01380 Paul C.

Reed, "Two Somerby Frauds, Or 'Placing the Flesh on the Wrong Bones,'" The American
Genealogist 74[1999].

[page 15]

TWO SOMERBY FRAUDS

Or "Placing the Flesh on the Wrong Bones"

By Paul C. Reed*

1. THE CONNECTIONS AMONG THE BLAKES

OF OVER STOWEY, SOMERSET, ANDOVER, HAMPSHIRE,
AND CALNE, WILTSHIRE, AND THE FALSE CLAIM
THAT THE BLAKES OF DORCHESTER,
MASSACHUSETTS DESCEND FROM THEM

Horatio Gates SOMERBY (1805-1872) is noted more and more for the frauds he perpetrated on the
genealogical public in the last century.1 He was far more subtle that Gustave ANJOU,2 but not necessarily better at
fakery than Mrs. DE SALIS.3 The first part of this article will examine SOMERBY=s account of the ancestry of
William1 BLAKE of Dorchester, and the second part will look at the BILLINGS ancestry, another example of his
fraudulent technique.
Perhaps the reason more of SOMERBY=s frauds have not come to light is that he did not always concoct
them to connect to some grand noble ancestor or royal line. For the BLAKEs, he traced the family back to the time
of Edward III, but not to any notable person.4 SOMERBY worked during a period when records were less
centralized or accessible, so he may have presumed that he was less likely to be caught. He was not wholly
ignorant of genealogical technique, just of morals and ethics.

* I am grateful to Brice McAdoo Clagett and Dean Crawford Smith for whom the research was
undertaken.
1
For a biographical sketch of SOMERBY, published long before his frauds became known, see the
obituary by John M. Bradbury in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register [NEHGR] 28(1874):340-
42.
2
See Robert Charles Anderson, "We Wuz Robbed! The modus operandi of Gustave ANJOU,"
Genealogical Journal 19(1991):47-58.
3
For Harriet Bainbridge DE SALIS, see Paul C. Reed, "WHITNEY Origins Revisited . . . ," TAG
69(1994):9-14. She, at least, made up documents and citations for every generation. SOMERBY did not reference
his material so thoroughly.
4
[William H. Whitmore, ed.], A Record of the BLAKEs of Somersetshire, Especially in the Line of
William BLAKE, of Dorchester, Mass., the Emigrant to New England: with One Branch of His Descendants, from
the Notes of the Late Horatio G. SOMERBY (Boston, 1881), 6-10 (hereafter cited as Record of the BLAKEs). The
genealogy in this book was definitely SOMERBY=s creation, not something perpetrated on him or fictionalized by
another individual: Whitmore stated on p. 4 that "[t]he work of the editor, in the main, has been merely to arrange
Mr. SOMERBY=s pedigrees in paragraph form . . . [S]o far as can be concluded [from SOMERBY=s notebooks],
Mr. SOMERBY=s results are entitled to the fullest confidence." In a number of instances, including the BLAKEs,
Whitmore, who was one of America=s earliest critical genealogists, was taken in by SOMERBY.

[page 16]

SOMERBY=s technique seems to be that he would happen across a family with the same nameCor, at
least, surnameCas that of a well-known immigrant. He would then either invent a document, such as a will, that
seemed to prove the connection across the sea, or, in other instances, just imply that such a document existed,
without providing any specific details, such as he did in the ancestry purported for Abraham, John, and Richard
BROWNE of Watertown.5 Once he had "established" the connection into England and traced the line back as far
as he could in local records, SOMERBY would then fabricate a link to another family of the same surname, often

