Biography

Myles Standish, Born Where? The State of the Question: Part 4

by Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs

Lancashire Again?

No convincing explanation has been proposed that would indicate how anyone solely from the Lancashire branch of the family could imagine having a claim to land in the Isle of Man, as is specified in Myles Standish's will. Obviously, the converse is true. The Standishes of the Isle of Man might have believed they had some claim to lands in Lancashire, because the Manx Standishes originated in Lancashire.

Helen Moorwood, an amateur historian with Lancashire interests, has made major efforts to proclaim the idea that Myles Standish has no Manx connections and was born in Lancashire.³⁶ To remove the problem that the Isle of Man is mentioned in Myles Standish's will, she points to a small field in Croston, Lancashire, called "Isle of Man." Indeed, "Isle of Man Farm" shows up with a Google internet search as the name of a company in Croston that produces bedding for cows. When the farm (on Meadow Lane) acquired that name is unknown. The farm name appears on the first detailed map of the area, an Ordnance Survey map published in 1848 (surveyed a few years earlier). The farm name is not found on George Hennet's map of 1829 (although the map does indicate a field called "Isle of Wight" not far away from fields or farms called "Little London" and "La Mancha" at Halsall near Ormskirk). "Isle of Man" does not show up on Christopher Greenwood's map of 1818, on William Yates' map of 1786, nor on John Speed's map of 1610.³⁷ Moorwood offers no proof that this farm-name existed during Myles' lifetime; nor does she demonstrate that this specific property belonged to any branch of the Standish family ca. 1500-1600.

Moorwood asserts, without evidence, that all local place-names date back to Anglo-Saxon times, and that therefore this particular field-name must also be ancient.³⁸ Her claim is unconvincing. Farms in the area with such suspiciously non-Anglo-Saxon names as "Isle of Wight," "Little London," and "La Mancha" in 1829 suggest that the name may be whimsical and coincidental, having nothing to do with Myles Standish. Alternatively, Bromley's rooting around in Lancashire in 1846 in pursuit of a long-lost heir fantasy may have had the effect of alerting people in the area of Chorley (near where Croston is located) to the need to account for the term "Isle of Man" that appears in Myles' will, if Myles Standish were to be claimed as a local son. Consequently, the presence now of a piece of property in Lancashire called "Isle of Man Farm" may not reflect anything more ancient than this relatively recent romantic wild-goose chase. It could even be Victorian humor.³⁹

The will lacks any qualification to point to a piece of property called "Isle of Man" in Lancashire instead of indicating the island in the Irish Sea called the Isle of Man. This silence tends against the idea that "Isle of Man" in the will could possibly refer to anything other than the island that anyone now reading the will would suppose is meant. In other words, the will is incompetently unclear if its intent is to describe a piece of property in Lancashire using simply the words "my lands [...] in the Isle of Man." No court clerk, lawyer, or notary could securely identify specific property as being in Lancashire with that description alone. Perhaps comprehension of Myles' intent depends on what the meaning of the word "in" is. The descriptive phrase used by Myles Standish in his will to refer to "lands" in several specified townships in Lancashire "and in the Isle of Man" poses a geographic difficulty if one imagines "Isle of Man" to be itself nothing more than a farm or some fields within one of the previously specified townships, Croston.

Moorwood's articles are masterpieces of obscurantism, comprising travesties of historical method. More and more, random references to irrelevant high family connections, to hypotheses about William Shakespere, and to as yet unpublished manuscripts are mixed with autobiographical musings about her experiences doing research and her feelings about having ancient documents in her hands, culminating in earth-shaking disclosures and grand plans for the future. Typically she announces what is to be proven in a later part, sometimes citing an inventory number of a document she says reveals pertinent new truths. The text of the document, she assures the reader, will be published at some future date. In the later part of the article, or in subsequent articles, if the subject comes up again, she states that in the previous part, or in her earlier publication, she has more than sufficiently demonstrated her hypothesis to be true, and that she still stands by "every word" she wrote then.

