Name |
Nathan Gillett |
Suffix |
(immigrant) |
Christening |
Bef Feb 1609/10 |
Dorset, England |
- It is believed that Jonathan and Nathan were among the children born before the institution of their father as rector of Chaffcome, Somersetshire, on 4 Feb 1609/10 and that they were baptized at some other parish that is unknown as yet. He suggests that future research ought to be concentrated on getting a complete reading of all occurrences of the name in the parish registers of Bruton, Somersetshire, and of Muchelney, Craneborun and Caudle Hatton, all in Dorset.
https://familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/5244153
|
Birth |
Bef 4 Feb 1609/10 |
Dorset, England |
- conflicting birth info:
Nathan, however, need not have been born until 1613, and he could have been born at Chaffcombe, next after Elias, during a period when neither the parish register nor the Bishops' Transcripts survive for that parish.
https://familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/5244153
|
Gender |
Male |
Immigration |
1633 |
Dorchester, Massachusetts Bay Colony |
- Jonathan Gillett and his brother Nathan are frequently included in passenger lists of the Mary & John. While this is not impossible, it is also not a necessary conclusion. They were both from the West Country, and both settled first in Dorchester, but were they first here in 1630? The first record of Nathan is his admission to freemanship in 1634, which implies arrival by 1633, and nothing more. From the statement of Jonathan's son Benjamin in their copy of the "Breeches Bible" that "My father Gille[tt] came into new-inglan the second time in June in the year 1634...," we know that Jonathan arrived for the second time in 1634, and he does appear on the 1634 passenger list of the Recovery [TAG 15:210; NGSQ 71:171, 77:250]. But he could have come for the first time in 1633, turned around immediately to return to England to marry early in 1634 and board ship in time to sail back to New England. There was a ship from the West Country in 1633 that could have brought the Gillett brothers to New England, and as a result we would not be justified in placing them on the Mary & John. Any evidence which might overturn this conclusion would almost certainly have to come from England.
https://familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/5244153
|
Residence |
1634 |
Dorchester, Massachusetts Bay Colony |
freeman |
Person ID |
I106125 |
Roots |
Last Modified |
23 May 2017 |