21363309.doc Page 1
printed 24 August 2009
in an entirely different county.6
Sometimes SOMERBY took some of the information for earlier generations from printed pedigrees, such
as visitations, but often he cited a willCusually from the Prerogative Court of CanterburyCto provide support and
seemingly credible evidence to back up the pedigree. But we have found in examining his work that either
SOMERBY could not read the handwriting accurately, or that he did not care to, as many of the wills he cited
which actually exist do not contain the information he credited them with providing. In some instances, he also
ignored information
5
The pedigree was published in Henry Bond, Family Memorials: Genealogies of the Families and
Descendants of the Early Settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts . . . , 2 vols. in 1 (Boston, 1855), 1:16-26 (hereafter
cited as Bond, Watertown). It was questioned in Robert Charles Anderson, The Great Migration Begins:
Immigrants to New England, 1620-1633, 3 vols. (Boston, 1995), 1:244-46; and it was disproven in Dean Crawford
Smith, The Ancestry of Eva Belle KEMPTON, 1878-1908, Part I: The Ancestry of Warren Francis KEMPTON,
1817-1879 . . . , ed. Melinde Lutz Sanborn (Boston, 1996), 168-86 (hereafter cited as Smith, KEMPTON Ancestry,
Pt. I), which replaces it with the correct origin and ancestry for Abraham1 and John1 BROWN(E) of Watertown.
6
In his fraudulent account of the ancestry of the LAWRENCEs of Watertown and Groton, Mass.,
SOMERBY followed these same steps, in this instance making a grand leap between co. Suffolk and co. Lancaster;
see H.G. SOMERBY, "Pedigree of LAWRENCE: compiled from Heralds= visitations, inquisitions post mortem,
deeds, charters, wills, parish registers, and other original manuscripts" [FHL film #s 22,358 and 1,016,919]; Bond,
Watertown, 2:1080-81; H.G. SOMERBY, "Pedigree of LAWRENCE," NEHGR 10(1856):chart facing 297; and
especially Rev. John Lawrence, The Genealogy of the Family of John LAWRENCE of Wisset in Suffolk, England,
and of Watertown and Groton, Massachusetts (Boston, 1857), 1-12.
G. Andrews Moriarty, in "Pre-American ancestries: V. The LAWRENCE Family of Groton and boston,
Massachusetts," TAG 10(1933-34):78-83, demolished the pedigree. According to SOMERBY, the will of John
LAWRENCE of Wisset, dated 2 June 1606, "refers to him (i.e., Henry) as having removed from Wisset to New
England and settled in Charlestown." This is, of course, absurd, as New England did not exist in 1606. Moriarty
states that most of SOMERBY=s "productions are fearfully and wonderfully concocted but, in justice to his
memory, I must state that some of his pedigrees which I have examined have been carefully and accurately
compiled upon authentic record evidence. Hence I have been forced to the conclusion that Mr. SOMERBY gave
his clients exactly what they wanted."
Indeed, though most of the LAWRENCE wills SOMERBY cites do exist, it is not surprising that the will
of John LAWRENCE, yeoman, of Wisset, co. Suffolk (dated 2 June 1606; proved 7 March 1607/8) makes no
mention of New England, though wife Johane, sons Henry and Robert LAWRENCE, and others are named
(Archdeaconry of Suffolk R31/429 [FHL film #96,942]). And though this Suffolk LAWRENCE family may trace
to 1471, it does not spring from the Lancashire family of that name, which in turn is not descended from an
entirely fictitious crusader named Sir Robert LAWRENCE.

[page 17]

that contradicted his conclusions, even when citing that document or quoting part of it as evidence for his case.
In his account of the purported ancestry of the immigrant William1 BLAKE of Dorchester, Massachusetts,7
SOMERBY linked three apparently unrelated BLAKE families. After falsifying the origin of the immigrant,
SOMERBY fabricated earlier fraudulent connections by making Humphrey BLAKE, ancestor the BLAKE family
of Over Stowey, Somerset, a brother of the Nicholas BLAKE of Andover who died in 1547. SOMERBY then
fabricated a parentage for Humphrey and Nicholas, making their father out to be one William BLAKE, and their
mother to be Mary, daughter of Humphrey COLES of co. Somerset. Then he asserted that this William was a son
of an earlier William, whom SOMERBY (falsely) connects back into the ancient BLAAGE alias BLAKE family
who lived at Calne, Wiltshire. He put forth the descent thus:8

1 ROBERT BLAKE of Calne, Wilts., living 1347; m. ANNE COLE, daughter of William COLE.
2 HENRY BLAKE, m. ────── DURANT, daughter and coheir of Edward DURANT.
3 WILLIAM BLAKE, m. ELIZABETH POWER, daughter of Thomas POWER.
4 HENRY BLAKE of Calne, m. MARGARET BELLETT, daughter and coheir of ──────
BELLETT of Quemberford {a tithing in the parish of Calne}.
5 ROBERT BLAKE of Calne, m. AVICE WALLOP, daughter and heir of John WALLOP, Esq., of

21363309.doc Page 2
printed 24 August 2009
 Nether Wallop, Wilts.
6 WILLIAM BLAKE of White Parish, Hants., d. 1471.
7 WILLIAM BLAKE of Old Hall in Eastontown, Andover, Hants.; m. MARY COLES, daughter of
Humphrey COLES of Somersetshire.
8 HUMPHREY BLAKE, bur. Over Stowey, co. Somerset, 28 Dec. 1558; m. AGNES ──────, bur.
24 June 1585.
9 JOHN BLAKE, b. 1521, bur. Over Stowey, 10 Dec. 1576; m. JANE ──────, bur. 11 June 1595.
10 ROBERT BLAKE, bp. 12 May 1566, bur. Over Stowey, 25 Jan. 1626/7; m. ELEANOR ──────.
11 WILLIAM BLAKE, bp. Over Stowey, co. Somerset, 5 June 1594; identified by SOMERBY as the
immigrant to Dorchester, Mass.