But nothing beyond the first announcement can be discovered. The thus newly unveiled truth serves next as the necessary presupposition for interpreting some other revealing document whose text may not be given. "Might be one way to interpret document X" becomes "is the only possible way to understand X"; soon that becomes "as proven by X, Y must imply Z." Regarding the "Isle of Man" at Croston, she writes (in 1999), that, "The 'Isle of Man' at the end of Myles' list was almost certainly the one in Croston, Lancashire, owned jointly by Standish in the 13th.c and 14th.c (see. DP397/13/1)." The document indicated by the inventory number is not provided in the article, or in later articles (published through 2005). Does that document indicate that the land in Croston was called "Isle of Man" in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries? Does it indicate that in those centuries the Standishes owned land in Croston that can be identified as including the area along Meadow Lane that is now called Isle of Man Farm? What does "owned jointly by Standish" mean? Does that document demonstrate incontrovertibly that the specific land now known as Isle of Man Farm was owned seven hundred years ago by Standishes who were Myles' direct although distant ancestors? How would we know, considering that in the absence of baptismal records we do not know who his immediate ancestors were? We are left guessing. At the end of the first part of her rambling article, she states that "the documents mentioned above, together with various historical facts and other sources, (maps etc) have at last yielded their secrets by providing the following details, thus solving most of the mysteries surrounding Myles:" [and among the mysteries solved by the "documents mentioned above" we find:] "The almost certain location of some of the lands claimed in his Will (those in Mawdesely and Croston, particularly the Isle of Man in Croston/Bretherton)."

In part two of her article, Moorwood begins with a statement of the question: "The main 20th c. controversy has been whether his ancestry lay in the families of Duxbury and Standish, Lancashire, or in a cadet Standish of Standish branch of Ormskirk and the Isle of Man. The answer (already given in the last article, with sources of the proof) is that he was definitely a Standish of Duxbury and Standish." Moorwood asks, "What was his connection with the Isle of Man, named at the end of the list of lands in his Will? Was his first wife Rose from there? Or his second wife Barbara? Or both wives, [...]? Or was Myles himself descended from the Standish family of Ormskirk and the Isle of Man, as proposed by Porteus in 1914?" She announces that, "The answer to all Manx questions is a resounding No Connection! The Isle of Man of his Will was the one in Croston/Bretherton, Lancashire." Despite the promise and the claims, no proof had been given in the preceding parts of the article; and the lands "in the Isle of Man" are not mentioned in the rest of the article (parts three through five). Returning with self-assurance to the topic at the beginning of her more recent article (2005), about a document from 1655, Moorwood declares: "I know he [Myles] had nothing to do with the family on the Manx Isle, apart from a vague relationship because all Standishes were related to all other Standishes. I know that Myles's Isle of Man in his will of 1656 was the Isle of Man farm straddling the border of Croston and Bretherton."⁴⁰ Somewhere in the gap between part one and part two of the 1999 article, "almost certainly" -- itself unjustified -- started growing into the absolute knowledge of 2005. Despite this self-confidence, no such thing has been proven.⁴¹

As for the other lands claimed by Myles, these are less significant to Moorwood than the inheritance of Duxbury Hall, despite the absence of any reference to Duxbury Hall in Myles' will. Deftly, she quotes Nathaniel Morton, who stated that Myles Standish "was heir apparent unto a great estate of lands and livings."⁴² Duxbury Hall must be the one. She finds only one place where Myles' undocumented birth could fit into a genealogy she has constructed of the Standishes of Duxbury. Nothing but belonging to this family at this point, she thinks, would account for his choice of the name "Duxbury" for the place he settled in Massachusetts, and also account for Myles' claim to be of the family of Standish of Standish. Sometime around 1490, Sir Christopher Standish of Duxbury married, as his third wife, Alice Standish of Standish; and Moorwoord asserts that Myles must have descended from their son Alexander. A small inheritance at Ormskirk might have been a portion for a younger son in this line, she says, without, however, proving that the inheritance did exist. Undaunted, she continues, "This confirms the enduring family tradition that resulted in his descendants' attempt to establish a claim to Duxbury Hall in 1846. It also explains the statement by Nathaniel Morton (1669) that Myles was 'heir apparent unto a great estate of lands and livings', a description which the rather small Ormskirk+ inheritance would not have warranted, but which the large estates based on Duxbury Hall certainly would." No "rather small Ormskirk+ inheritance" within this line is proven, nor has any "enduring family tradition" been documented before the mid-nineteenth-century romantic fantasy of recovering the lost inheritance.⁴³ This sleight-of-hand directs attention away from the specified lands listed in Myles Standish's will (that are identical with the possessions of the heirs of Thomas Standish of Ormskirk, who lived in the Isle of Man) to focus on the intricacies of inheritance of Duxbury Hall and its associated lands, that are not the same.

