This is my personal genealogy hobby site. The data contained here has been gathered through 20 years of genealogy. Some of it is my research, much of it has been shared with me.

DISCLAIMER: This is my speculative data. I've verified very little of it. Use it for hints and pointers, but do your own research!

It costs me over $50 (US) a month to have this data on the web, so your support would be appreciated! If clicking on advertisments is not your thing, please consider a donation!

Rob Salzman
e-familytree.net
PO Box 25335
Beaverton, OR
97298-0335

sponsored links

This data changes often. If you've arrived from a search engine, it's could be that you don't see the information you were looking for. The current index for e-familytree.net can be found here. You can email me at genealogy at e-familytree.net for updates, removal requests, etc.

Family Sheet

HUSBAND
Name: Richard Beach Note Born: Abt 1611 Married: Abt 1640 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died: Abt 1691 Father: Thomas Beach Mother: Joan Hill
WIFE
Name: Catherine Hull Cook Note Born: 1616 at Stratford, , Fairfield County, CT Died:
CHILDREN
Name: Mary Beach Born: Jun 1642 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Died:
Name: Benjamine Beach Born: Oct 1644 at New Haven, , New Haven Colony, CT Died: Apr 1713 at New Haven, , New Haven Colony, CT Wife: Mary Peacock
Name: Azariah Beach Born: 6 Jul 1646 at Wallingford, , New Haven, Countynnecticut Died: 1696 at New Haven, , New Haven County, CT Wife: Martha Ives
Name: Mercy Beach Born: 21 May 1648 Died:
NOTES
1). He first appears in the records of New Haven Colon y o n 3 A pr 1639. He moved to Stratford, Connecticut, c . 166 0 wh e r e he kept an ordinary or tavern as of 1662 . H e purch as e d land in Wallingford, Connecticut, c. 16 70, b ut appar ent l y never lived there. He finally move d to Eli zabeth, N e w Je rsey, c. 1673 and reported died t here, alt hough thi s i s unc ertain . The problem of his a ncestry ha s NOT ye t bee n solve d, despite the wide crede nce given t o variou s claim s as t o theEnglish origins o f the New Ha ven Beac h family. Much co nfusion still persi sts because o f earlie r genealogi sts mis identificatio n of Richard Be ach of Ne w Haven wit h one Rich ard Beac h of Watertown, Ma ssachusett s, e.g., Far mer, A Gene alogical Register of th e First Set tlers of Ne w England , p . 30 Beach, Richard , Cambridge , 16 35, Water town , 1639 m ay have removed t o New Haven.. . Bond, Gene a logies of th e Families a n d Descendants o f the Early Set t lers of Watert own, Mass achusetts, p. 679 Hinman, A Ca talo gue of the Name s of t he Early Puritan S ettlers of t he Colo ny of Connecticu t , pp. 163 164.While i t is now c lear the t wo men were sepa r ate and distinct, on e stil l encounters cl aims that Rich ar d Beach of New Have n cam e from England in1 638 39 on th e shi p Elizabeth an d Ann , when in fact tha t vessel wa s the on e which transp ort ed Richard Beach of Wa tertown t o Boston i n 1635. Oth e r sources, following the le ad of E lmer T. Beach s Beach I n America, published in 192 3 , re cognize the dist inc tio n between the two Richard Beac he s while still sugges t in g the existence of some relation s hip between them, s uc h a s uncle and nephew, but such th eor ies have yet t o be p roven. On April 25, 1637, some 500 Puritans, headed by the Re v e r e nd John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, embarked o n t h e s hi p Hector and one or more other vessels, sail in g fr om E ngl and to arrive at Boston on June 26,1637. H er e the y wint ere duntil March 18, 1638, when the compan y s aile d aroun d to t he south of Connecticut, to the ol d Ind ian g rounds o f Quinn ipiac, which had been chosen a s th e site o f the ne w settlem ent. After providing for t hei r immediat e physica l needs, the planters or propr ieto rs , i.e. , those wh o had investe d in the colony a s stock holders, t urned thei r attention t o the questio n of sett ling Civil l Governmt . At the urgin g of Daven port a pla ntation cov enant or ag reement was rea ched i n 1638 to ma ke the Scrip tures the sup reme law of th e co mmunity. Befo re this coul d be implemente d, however , i t was necessar y t o gather or organize th e first c hurch . A group o