The evidence SOMERBY adduced for the identity of the immigrant would be conclusive if it were factual.
First he states that James BALKE=s Annals of Dorchester includes under 1663: "This Year Died Mr. William
BLAKE, who had been Clerk of the Writs for the County of Suffolk, & Recorder for the Town near 8 years. He
was also Clerk of the Training-band. He Died the 25th of the 8th mo. 1663, in the 69th Year of his age."9 This does
indeed appear in the Annals of James BLAKE (1688-1750), who was a great-grandson of William1 BLAKE;10 it
would place his year of birth about 1594, and SOMERBY has a baptism for William BLAKE at Over Stowey on 5
June 1594.
7
Interestingly, valid descents from each of these families to other American families are now known and
will be noted in this article.
8
Record of the BLAKEs, 6-14, 25-27.
9
Record of the BLAKEs, 27; we have used the version from the published Annals, cited below.
10
James BLAKE, Annals of the Town of Dorchester, Collections of the Dorchester Antiquarian and
Historical Society, 2(Boston, 1846):22.

[page 18]

Secondly, SOMERBY states that Eleanor BLAKE (younger sister of that William), baptized on 26
February 1602/3, married James CLARK, "whom she survived, and in her will, dated at Over Stowey, June 19,
1647, she mentions her late husband, and bequeaths to her daughter Eleanor a house and lands, formerly in
possession of her brother, now in New England."11
But there is no such will. Over Stowey fell within the probate district of the Archdeaconry of Taunton;
this was a period when most local courts were suppressed and wills proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
[PCC]. Though the original Somerset probate records were destroyed by German bombing in 1942, indexes do
survive. There was no such will proved in either the Archdeaconry of Taunton or in the PCC before 1700.12
Though no researcherCuntil nowCstated plainly that SOMERBY=s work on the BLAKEs was
fraudulent, the immediate connection to the immigrant was disproved as long ago as 1891, when Francis E.
BLAKE published his account of "The BLAKE Family in England."13 He states that further research in English
records proves that the William BLAKE baptized at Over Stowey in 1594 was buried there on [C] April 1617
("William BLAKE the sonne of Robert BLAKE").14 Though he acknowledges SOMERBY=s claim "that a sister
of this William, in her will of date 1647, mentioned a 'brother in New England,'" Francis BLAKE goes on to claim
that no name for this brother was given (though no other meaning can be inferred from SOMERBY=s text),
leaving the reader to conclude that such a will did exist and that it pertained to another BLAKE immigrant,
brother of Eleanor (BLAKE) CLARK.15
Francis BLAKE found that there was another William BLAKE, cousin of SOMERBY=s candidate, who
was baptized at Pitminster, co. Somerset, on 10 July 1594. he was son of WilliamA BLAKE16 and grandson of
JohnB BLAKE (1521-1576) of
11
Record of the BLAKES, 25-27. Whitmore complained that an earlier BLAKE genealogy (1857) alleged
that the immigrant was son of a Giles BLAKE, of Little Baddow, co. Essex, but that this "was simply an
unwarranted assumption, without the slightest foundation. Such a reckless guess cannot stand for a moment before
the careful and extended research made by Mr. SOMERBY . . ."
12
SOMERBY does not state in which court the will was supposedly proved, a tactic he employs frequently.
13
Francis E. BLAKE, "The BLAKE Family in England," NEHGR 45(1891):35-38. This article points out

21363309.doc Page 3
printed 24 August 2009
that SOMERBY blundered in mistaking the 1618 PCC will of a William BLAKE of Bishops Lydiard, who died
without children, for that of William BLAKE, son of John BLAKE (1521-1576) of Over Stowey, the actual father
of the immigrant. But Francis BLAKE ended his article by following the rest of SOMERBY=s fraud back ten
generations prior to the immigrant and concluding that "all the pedigree anterior to the grandfather John is not
affected by his correction."
14
BLAKE, "BLAKE Family in England," NEHGR 45(1891):36.
15
BLAKE, "BLAKE Family in England," NEHGR 45(1891):35.
16
Pitminster, co. Somerset, registers [FHL film #1,526,710], which begin in 1542, record the following
children for the elder WilliamA BLAKE of Pitminster (the surname was spelled BLAKE, BLACK, and BLACKE)
(we have corrected two misread dates in Francis BLAKE=s 1891 article): (1) Grace, bp. 9 Feb. 1588/9, bur. 5 Jan.
1621/2; (2) Eme (daughter), bp. 3 Dec. 1592, bur. 27 June 1593; (3) William1, bp. 10 July 1594 [the immigrant];
(4) John, bp. 19 [not 15] June 1597, bur. 8 [footnote continues bottom of next page]

[page 19]

Over Stowey. This younger William BLAKE married "Agnis BAND" [i.e., Agnes BOND], widow, at Pitminster on
27 September 1617, and they had at least four children baptized there: John and Ann BLAKE (baptized 20 August
1618), William BLAKE (baptized 6 September 1620), and James BLAKE (baptized 27 April 1624). It is known
that the New England immigrant had a wife named Agnes and children named William, James, Edward, John, and
Anne, and that the immigrant was born about 1594, so the identification seemed to fit.17
Recently, Robin BUSH, former Assistant Archivist of the Somerset Record Office, has determined that the
younger William BLAKE of Pitminster was cousin of several other New England immigrants, making this
identification of the immigrant more likely; he has also verified the ancestry back to HumphreyC BLAKE (died
1558) of Over Stowey, the great-grandfather of the immigrant [generation 8 in SOMERBY=s pedigree outlined
above]. But BUSH concluded that "tracing the ancestors of Humphrey BLAKE . . . has proved fruitless" and that
the suspected connection to the ancient BLAKE family of Wiltshire has still not been made.18
BUSH found proof of the birthplace of WilliamA BLAKE, the father of the immigrant, through a
deposition in which William BLAKE of Pitminster, yeoman, aged about 70, deposed in 1632, that he had been
born in Over Stowey. This record also indicates that WilliamA BLAKE had a son John BLAKE, also a resident of
Pitminster in 1632.19
The churchwarden accounts of Pitminster survive from 1589, though the detailed rates which list the
parishioners who paid the rates for the poor law only begin in 1601. WilliamA BLAKE [BLACKE, BLAK] was an
overseer of the poor in

