Notizen zu dieser Person
Many genealogies list her as the daughter of William Ball. Thisappears to be incorrect. She rather seems to be a daughter of hisbrother Alling (Allen): The following will abstract is the basis for identifying this AllingBall as the father of the immigrant Alling Ball to New Haven CT: "John Ball, St. Mary Bowe, London, Citizen and clothworker, London.Will 28 February, 1637/8; proved 9 April, 1638. To brother SamuellBall £30, and to my mother-in-law £10, and to her sonnes Leonard Cookeand Thomas Cooke 40s. each. To my cousin Mary Russell £3. To herbrother Allen Ball, son of my uncle Allen Ball, £3. To two otherdaughters of uncle Allen Ball £3 each. To couzin John Ball, son of myuncle Hugh Ball, £5. To cozen William Ball, my co-partner, for ring,20s. To wife of my other couzin William Ball (who is now beyond seas)20s. to be paid to her own hands and her acquittance without herhusband shall be my executor's discharge. To children of cousin RogerBall 20s. each. To my man Richard 40s. To Giles my partners man 40s.To friend Mr. Trench 30s. for ring. To cousin Newman Rookes £5. andforgive Debts. To Mr. Leach our minister 30s. for funeral sermon. Topoore of St. Mary Bowe £4. To friends Henry Colbron and Richard Price40s. each. To my two brothers Andrew Ball and Samuell Ball all mywearing apparell. Rest in three parts, one part to brother AndrewBall, second part to brother Samuell Ball, and third part to friendMr. Joseph Skinner merchant, executor. Overseers: Mr. Henry Colbronand Richard Price. Witnesses: James Russell, Richard Preice, RichardBall. Alice Ball. Lee, 50."2 The identity of Alling Ball of NewHaven is positively established by the mention Alling's sister MaryRussell. She was the wife of James Russell of New Haven. The Russellshad an only daughter, Hannah, who married Thomas Kimberly, Jr., anddied without issue, and the children of Alling Ball were next of kinto Mrs. Kimberly. In her will, following the death of her husband,Hannah (Russell) Kimberly gave power of attorney to her kinsman JohnBall and sold land to her kinsman Capt. Allen Ball, the two survivingsons of Alling Ball, the immigrant to New Haven CT. Most Ball families in North America have heard that they were relatedto President George Washington. The six brothers legend was highlylikely created to provide a way for a New England Ball descendant tohave a shot at making that connection. By the time of the fable'sappearance in the Union Record in 1902 there had been very little NewEngland "Ball" genealogy published (Bradley with his Coat of Armstheory relating Alling Ball to William of VA, Nicholas Ball for theBlock Island clan, and some other general compendiums like Bond forWatertown MA and Savage and Farmer summarizing a wider New Englandarea, for example), so the proposition was quite plausible at thetime. From The Union Record, published by Ball International Union andKeuka College, George H. Ball editor, Vol. 1, No. 2, April 1902, page38: William Ball, of Wiltshire, Eng., had six sons, who came to Americain 1635 on the ship Planter, namely: Alling, Francis, John, Samuel,Richard, and William. They first landed at Boston, and thence went tovarious parts. Alling went with the Tuttle family to New Haven, Conn.,in 1638, and managed the Davenport farm in East New Haven until1650.
and further
William, son of William, of Wiltshire, Eng., andbrother of the first Alling, became a merchant, and is so styled inthe first extant record of him in Virginia. As such, he naturallyvisited England often, and also the several American colonies, in thefur trade then, which was very remunerative. This fabled story made fact in the Union Record, but possiblyhaving been around before that, is undoubtedly a fabrication, sincethere has never been any documentation presented to support it in thelast hundred years. The first clue about the fable is that the UnionRecord only referred to the proof being in the hands of Mrs. SamuelEdgecome, of Mystic CT, rather than outlining the proof. For a journalthat came into being to promote research into Ball family history,detailing the proof of the six brothers should have been front pagenews. The ship did exist: the PLANTER of London, Nicholas Trerice, Master.She sailed from London April 1635 and arrived at Boston on Sunday,June 7, 1635. Lists of her passengers for that voyage have beentranscribed and are available on several ship passenger list websites.There is no Ball or any name that could be construed as Ball onthat sailing. There are no other sailings noted for 1635, although, ofcourse, there might have been another, since a round trip only took abit over 4 months. Then there is the problem of records of "first appearance" notsupporting 1635 as a common arrival date for the known heads of thevarious New England Ball families with the names of the supposedbrothers. John Ball of Watertown and Concord MA shows up in Watertownrecords in 1650 as freeman' his purported son John married and had ason John b. 1644, presumably in Watertown. Alling Ball first shows upin CT in 1643 (although he is proposed by some to have arrived asearly as 1637). William Ball of New Haven CT, suggested but not provenbrother of Alling, is first recorded in 1644 in CT. Records of FrancisBall start 1640 in Springfield MA and the Francis Ball noted inDorchester shows up in 1639. There was a Richard Ball noted inSalisbury MA in 1650, but little is known about him. I am not aware ofany early Samuel Ball records in New England. As for Col. William Ballof Millenbeck VA, I bow to others with more expertise, but I believethat he is thought to have arrived in VA about 1650. Of course the first cold water to be thrown on this fable was theproof by the highly respected genealogist Donald Lines Jacobus thatAlling Ball of New Haven CT was the son of an Alling Ball of London,England (see "The American Genealogist", Vol. 10, pp. 208-212). Thereal clincher is DNA testing; see the Project DNA study (also seeFamilyTreeDNA Ball Study). There have been DNA tests completed fordescendants of Alling Ball of New Haven CT, Francis Ball ofSpringfield MA and Francis Ball of Dorchester MA and both purportedsons of John Ball of Watertown and those DNA results are differentfrom both and William Ball of VA, as well as from each other. None ofthe early Ball immigrants to New England are genetically related toWilliam Ball of VA or, for that matter, to each other. Today the on-line access to the trees done by others just means thatthe legend has spread with computer speed and, because there are somany that want to believe they are related to President Washington,the myth will never die. Enjoy the fable, but please don't put it intoyour family tree until you can show with some reasonable surety whothe mysterious six brothers actually might be, including showing that1635 was a good year for them each to appear in what is now America.Oh, yes, and you will need to be certain that you factor in any DNAresults that might apply.
Karl-Heinz
Böttcher