A single document, from March, 24, 1654 (Old Style, = 1655), is the key to her argument.⁴⁴ As a "final agreement" between Edward May and Alexander Standish, on the one side, plaintiffs, and Richard Standish and his wife Elizabeth, deforciants, on the other, the document records the transfer to E. May and A. Standish, from R. and E. Standish, of "the mannors of Duxbury Heapey Whittle-le-Woods Heath Charnock and Anglezarke with the apppurtenances and one hundred and twenty messuages four water corne mills one hundred and twenty gardens fifty orchards one thousand acres of land two hundred acres of meadow four hundred acres of pasture fifty acres of wood six hundred acres of moss two hundred acres of marsh four hundred acres of furze and heath fifty shillings rent and comon of pasture with the appurtenances in Duxbury Heapey Whittle in the Woods Heath Charnock Anlezarkh Standish Langtree and Chorley." Effectively, this transfer was by sale from R. and E. Standish to E. May and A. Standish, and their heirs forever, with a warranty by R. and E. Standish that they and their own heirs would never protest the transfer to E. May and A. Standish and their heirs. The deed ends, "And for this acknowledgment remission quite clayme warranty fine and agreement the said Edward and Alexander have given to the said Richard and Elizabeth six hundred pounds sterling."

Whatever the underlying reasons for the transfer, the form of the document is the acknowledgement of a simple transfer of rights of ownership by means of a sale described in terms consistent with the peculiarities of feudal tenure.⁴⁵ That form, however, could be used in at least two ways: first, a simple sale or gift; second, a sale intended to act as a mortgage that could be cancelled by repayment of the amount paid plus interest. Both transactions can be covered with identical wording, In situations where the modern concept would be "mortgage," there can sometimes be no indication of the intended nature of the agreement until in a subsequent document it appears that the original owner is again in possession. The cancellation of the mortgage occurred on the personal copies held by the parties involved, and cancellation was not always registered before any court.⁴⁶

To turn this into the most important and revealing document concerning Myles Standish's will and the inheritance it mentions requires astonishing feats of interpretive acrobatics. Myles is not named in this document. None of the manors listed in the 1655 document corresponds with any of the names of properties listed in Myles' will drawn up in 1656. The 1655 document consequently has nothing to do with Myles Standish or the lands mentioned in his will. What happened to them? Moorwood states that, throughout the 1570's, a certain Hugh Standish of Ormskirk had sold off land in the various places mentioned in the will, to William Stopforth.⁴⁷ These sales left "no possibility that Myles could have claimed these same lands in 1656 or his son Alexander continue to claim them in his will of 1702." Forgetting that the basis of Myles' claims was his belief that the lands had been improperly diverted from his rightful inheritance of them, Moorwood informs us that, "There is, quite simply, no other explanation than that the lands Myles and son Alexander claimed were coincidentally in some of the same places in Lancashire as those where Hugh Standish of Ormskirk also had lands." Myles was not, in other words, a part of the family of Hugh's father Thomas Standish of Ormskirk whose widow held the lands listed in ca. 1540 in the document Porteus discovered, and some of whose descendants lived in the Isle of Man. Myles just happened to have claims to lands in the exact same places. "The 'remarkable coincidence' of the appearance of lands of two l6th.c Standish families in the same places turns out to have been the almost inevitable consequence sooner or later of the re-amalgamation of remnants of the l2th c. inheritances of the children of Warine de Busli, Baron of Penwortham, one of whose grand-daughters received the manor of Standish (and other lands) on her marriage to Radulphus, who founded the line." (The speculative "re-amalgamation" of twelfth-century inheritances receives no further attention. No documentation is provided.)

What then is Myles' connection to the 1655 document? Moorwood found "the proof in a single document [the one from 1655] that Myles (via his son Alexander) not only inherited Duxbury Hall by right of descent, but that this was upheld in court (although granted to his son and heir Alexander via a lawyer); and although Richard continued to own it and the dependent lands, he had to pay a hefty 'fine' in compensation. [...] In turn this indicated that Myles and Alexander were able to prove their descent to the satisfaction of all, and the only possible descent that would allow a claim on Duxbury Hall was as the last remaining great-grandson of Sir Christopher (this was shown on a family tree in my [Moorwood's] articles). It was logical that son Alexander should make the claim, as it must have taken some time to collect the papers in New and Old England, and organize a lawyer from the other side of the Atlantic to appear in Lancaster. By this time (early 1655) Myles was already 78 and so would not have expected to live long enough to benefit (he died the following year); his son and heir, however, presumably would (and did -- Alexander lived until 1702)."