[footnote continued from previous page] Aug. 1645, m. ca. 1622, Elizabeth ──────; (5) An[n]e, bp. 12 [not 16]
Oct. 1600; (6) Richard, bp. 17 April 1603, living 1641/2. WilliamA BLAKE may also have had another son,
Robert BLAKE who m. Pitminster, 3 March 1616/7, Sarah WICHAM. Robert might, however, be son of
Humphrey BLAKE (d. 1619/20) of Nether Stowey, named in his will dated 21 Sept. 1618 (PCC 21 Soame [FHL
film #92,079]).
The elder WilliamA BLAKE was buried at Pitminster, 13 June 1642; his widow Anne BLAKE was buried
there, 14 Aug. 1644. An Anne BLAKE was listed separately in the Pitminster overseers= rates, in the tithing of
Leigh, in 1626-28, where John BLAKE resided (though William BLAKE was then listed in the rates at Blagden
tithing); she is otherwise unaccounted for (Overseers= accounts, Pitminster, co. Somerset, 1588-1636 [FHL film
#1,565,363]).
17
BLAKE, "BLAKE Family in England," NEHGR 45(1891):37.
18
Burton W. Spear, Search for the Passengers of the Mary and John 1630, 11(Toledo, Ohio, 1988):62-62,
109-10, 12(Toledo, 1989):72-79 (hereafter cited as Spear, Mary and John), followed the correction made by
Francis BLAKE in 1891 and accepted the earlier ancestry fabricated by SOMERBY. In 1992 Spear=s series noted
that sources "differ considerably and the connection is still in doubt" and began its account with Humphrey
BLAKE (d. 1558) [not 1588 as there stated]) of Over Stowey (Spear, Mary and John, 17[Toledo, 1992]:19-22, at
19). Humphrey BLAKE of Over Stowey was also an ancestor of the WOLCOTTs, RICHARDSes, and TORREYs
of New England (see preceding citations in this note, and Spear, Mary and John, 24[Toledo, 1996]:11-12). Spear
published the evidence discovered by Robin BUSH in Mary and John, 25(Toledo, 1996):12-13, and 26(Toledo,
1997):12-13.
19
Spear, Mary and John, 25:13, citing Consistory Court Deposition Book (D/D/Cd 74).

21363309.doc Page 4
printed 24 August 2009
[page 20]

1601, 1614, and 1618. He was listed as a resident of the tithing of Blagdon in Pitminster from 1601 through 1642,
paying between 4s. and 12s. each year.20
John BLAKE [baptized 15 June 1597, son of WilliamA], WilliamA BLAKE [born ca. 1562], and Richard
BLAKE [baptized 17 April 1603, son of WilliamA] were listed next to each other in the 1641 list of males aged 18
and over who swore oath to uphold the English church and government.21 A notation next to WilliamA BLAKE=s
name reads "aged & not able" [to appear and swear the oath; he would have been nearly 80 years old]. That the
younger William1 BLAKE [baptized 1596; married 1617] was not included in the 1641 list or buried at Pitminster
indicates that he had left the parish with his family, presumably for New England.
Having briefly discussed the tactics SOMERBY used in connecting the immigrant to the Somerset
BLAKEs (in this case, he was lucky to have chanced across a cousin of the real immigrant), we turn to an
examination of the techniques he used in his account of the BLAKE families of Hampshire and Wiltshire. This is
easiest tackled in descending order of generations, starting with the earliest occurrence of fraud in this ancestry,
adding SOMERBY=s generational numbers in the summary above. SOMERBY presents the following:

ROBERT BLAKE [gen. 5], of Calne, and of Quemberford in right of his mother. He married Avice, daughter and
heir of John WALLOP, Esquire, of Nether Wallop, in the County of Southampton. By this marriage he acquired
estates in that county, one of which, in Andover, was subsequently transferred to their younger son William [gen.
6]. An Inquisition was held after the death of his wife, which occurred on the 29th of October, 1474, to determine
the tenure of her estates in Hampshire and her successor, when it appeared that John BLAKE was her eldest son,
aged at the time of her death forty years and more.22