f twelve were se lected for this p urpos e who , af ter a su itable period o f prayer and conside ra tion, chose fr om am ong themselves t he first seven chur c h members. These s ev en, in turn, elec ted their churc h offi cers and establish e d the qualificati ons by whic h others wo uld be admitte d to f ellowship. This done, a committee was then appointed to organ i z e t h e colony s government itself, culminating in a g en er al m ee tinge of all the free planters assembled to get her o n Jun e 4, 1639 . Here two questions were propo unde d an d vo ted on ,the first being Whether the Script urs d oe ho ld e a perfec t rule for the direction and gou ernm t of al l me n in all du et ies wch they are to perfo rme t o God an d men ... Not sur prisingly, all expresse d thei r assent t o thi s principle. Th esecond question c oncerne d whether t he ass embled planter s would reaffir m their ea rlier plant ation c ovenent, whic h again .. . was assente d vnto by all , and no man gainsaid it t, . . . Taken toget her, these cove nents an d understandin g swere known as th e foundamental l agreemt , to whic h the a ssembled coloni sts signed thei r names th e signa ture of Ric hard Beach f ollowing those o f his kinsma n, J ohn Moss, and M oss brot her in law, Joh n Charles, Hoad l y, Record s of th e Colon y and Plantatio n of New Haven, 1 6 38 1649, p.17. As the entry first quoted above makes clear, however , e i g h t of the New Haven freemen, including Richard Bea ch , we r e s pecifically asked to express their consent t o th e ini ti al planation covenent . In the case of Joh n Clar ke thi s w as because of his being absent when th e couen t was ma de.. . Bas ed on this Elmer T. Beach an d others h ave sugge ste d that Ri chard Beach was likewis e absent whe n these pr elim inary agre ements were reached . ... it ap pears fro m the r ecord itself that he was n ot present a t the firs t meetin g when the mat ter was fir st talked ove r. For som e reason o r other he ha d been ab sent at the fi rst meeting , as was th e case with si x o r seven others, p ossibly the y had been ou t on militar y duty, f or aguar d of seven o r eight was cons tantly o n duty n ight and day , to preven t surprises by Indi ans. Beach, Beach In America, p. 38. This author s own reading of the entry, however, l e a d s t o a wholly different conclusion. Of the eight me n s ep ar atel y asked to affirm the plantation covenant, o nl y Cla rk e is d escribe d as absent at the earlier mee tin g. A s fo r Richar dBeach and the others, the reason g ive n fo r requi ring thei r separate assent is that thes e per son s being no tt ad mitt ed planters when the couen t was m ade. .. This su ggests wa s in New Haven as earl y as 1638 , b u t had eithe r not paid i n hiss hare to bec ome a pro prie tor stockhol der and or h ad yet to sati sfy the req uirem ents of churc h membership nec essary t o participat e in th e colony s civi c life. The old New Haven records thereafter contain numerou s e n t r ies related to Richard Beach. Many of these provi de i nt er es ting insights into everyday life in the colon y, in clu din g v arious disputes and controversies betwee n the s ettl er s themselves or with their new theocratic govern ment. C o nsider , for example, the next reference At a Court holden the 3d of Aprill, 1640 Itt is or d e r e d thatt John Mosse, Timothy Forde a nd Richard Bea c h sh a l l pay each of them 1s fine for trees wch they d i d fal l di so rderly. Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New H a v e n , 1638 1649, pp. 31 32. One can well imagine the scene Richard Beach, his ki n s m a n John Moss, and Timothy Ford setting out to fell t re e s , ei ther for lumber or firewood. Most likely workin g w i t h broa d axes, they cut down more than they could u se , o r e lse lef tbehind large piles of brush, perhaps b loc kin g a p ath. Som eone then complained to the authorit ie s an d all th ree foun d themselves hauled into court wh er e eac h was dock ed a shil ling, proving in the proces s tha t vis ible sainth ood an d status as a free burge ss o r plant er did no t guarante e the orderly fellin g of t rees. Several months later, however, the situation was reve r s e d , with Richard Beach giving testimony in a case aga in s t o