these young ladies all lived in Hartford County, CT. Their surnames were consistently spelled Bartlett with 2 tt's, unlike the Bartlet's of the Guilford/Killingworth area. John Bartlett of Windsor Twp, Hartford (m.1641?) (One researcher believes she is descended from a John, perhaps this one??? (F-477); Benjamin and Deborah Bartlett of Winsdor, Hartford (m.1665); Esaya (Isiah) and Abia Bartlett of Windsor Twp., Hartford (m.1663); Josia Bartlett of Windsor, Hartford (m.1664?); Robert and Ann Bartlett of Hartford, Hartford (m.1643?) (F-332); and Edward Bartlett (d. 1676) in Windsor leaving a will, (F-504). I have checked the Barbour collection for a Mary, Deborah or Judeth Bartlet, being born to any of these, and have not found them in the vital records for these families either. (F-502) As far as our Mary goes, it is true that if she was the daughter of George and Mary Bartlet as seems likely from time and place, she was the second living daughter of theirs to be named Mary. This would have been possible, if she had been born near her mother's death. Multiple children were given the same names in a family in the history of England, even when an older sibling was still living. This pattern would still would seem possible in this time period especially if Mary had been named to honor a dying mother.

  
  

• Sources

  [S137] Barbour Collection of Connecticut. [S2134] Torrey, Comp, New England Marriages Prior to 1700. [S2133] Diane A. Dray to Linda Coate Dudick Letter dated Nov. 5, 1996 at 344 Hedgerow Lane, Tarpon Springs, FL 34689 In Linda Coate files (F-463). [S2682] American Marriage Records before 1699 as transcribed at www.ancestry.com.