When we examine the actual records, the invented nature of this account becomes apparent. No pedigree
calls Avice an heir, and the BLAKE family did not quarter the WALLOP arms, as they would if she were indeed an
heiress. There was an inquisition, but it concerned no lands in Hampshire. The inquest was taken on 29 October
1474, but Avice had died one year earlier, on 29 October [sic] 1473. The inquisition concerned only lands in
Erchfont [Urchfont] and Wedehampton, Wiltshire, which Avice held as widow of Roger MALEWYN, by whom she
had been enfeoffed for the term of her life. They had issue a daughter, Joan, to whom the
20
Overseers= accounts, Pitminster, co. Somerset, 1588-1636 [FHL film #1,565,363], 1636-1783 [FHL
film #1,565,352]. There are multiple lists for the years around 1642. WilliamA BLAKE was listed at Blagdon in
Pitminster in one 1642 list and Widow BLAKE in another. Widow BLAKE was also listed in Blagdon tithing in
1643 and 1644, but then only John BLAKE is listed for the same amount in a different 1644 list and thereafter.
21
Protestation Returns, Somersetshire, Taunton Hundred, Pitminster, House of Lords MS [FHL film
#919,510]; T.L. Stoate, Somerset Protestation Returns and Lay Subsidy Rolls, 1641-2 (Bristol, 1975), 262-63
(hereafter cited as Stoate, Somerset Returns).
22
Record of the BLAKEs, 7; to avoid confusion, we have omitted SOMERBY=s superscript generational
numbers.

[page 21]

reversion of the messuages descended after Roger=s death. Avice then married Robert BLAKE. John BLAKE,
her son, was found to be Avice=s heir, aged 40 and more.23
The following summarizes SOMERBY=s account of their children:

Gilbert and Alexander BLAKE, who both died unmarried.

John BLAKE, born ca. 1434, died 2 March 1503/4, leaving a will dated 24 Feb. 1503/4 and proved 24 April 1504,
mentioning his late wife, his present wife, his son-in-law, and his brother Robert BLAKE.24 He desired to
be buried in the sepulcher at Nether Wallop where his first wife was buried, but he also mentioned Calne.
He left two surviving daughters, Joan (born 1484) and Alice.
Robert BLAKE, who succeeded his brother in the estate at Calne, died 11 Dec. 1515. He married Margaret,
daughter of Sir Thomas ENGLEFIELD, of Englefield, co. Berks. They had a daughter, Anne BLAKE,
married to Robert BAYNARD of Lackham,25 and a son, Roger BLAKE.

21363309.doc Page 5
printed 24 August 2009
William BLAKE [gen. 6], youngest son.
Elizabeth, Alice, and Joan BLAKE.26

The pedigrees do indeed record that Robert BLAKE of Quemberford married Avice WALLOP, that they
had three daughters, Elizabeth, Alice and Joane, and that the two eldest sons, Gilbert and Alexander, died without
issue. A much later visitation makes Robert BLAKE to be the third son and John the fourth, but the information in
the inquisition would indicate John was the elder if both were children by Avice.27 Robert BLAKE=s son John did
die in 1504, leaving a will and inquisition, but Robert had no son named William. This connection is fraudulent.
SOMERBY makes this William BLAKE [gen. 6] to have resided at "White Parish," Wiltshire. "After his
death in 1471,28 his widow, with her two sons, removed into Hampshire, and settled at Andover, upon an estate
called Eastontown, formerly a part of the possessions of her husband=s mother."29 This is complete fiction. No
authority was cited in reference. There is no evidence that Eastontowne was ever in the hands of any WALLOP,
and it is distinctly different and separate from Nether Wallop, which is in the same county. SOMERBY gives this
William [gen. 6] and his
23
See Wiltshire Notes and Queries . . . 4(Devizes and London, 1905):545-46; and John Caley and J. Baley,
eds., Calendarium inquisitionum post mortem . . . 4(London, 1828):366.
24
PCC 10 Holgrave [FHL film #91,904]. His brother Robert was frequently mentioned in the actual will,
in the entail and remainder of the lands and tenements. If he had a brother named William, it would be odd that
he was not mentioned in these reversions.
25
Robert BAYNARD married Anne BLAKE by 1512 and died in 1537. Their great-great-great-grandson,
John1 BAYNARD (bp. 1640), immigrated to Maryland (Peter Wilson Coldham, "Genealogical Gleanings in
England," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 71[1983]:36-40; Frederick Lewis Weis, The Magna Charta
Sureties, 1215, ed. Walter Lee Shepherd and David Faris, 4th ed. (Baltimore, 1991), 98-100).
26
Record of the BLAKEs, 8-9.
27
G.D. Squibb, ed., Wiltshire Visitation Pedigrees, 1623 . . . , Harleian Soc. Pubs., 105-6 (London,
1954):21-22.
28
But there was no inquisition or probate record indicating a death in 1471.
29
Record of the BLAKEs, 9.