Myles' connection to this document rests on the identification of the Alexander Standish in it as being Myles' son Alexander, making a claim on his inheritance even though the will establishing him as heir to these properties had not yet been written! Moorwood excludes several other Alexander Standishes mentioned in records she consulted, for various reasons, such as death before 1655, or adherence to the Royalist cause, which would have prevented owning the property. Ignoring the many gaps in baptismal records that she mentions elsewhere, and that clearly indicate the likely presence in society of unrecorded family members, she thinks that no other Alexander was possible besides Myles' son in New England. Because Alexander was in New England, she concludes that Edward May must have been Alexander's attorney. The 1655 document lacks all indication of any attorney role for Edward May, who is clearly co-owner with A. Standish, and co-payer of the six hundred pounds. Edward May was not acting as Alexander Standish's attorney in this case, contrary to Moorwood.

Misunderstanding the document as representing a contested inheritance rather than a sale or fictive sale effecting a mortgage, Moorwood thinks that the court levied a financial penalty against Richard and Elizabeth Standish for withholding the property from the rightful heirs. This fine, she thinks, explains Richard Standishs claim about this time to be impecunious. The record, however, states clearly that the money was paid by Edward May and Alexander Standish, not paid to them. This anomaly has not escaped Moorwood's attention. She explains it away by assuming a massive clerical error that reversed the court's real decision when finally entered into the record. Condescendingly she allows that, "Although I have the greatest of faith in the integrity, intentions and skills of clerks of the time (unlike others, who have called them 'nincompoops' and similar when confronted with apparent inaccuracies in copying) mistakes did happen. It seems that the only logical interim explanation here is that this particular clerk misread his own (or someone else's? shorthand?) notes and produced the 17th century equivalent of a typo by awarding the fine the wrong way round."

To summarize: The 1655 document that is the key evidence in Moorwood's claims to have revealed Myles Standish's genealogy does not refer to the lands mentioned in Myles Standish's will, dated 1656. Moorwood thinks that Myles Standish's most important inheritance was Duxbury Hall and associated lands as specified in this document, although Myles does not name them in his will or any other document. She believes that the Alexander Standish in the 1655 document must be Myles Standish's son and heir, prematurely claiming Myles' inheritance, although Myles did not draw up his will naming Alexander his heir for specified properties (and they were not these) until a year later. She thinks that Edward May must be a lawyer representing Alexander, although the 1655 document does not identify him as an attorney, and no Plymouth Colony Court record indicates a grant of power of attorney to Edward May either by Myles or Alexander Standish. She thinks that a court clerk's error reversed the true intent of the courts decision when entered into the record, and that no one protested. She thinks that the 1655 document is a solid basis for elaborate speculations about the genealogy of Myles Standish, placing him as heir to Duxbury Hall, an inheritance he never claimed.

Conclusion

Documentary evidence about the Standish families of Standish, Duxbury, Ormskirk, and the Isle of Man is extensive but incomplete, especially incomplete with regard to sources for genealogical information (baptisms, marriages, burials). The land records are also incomplete, seeming almost random in what is preserved. Attempts to define his genealogical relation to earlier generations have not been successful, although T. R. Porteus succeeded in finding the Manx-Lancashire branch of the Standish family to which Myles somehow must have belonged. The only information we have about where Myles Standish was born is the ambiguous indication from his will, that he believed he was an heir to particular specified lands in "Ormskirke Borscouge Wrightington Maudsley Newburrow Crowston and in the Isle of man and given to mee as Right heire by lawfull decent but Surruptuously detained from mee My great Grandfather being a 2cond or younger brother from the house of Standish of Standish."