n e Arthur Halbridge, accused of false measure i n th e s al e o f lime used in building the town mill. Thus ,a t a gen era l co urtheld November 4, 1640 Edward Adams testified vpon oath thatt the note of in f o r m aco wch hehad formrlly delivered into the court c on ce rn in g lime wch Arther Halbidg hath delivered to th e mi ll i s tr ue, wc h when he had done, Arther Halbidg e exce pte d ag ains titt, thinking to prove the said Edwa rd Ada m s a pjure d pso n. Butt Goodman Pigge, Rich Beac h and Jo h n Wakefiel d affir med the truth o f what Edwar d Adams h a d testifie d , thoug h the saidArtur Holbidg d id concei v e they woul d have contra dicted Edw Adams hi s testimony , itt was the refore ordere d thatt the sai d Arther shou l d pay two fold e for all the wa nt of measu re thatt is ch ar ged vpon him, a nd from hencefort h e tak e noe worke b y th e great, nor burn e any lime, to sel l. Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New H a v e n , 1638 1649, p.46. Unfortunately, it appears that Richard Beach faile d t o p r o fit by Arthur Halbridge s example since, two ye ar s late r , a t a court held August 5,1642, we find Richard Beach for nott perfor ing covenant in the w o r k e w ch he undertooke to doe att the mi ll, wch he w a s t o do e st rongly and substantially, butt did itt weak el y an d sle ightl y as was proved by thetestimony of Joh n Wa kefie ld th e miller, himselfe allso nott denyinge it t It t w a s ordere d that h e should make good the damag e but t beca use thedama ge is no t justly known wha t it t is, Mr . Goody ear, and Mr . Gregsona re to ve ew the wo rke, an d conside r off and set t do wne the damage byhi s defec t ive workma nship... Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New H a v e n , 1638 1649, p.75. We can forgive this dereliction of duty, however, s i n c e a t the time hewas likely preoccupie d by matters m o r e im port ant than the mill work,i.e., his marriage t o Ca th erin e or K atherin e Cook e , the widow ofAndrew H ull , an d th e birth o fthe couple s first child. Richard Beach s marriage to the widow Hull was accomp a n i e d by anagreement between the coupl e, sanctioned i f n o t r eq uired by the NewHaven court, to guarantee Hull s t w o dau ght ers thei r share of theirfather s estate . As se cu rity f or h is promises Richard Beach had pledge dhi s ho us e and la nds . As the old town records reveal , however , thi sapparent ly c aused considerab le troubl e and inconv enienc e, requiri ng hi mto appear several tim es before th e author ities t o e xplai n his actions orels e petition fo r relief . In Januar y 1645 4 6, for example , it is recorde d that Richard Beech hath sould his owne howse to bro W m P e c k e & whereas thesaid howse was sugad ged for the s ecur it y e o f the portions of thechildren of Andrew Hull , who s e wi ddo w he marrye d, in liew thereof hehath n ow ingad ge d hi s how se, barne, cellar & well, vallewed a t 40L w t hth e 7 a cres o f land on wch it stands, the how se, barn e & ce ller b eingcom pleatly finished b eing buil t wth bri cke & s tonne a s he pro miseth & sokept in repai re & the l and in h art fo r security eof the portions o f the said ch ildren. Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New H a v e n , 1638 1649, p.184 As suggested by the New Haven record for June 6, 165 4 , R i c hard Beach had probably considere d this move fo r s om e ti me , perhaps in consultation with his brother J oh n wh o like wis e bough t property at Stratford a fewm o nth s lat er, o n Ma y21, 1660. In 1662 Richard Beach acqu ire d s til l mor e Stra tford property, including one fiv e acr e piec e on we st poin t of the Neck, butte d sout h upon t he mead ow calle d Mills Lordship, Orcutt, A Hi story o f the Ol d Town of S tratford , Connecticut, Vol. I I, p. 24 5. By no w in his mid 40 s or m ore, he perhaps f elt himse lf to o o ld to activel y farm, ins tead choosin g to becom e the keepe r of an ordin ary or tave rn. Th e Stratford r ecords thu s disclose February 12, 1663 At a lawful meeting Richard Bea c h d e m anded inconsideration of keeping the ordinary, s i x aca r s o f swamp at the wood end, and when his urgen t oc asion s i n th at imployment will not permitt,to be fr eed f rom tr ayni ng hi mselfe, to which proposition the to wn e b yvote g rante d, pro vided he would keepe the said o rdi nary and pro vide f or stra ngers entertayn ment the y als o granted he s hould h ave pay d him backe2 fines whi ch wer e taken of hi m before t his tyme . Stratford Town Records, Vol. 1, p. 145, as quoted in W i l c o xson, History of Stratford, Connecticut, 1639 193 9 , p . 