[page 22]

unnamed wife two sons: William [gen. 7] and Robert BLAKE. Robert is stated to have resided in "West" Enham
"in Andover," to have married a daughter of [C] SNELL of Wherwell, Hampshire,30 "by whom he had sons
William, of Benham, who died in 1552, leaving descendants: John, Richard, and Robert, who settled at Cutcomb in
Somersetshire."31
SOMERBY=s methodology was again to find a will in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and tie in the
individual using completely unconnected and false information. There was a William BLAKE, yeoman, who died
at Benham, Berkshire, leaving a will dated 10 June and proved 28 July 1552, but he did not have sons named John
and Richard. They were named as his brothers. His only known child was named Anthony (he did not prove his
majority until 18 May 1571).32 This William BLAKE was actually son of Robert BLAKE, Nicholas BLAKE=s
brother (see below). The BLAKEs of Cutcombe were a separate family. A John BLAKE of Cutcombe left a will
dated 22 June 1532, mentioning his wife, Jone, and witnessed by a Robert BLAKE.33
Now to William BLAKE [gen. 7]. SOMERBY said he "resided at Old Hall in Eastontown, in the parish
of Andover."34 He also had lands and tenements in Knights Enham, which were in the occupation of his brother
Robert in 1504. By his wife Mary, daughter of Humphrey COLES, of Somersetshire, he had two sons, Humphrey
BLAKE [gen. 8], of Over Stowey, Somerset, and Nicholas BLAKE, of "Old Hall, who made his will on the 31st of
May, 1547, which was proved on the 20th of the following
30
This is not stated in any visitation. If the information had come from probate or court records, it would
be expected that the name of a parent or brother would be known. SOMERBY gives no source for this statement.
31
Record of the BLAKEs, 9.
32
PCC 20 Powell [FHL film #91,926]. William BLAKE gave legacies to the churches of Speen, Enham
and Andover. He apparently moved to Benham, in the parish of Speen, on account of his wife, Ellyne, daughter of
Robert BOSWELL, whom he named as his father-in-law. He had land in Knights Enham "whiche William

21363309.doc Page 6
printed 24 August 2009
BLAKE of Kings Enh=m dothe tyll." His "children" were under age. As Anthony did not attain majority until
1571, he was born about 1550. It is chronologically possible that Anthony had a younger brother, but the other
siblings would be (older) sisters. Isabel GOLDINGE was also mentioned, as was "John BLAKE my brother" and
"Richard BLAKE my brother." His father-in-law, Robert BOSWELL, and William FLETEWOOD were overseers.
BOSWELL served as administrator until Anthony BLAKE came of age.
33
Frederic William Weaver, Wells Wills . . . (London, 1890), 69-70 (hereafter cited as Weaver, Wells
Wills).
34
SOMERBY says, "His Arms are recorded in the Visitation of Hampshire in 1530, as argent, a chevron
between three garbs, sable." But there was no entry for the BLAKE family in the 1530 Visitation of Hampshire.
The published account begins with William BLAKE, of Eastontowne, who died in 1607 (W. Harry Rylands, ed.,
Pedigrees from the Visitation of Hampshire . . . , Harleian Soc. Pubs., 64[London, 1913]:210). He held "Romboles"
in Knights Enham and "Rawkins" in Kings Enham, among many other tenements. This William may have
inspired SOMERBY to use this name for his earlier fictitious William BLAKE of Eastontown.

[page 23]

June. He names his wife Margaret, and sons, William and Edmund, and daughters, Elizabeth and Alice." This is
the next fraudulent connection.
There were BLAKEs at Calne, Wiltshire, but there is no evidence of a connection with the BLAKEs of
Andover, Hampshire. And there is no evidence of a connection to Somersetshire. An undocumented anonymous
typescript at the Society of Genealogists, London, states that William BLAKE, of Whiteparish, Wiltshire, died
before 1471 and was son of Henry BLAKE by his wife Margaret BELLETT. William was here purported to be
brother of the Robert BLAKE [gen. 5] who married Avis WALLOP, not a youngest son who was not named in the
pedigrees. This typescript goes on to state that William BLAKE of Whiteparish was father of a William BLAKE of
Andover.
I have found no evidence of a William BLAKE of Andover. No William was listed in the early subsidies.
It is difficult to know where this anonymous undated typescript "Story of the BLAKEs" got its information. It may
actually have been taken from SOMERBY, adjusting the generations to account for obviously impossible
chronology, following a manuscript pedigree by A.E.J. DE CRIET, also at the Society of Genealogists,36 which
shows a dashed line under Henry and Margaret (BELLETT) BLAKE to "______ BLAKE of Whiteparish[,] Co.
Wilts.[,] d. before 1471" "a quo BLAKEs of Hampshire." But this manuscript goes on to say, "Their exact
connection with those of Wilts is not yet fully established. The line . . . here seems the most probable" [emphasis
added]. It is apparent that the author of the anonymous typescript amalgamated information from several sources,
including SOMERBY.37
SOMERBY seems to have felt obligated to add several Somerset connections to explain why Humphrey
BLAKE [gen. 8] of Over Stowey would have come from Hampshire. He picked on Humphrey COLES of
Somerset, who was not actually old enough to fit SOMERBY=s scenario.38 Humphrey BLAKE, of Over Stowey,
Somerset, gentleman, mentioned "My friend, Humphrey COLES, esq.," in his will dated 19
35
Record of the BLAKEs, 10.
36
"BLAKE: Pedigrees & Notes on the Family of BLAKE (Lodged at Soc. of Genealogists London 26 July
1948)." But even this account contains important errors, in one chart, it shows John, brother of the Robert BLAKE
of Calne who married Margaret ENGLEFIELD, as dying in 1504, leaving two daughters and coheirs (and it
follows SOMERBY in saying Robert was Aheir to his brother John"). On the next page, it states that John was
"2nd surviving son . . . Bur. at Over-stowey 18 Aug. 1558," which is completely false.
37
The typescript takes complete passages verbatim from the 1948 manuscript account of the family and
also contains many errors. It mistakenly concludes that Robert BLAKE of Calne married two women named
Avice, one being "Avice nee BLAKE widow of Roger son and heir of John MALWYN of Urchford [sic: Urchfont]
d. 29 Oct. Edward IVB1474 [sic]." This is a misinterpretation of the inquisition of Avice (WALLOP) BLAKE.
Her son and heir, John BLAKE, was then aged 40, or born about 1434. The typescript also makes this Robert
(born possibly about 1405) to be brother of John BLAKE, Mayor of Winchester in 1408, a chronological
improbability.
38
The Humphrey COLES that SOMERBY picked on was apparently father of a younger Humphrey
"COLLES" who died in 1571. Even so, the chronology is still off a generation. See Frederic William Weaver, ed.,
The Visitations of the County of Somerset . . . (Exeter, 1885), 16-17.

