Re: John & Bethia Walley of Boston
-
In reply to:
John & Bethia Walley of Boston
Brian Locke 10/18/08
What a brilliant find - I saw your picture of it at www.thetreasuredepot.com.
Your research looks perfectly correct to me.
As you no doubt have found -
Hon. (Judge) John WALLEY born 11 Sep 1691 Bristol, RI. Died 6 March 1745 Boston. Married 1714 Bethia EYRE (she born 1695). John and Bethia had issue:
1. John, b. Oct. 6, 1716. Preacher, d. at Roxbury, March 2nd, 1784 — married an Elizabeth APPLETON, no issue.
2. Katherine,* b. Oct. 5, 1719, d. at Ipswich, unmarried, Dec. 5th 1782.
3. Sarah, b. Jan. 18, 1720/1, died in infancy.
4. Sarah, b. Nov. 8, 1722, died at Ipswich, unmarried, May 30th 1748.
5. Bethia, b. March 3, 1723/4, died at Ipswich, unmarried, Jan. 21, 1748.
6. Thomas, b. Nov. 1, 1725.
7. William, bapt. June 29, 1729, died young.
8. Elizabeth, b. April 28, 1731, died at Boston, unmarried, Aug. 31, 1754.
9. Mary, b. Feb. 11, 1732/3, d. at Ipswich Nov. 20, 17S6.
* [Not John, as erroneously entered in Boston Records]
Source: "An account of some of the descendants of Capt. Thomas Brattle" (Clapp & Son, Boston, 1867) by Edward Doubleday Harris.
--------------
My line is from number 6, Thomas WALLEY (Boston merchant and active revolutionary in the struggle for Independence), who was born 1725. Thomas married firstly Mary KNEELAND (on 29 Dec 1748) by whom he had Mary 'Polly' WALLEY - see http://www.geocities.com/bostonancestors/langdon.htmhttp://www.geocities.com/bostonancestors/langdon.htm .
Thomas WALLEY married secondly 13 December 1767 to Sarah HURD** (by whom Sarah 'Sally' WALLEY who was in turn the mother of fiery anti-slavery campaigner Wendell PHILLIPS). Thomas's 1767 marriage is the first HURD connection I know of to the WALLEYs and it obviously comes later than the ring. Thomas died 1806 in Boston.
** Sarah HURD born 24 Jan 1738 (new style: or 1737 old style) - daughter of Jacob HURD [silversmith and maker of the ring!] and Elizabeth nee MASON of Boston - married the widower Thomas WALLEY in 1767. This Sarah died in 1799.]
Now, given the wear and tear you spotted on to the ring, I would certainly agree with your theory that the ring was probably worn in memory of her sister Bethia by Katherine WALLEY - but who knows what strange event caused it to end up in Sudbury!
Assuming it wasn't simply sold off after Katherine died in Ipswich, one could suggest that it was inherited on her death by her surviving brother Thomas WALLEY. Then his wife could have worn it for another few years not only in memory of her husband's late sister but also in memory of her father who had made it and whose stamp it bears.
Thanks,
Graham (in the UK)