BACK

---

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

³⁶ Helen Moorwood, "Pilgrim Father Captain Myles Standish of Duxbury, Lancashire, and Massachusetts," Lancashire History Quarterly, vol. 3, nr. 2 (June, 1999), pp. 47-51 (part one); vol. 3, nr. 3 (Sept., 1999), pp. 102-109 (part two); vol. 3, nr. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 125-129 (part three); vol. 4, nr. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 20-26 (part four); vol. 4, nr. 2 (June, 2000), pp. 25-31 (part five). Moorwood, "Myles Standish -- Rose, His First Wife," Lancashire History Quarterly, vol. 4, nr. 3 (Sept. 2000), pp. 12-18. These articles are available online Two further articles are available online: "A 1655 document (L.R.O. DP397/21/17. 25 March 1654/5, Julian calendar, 1655 in the Gregorian calendar) relevant to Colonel Richard Standish of Duxbury, Lancashire and Captain Myles Standish of Duxbury, Massachusetts." See: http://www.duxbury.plus.com In speeches, letters, telephone calls, etc., she has attempted to publicize the Duxbury-Chorley claim to be Myles Standish's birthplace (a claim that had not been a point of much concern there for some time) and to silence claims by the late G. V. C. Young (†2005) that Myles Standish was born on the Isle of Man. It is unclear whence her fervor arises. Her enthusiasm has been echoed by local boosters in Chorley, where action has been undertaken to stimulate tourism to the area on the basis of the presumed connection with Myles Standish. Moorwood's aggressive attitude towards the Manx claims is reflected in the minutes of a meeting of the "Chorley Partnership, Thriving Economy Group," held at the Chorley Town Hall on September 9, 2004. Two days earlier a preliminary meeting, "agreed that the initial action should be to demolish the Isle of Man theory and use the March 2005 celebrations of the 350th year since the signing of Myles will, as the launch of the campaign." One of the committee members "explained that he had attended a recent presentation to over 200 people from a lady in Germany [i.e. Helen Moorwood] who was very close to making the case that Myles was indeed born in Chorley at the Isle of Man Farm, Croston. The hope is that by March this will be confirmed." See: http://www.chorleypartnership.org.uk

³⁷ The maps, examined in January, 2006, are published online

³⁸ The claim has been made in telephone conversations; I do not find it in her published writings.

³⁹ Helen Moorwood has told me in a telephone conversation that the field name "Isle of Man" occurs on a late-eighteenth-century map, but that she has not found any earlier use of the name. The local libraries and historical societies do not indicate the existence of any detailed eighteenth-century map of the Croston area. Moorwood has promised to send me a copy, that I have not yet received.

⁴⁰ http://www.duxbury.plus.com/bard/m1655/index.htm

⁴¹ As someone once said, and then had it printed on a t-shirt, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

⁴² Nathaniel Morton, New-England's Memorial [note 4]

⁴³ Neither John Davis (1826) nor James Thacher (1835) records such a tradition, although both repeat other family traditions that they doubt. See note 4. The theme of recovering lost estates was, however, inciting romantic imaginations. Depictions of English manor houses appeared in Joseph Nash's The Mansions of England in the Olden Time (London: T. M. Lean, 1839-1849), a series that contributed to an excitingly idealized view of the seventeenth century. Also capable of inspiring new family legends and interest in recovering lost estates were several of Sir Walter Scott's novels, with that theme, such as Guy Mannering (1815), The Antiquary (1816), and The Fortunes of Nigel (1822), besides Woodstock, Or the Cavalier (1826), his novel about the Cromwellian period.

⁴⁴ Lancashire Record Office, Preston, Deeds Purchased 397/21/17, quoted in Moorwood, "A 1655 Document" [note 36].

⁴⁵ Because land (and mill rights, for example) held in feudal tenure could not be sold as if held in free and common sockage (the predecessor to the modern concept of free-hold), what is known as a fictitious action is brought to effect transfer. "A fine is the acknowledgement of an hereditament ... to be his right that doth complain. He that complaineth is called plaintife, and the other deforceant." (from H. Fisch, Law (1636). "In levying a fine of lands, the person, against whom fictitious action is brought upon a supposed breach of covenant, is called the deforciant." (from Blackstone, Comm, III, 174). Both the foregoing citations are found in the definition of "deforciant" in The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Complete Text reproduced micrographically (Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 673. The "fine" in this case is not a financial penalty imposed as punishment, contrary to Moorwood's understanding of the term.

⁴⁶ Examples of sales that apparently were in effect mortgages are found in the seventeenth-century records of Scituate in Plymouth Colony: Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs, The Seventeenth-Century Town Records of Scituate, Massachusetts (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 3 vols., 1997, 1999, 2001), e.g. vol. 2, pp. 16; vol. 3, p. 469, Appendix 26.

⁴⁷ In the first part of her article "Pilgrim Father Captain Myles Standish" [note 36], she characteristically claims that documents whose texts she does not provide prove her point: "Many original documents in the Hesketh of Rufford Muniments (particularly DDHe 59/52, 58, 61, 69; 26/124, 60/48) prove that the lands owned by this family could not possibly be those claimed by Myles in his Will. Some were inherited by Robert Hesketh, a High Sheriff, when he married and outlived the widow of the man who had bought the Standish lands [i.e. William Stopforth], and by 1609 he had bought all the rest."