21 7. From this point onward, however, the chronology of h i s l i f e again becomes somewhat confusing . It is claim e d by s o m e that Richard Beach acquired two lots in Eliz ab ethtow n , Ne w Jersey, together with a nearby farm, a s ear ly as 1 66 5, Be ach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1 , p. 7 Crayon , Roc kawa y Records of Morris County, Ne w Jersey , p. 160 . If s o he pr obably did not move the r e immediat ely for o n Janua ry 7, 16 67, he served as witn ess to an a greement b etween t he inhabi tants of the tow n ofStamford , Connecticu t, and tw o Indian sagamores o r minor chief s, i.e. , Tap hance so n of Ponus an d Powaha y son of Onax , son of Ponus , confirmi ng their fathe rs earlier deed o f land to the t own in 1645 , See Hunting t on, History o f Stamford, Connec ticut, p p . 97 99, wher e thi s agreemen t is reproduced i n full. Ho w or why Rich ard Beac h becam e involved in thi s transaction , and th e precise rol e h e played, remain som ething of a my stery . Family histori a nJoseph P. Beach i s said to have be li eved that he serv ed ... as a commissi oner t o meet t h e Indians on matter s of th e Colony... , B each, Beach I n Am erica, p. 135, bu t the ba s is for this i s unclear. Savage, in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Se t t l e rs of New England, Vol. I, p. 144 , states that re m . i. e., removed to New London 1667 , but as note d ear li e r t h e records of that town reportedly make n o menti o n o f him. O thers assert he next moved to Wallin gford, n ot ein g his purc hase of land there. According t o the Beac h F amil y Magazine , Vol. I , No. 1, p. 7, .. . in 1670 i t app ear s in the Wall ingford Records that h e drew lot 34 , 6 ac r e s across the st reet north of th e present Congre gation a l church... This se ems too earl y, however, sinc e his na m e is not on the list o f the to wn s original pro prietors , D avis, History of Wallin gfor d, pp. 85 86. Hibb ard s His tor y of the Town of Goshe n ,Connecticut, p. 418 , stat e s simp ly that he was i n Walli ngford, 1672 whic h is pr obably mo re accurate fo r the dat e of his purchase , but hi s actual r esidence th ere is doubtf ul. Instead, i t is no w believed th e Wallin gford property wa sbought ei ther a s an investmen t or a s a home for his son A zariah , wh o i n fact occupie d th e lot in 1673, Beach Famil y Ma gazine , Vol. I, No. 1 , p . 8. Meanwhile, one authority shows Richard Beach to ha v e b e e n a party to litigation in Long Island, New York , i n 16 6 9 . Thus, in Bergen, Register of the Early Settl er s of Ki n g s County, Long Island, N.Y., pp. 24 and 235, i t is state d BEACH, RICHARD, was sued for debt May 4, 1669, in t h e c o u rt of sessionsby John Rateo, as p er Gd i.e., Gr av esen d r ec. RATEO, JOHN. A suit was brought against him Apl. 4 , 1 6 6 9 , in the court of sessions in Gd b y for debt , a s p e r G d rec. These two references apparently unknown to any pre v i o u s historian of the family are some what confuse d . I n o n e the month is April andRichard Beach is the pl ai ntif f i n the other th e month is May and he isthe de fen dant . C ontr ary toBergen s suggestion, however, neit he r is pr oo f tha t Richard Beach was a settler or resi den t of Lon g I slan d at the time. Since King s County i s bu t a shor t sai l acr oss Long Island Sound from Connec ticut , it woul d no t be unu sual fora resident of New Ha ven, S tratford o r oth er town n ear the coast to have ha d busine ss dealing s there . In thi s case, however, the d eal betwe en Richar d Beach an d John Ra teo apparently wen t sour , requirin g one or th e other to a pply to the co urt in Gr avesend fo r relief. Giv en that a Ne w York trib unal woul d not ordina rily have juri sdiction ove r a Conn ecticut re sident, the f act the proceed ings were ini tiat ed there su ggests that Ri chard Beach wa s most likely t h e aggrieved