21363309.doc Page 7
printed 24 August 2009
[page 24]

November 1 Eliz. [1558] and proved 11 May 1559.39 It should be pointed out that if Humphrey BLAKE=s mother
had been Mary, daughter of Humphrey COLES, it is unlikely he would have called the younger Humphrey COLES,
esquire, "[m]y friend," instead of "my brother." SOMERBY abstracts the will in his text but completely leaves out
the reference to this "friend, Humphrey COLES, esq.," who was given ,5 and requested "to see my will performed."
SOMERBY picked on Nicholas BLAKE (died 1547) as brother of Humphrey [gen. 8] because Nicholas=s
will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and thus easily obtained, but he did not realize he had
stumbled into a very complex family of BLAKEs who had lands at Andover, Kings Enham (or Enham Regis),
Knights Enham (a distinctly different place), Penton Mewsey, and Clatford, Hants.
The Robert BLAKE of Enham (there is no West Enham) who was Nicholas BLAKE=s uncle is ancestor
of Mary BLAKE, grandmother of the immigrant Shadrack HAPGOOD.40 The will of this Robert BLAYKE [sic]
was dated 16 December 1522 [sic],41 and though no date of probate was attached, it is listed in the year 1522 in the
manuscript calendar.42 He mentioned his son Thomas BLAYKE, his son Richard BLAYKE (executor), andrew
BLAYKE,43 William BLAYKE [no specific relationship stated], and Robert BLAYKE [no relationship stated]. the
son Richard died the same year as his father. Richard=s will, recorded in Latin, was dated 12 April and proved 23
May 1522 [sic].44 He mentioned his wife, "my brother Thomas BLAYKE," "robert BLAYKE my father," and "my
mother."45
As Richard BLAKE died a married adult with children in 1522, he was undoubtedly born before about
1500, probably several years earlier. As he was his father=s residuary legatee and executor, he would have been
the eldest son. Chronology indicates that the younger son, Thomas BLAKE, was also born before 1500. Thomas
died, leaving a will dated 9 October 1541 and proved 15 June 1542.46 As
39
Frederick Brown, Abstracts of Somersetshire Wills . . . [1st series], (London, 1887), 59.
40
See Paul C. Reed and Dean Crawford Smith, "Dorothy ______, the Key in Our Search For Shadrack
HAPGOOD," NEHGR 150(1996):141-56; and Smith, Kempton Ancestry, Pt. 1, 144-61.
41
Since the terms of their wills clearly attest that the testator Robert BLAYKE was the father of the
testator Richard BLAKE, there is a problem with the dates, which indicate that Richard died in April or May, yet
he was named executor in his father=s will dated the following December. the simplest solution is that Robert
BLAYKE=s will was actually executed in December 1521, but we do not have enough information to provide a
definite answer to this problem.
42
Consistory Court of Winchester, original wills [FHL film #186,681].
43
No specific relationship is stated, Andrew was recorded in the 1523/4 subsidy of Knights Enham (PRO
Subsidy Rolls, E179/174/291, 17 Hen. VIII).
44
Robert BLAKE=s widow, Matilda, or Mawde, died in 1525, leaving a will which no longer survives
(Consistory Court of Winchester).
45
Consistory Court of Winchester, Register F, f. 25 [FHL film #186.686].