party, bringin g suit where Rat eo himself l ived . Furthe r research is cle arly required, ho wever, be fore mor e ca n be said. Exactly when Richard Beach finally did move to New J e r s e y is, as noted, also uncertain. Hibbard, History o f t h e T ow n of Goshen, Connecticut, p.418, says in Eliz abet h , N.J . , 1673 74 however, he does not appear o n the D ut ch cen su s ofthe town in 1673. According to on e old hi sto ry of E liz abeth His house lot contained 13 acres, 13 by 14 chains, bo u n d e d , E., and W., by highways N., b y Crane s brook a n d S . , by Evan Salisbury. He had, also, 30 acres o f upla nd , o n C rane s brook, adjoining Barnabas Wines, a nd Will ia m Cra meralso, 50 acres of upland, on Beache s brook , a djoini ng J ohn Little, William Pardon, Nathan iel Tuth ill , and Ste phenC rane also, 10 acre s of meado w on th e S. s ide of Tho mpson s Creek inall, 102 acres . His hou se lo t he sold, Ma r . 31 ,1684, to Mary, the w idow of Ja mes Mi tchell and Ma r. 31 , 1688, he sold al l his land s i n E. T own, to the wid ow Aga tha White, who , 16 days l ater, resol d them to Willia m Darbi e of E . T own. He remo ved, it is t hought, to Morri s Co., wh erema ny families , supposed to b e his des cendant s, are no w t o be found. Hatfield, History of Elizabeth, New Jersey, p. 169. Of his last days it is said In 1691 he died in or near Morristown, N.J., age a b o u t 8 0 years. Hisson Azariah and nephew Zophar were a t t h a t tim e living at Newark not far from Elizabethtow n a n d i t woul d seem in h is old age he might have move d the re , bu t the r ecords place him and his death as rec orde d a t Morri stown. Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 7. The location of his grave site, if any, has yet to b e f o u n d. It is likewise unknown when hi s wife, Catheri ne Co o k Hull Beach, departed this life nor the plac e of he r b ur ia l. As the foregoing account makes clear, there are many q u e s t ions about Richard Beach which remain unanswered . A t t h e sa me time, the amount of information which i s know n i s c onsid erable, e specially for a person who l ived an d di ed m ore than three centuries ago. The tempta tion ha s ther efor e prove n irresistable to characteriz e him in t his o r tha t way, pla cing his life in some sor t of perspe ctive . At th e conclusio n of its own account , for example , th e Beach Fa mily Magazine suggests .. . it appears h e wa s a thrifty pe rson. He bega n by marry ing a well to d o wid ow and continue d to accumulat e prop erty through a l ong li fe. As a close r examination o f t he New Haven reco rds sug gests, however , Richard Beach smarriage to the w idow Hul l in fact broug ht him a fai r sha re of grief as h e struggl ed, from 1643 t o 1655, t o guarante e the share s of her tw o daughters in th eir la te father s es tate. Fo r his part , family historian J ose ph P. B each, in his ty pe scrip t A Brief of the Earl y P ilgrims of the Beach F am ily, p. 1 , ventured the opin ion th at ... Richard Beac h w as the be st educated of t he thre e New Haven brothers . Cert ainly h is services a s fence view er, attorney for M r. Stenda m, an d witness i n the Stamfor d Indian deed sugg est some lev e l of educat ion, but this wa s true of most o f the Purita n s and it s kind and degree ar e difficult t o evaluate. Las tly , de scendant Elmer T. Beac h opined tha t Richard appea r st o have been something o f a rover, u p to the time o f s ettlin g in Elizabeth, New Je rsey, an d did not remai n lon g in a pl ace, Beach, Beach I n Amer ica, p.54. Giv en tha t he in fac t resided in New Have n fr om 1639 to a t least16 55, however, this judgment seem s ra ther harsh . The numbe r and frequenc y of his relocatio n s does no t differ greatl y from those o f his brothers, J oh n and T homas, nor the ot her early New Ha ven settlers g ener ally . For such reason s it is perhaps bett er to let t he rec o rds of his life, ac complishments and time s spea k for the m selves, allowing ea ch to form his or her ow n j udgment s a s the facts may warr ant.
2).  She was the widow of Andrew Hull, by whom she had tw o d a u g hters.Widow ofAndrew Hull.

						

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
e-familytree.net is a welldesigned.net website