[page 25]

his unmarried daughter took administration of his estate when his will was proved, she must have been born by
1524, probably earlier.
SOMERBY claimed that Robert BLAKE of Enham had a son named William, ancestor of the BLAKEs of
Cutcomb, Somerset. The above information shows this to be completely false. SOMERBY said that Robert was in
possession of tenements in Knights Enham in 1504, but Robert=s holdings were in Kings Enham, not Knights
Enham. SOMERBY also gave only two sons to this Robert=s brother: Nicholas and Humphrey [gen. 8]. This is
again incorrect.
The name of Nicholas BLAKE=s father is not certainly known. His mother, Johane, left a will dated 28
March 1527:

In dei noie= Amen The yere of or lorde gode ml vC xxvii the xxviii day of m=che I Johane BLAKE, wydow wt a
hole mynde & a gudde memory make my last wyll & testament in this man= First I com=end my soule to all
myghty gode, or lady seynt mary & to all the seynts in hevyn and my body to be buryed in the Churche or in the

21363309.doc Page 8
printed 24 August 2009
churche litten47 of seynt Mighell of Enah=m Itm= I gyve & bequeth unto the mother churche of seynt Swyth=
xiid Itm= I gyve & bequeth to S[ir] John BATTE xxd Itm= I gyve & bequethe to the maynteynyng of Jh=us
masse in the churche of Andov= xxd Itm= I gyve & bequeth to ye por of the Freers Augustines in Wync[hester]
xxd Itm= I gyve & bequeth to s[ir] John= WHIGHT freer xxd Itm= I gyve & bequeth to ev=y freer of theseid
augustines that ys a prest iiiid & to ev=y noves iid of theseid place Itm= I gyve & bequeth to the churche off
foskett [Foxcot] to the maytenyng= of the light byfore seynt Johnys & seynt Sonday xxd Itm= I gyve & bequeth to
my doughter Elsabethe MYLNE xxti shepe beside those she hath All=redy & one cow yt I bought of her & xiiis
iiiid of money & my gretyst panne & four platters Itm= I give & bequeth unto my son= Nycholas BLAKE the
tabull in the hall & one clothe called the hallyng & ii Iron rakks Itm= I gyve & bequeth unto my son= Rob=t
BLAKE one Iron broche & xviii shepe the whiche shepe he hath in his kepyng Itm= I gyve & bequeth to Thom=s
IESRA of Foskett & theseid goods to be devyded amongs them= equally ev=y of them lyke moche Itm= I make
my sones Nycholas BLAKE & Robt= BLAKE my trewe executors and Thomas IESRA of Foskett my sup[er]visor
that he se [sic] my last wyll= & testament Implete [sic] & fulfilled & theseid execut= to dispose for the helthe of
my soule as the[y] shall se[e] most expedyent These witnesse S[ir] Ryc= MERSSER S[ir] John= BATTE Nycholas
BLAKE Robt= BLAKE wt other mor48

It is clear that she had no interests in Somerset, and the name Humphrey is completely unknown among
the BLAKE families of this region. Nicholas BLAKE=s mother was certainly not Mary COLES, daughter of
Humphrey COLES of Somerset; she was this Johane who died about 1527, leaving two sons, Robert (completely
overlooked by SOMERBY) and Nicholas, and a daughter, Elizabeth BLAKE.
The elder brother, Robert BLAKE, of Enham, in Andover, left a will dated 28 April 1543 and proved 22
March "aforesaid" [1543/4]. He named his "eldest" son
47
Litten means churchyard.
48
Consistory Court of Winchester, Register D, f. 118 [FHL film #186,862].

[page 26]

Robert, "second" son John, his wife Agnes, Wyllyam, and Rycharde, his youngest sons, and son Thomas BLAKE.
Nicholas BLAKE was a witness and, with several others, asked to divide the testator=s goods equally among the
children.49
Nicholas BLAKE of Enham50 left a will dated the last day of May and proved 20 June 1547. He named
his wife, Margaret, sons (1) William and (2) Edmund,51 and daughters Elizabeth BLAKE and Alice GODWYN.
He stated that he held a lease of the farm of Andover from Lord SANDYS "which Robert BOSWELL occupyeth," a
tenement in Kings Enham held of Lord SANDYS which his son William "occupieth," another tenement called
"olde Hall" held of Lord SANDYS in Knights Enham,52 freehold land in Knights Enham, the lease of SEMERs
farm53 and Walworth, held of Lord SANDYS, a lease of a tenement in Kings Enham held by John CALL, and
freehold land in Andover held by Thomas WESCOMBE.54
It was Nicholas=s son, William, "yeoman," who is first called "of Eastontowne."55 Bishop [Robert]
HORNE, of Winchester, entrusted the ,200 bequeathed by John HANSON in 1569 for the foundation and
maintenance of a free school at Andover (the schoolmaster to be a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge) to William
BLAKE Sr. and his son William BLAKE Jr., who gave bond with John BLAKE for the proper fulfillment of the
trust. The bond was not found at the Bishop=s death, and sometime thereafter, William BLAKE of "East Anton,"
"being moved in conscience for that the said sum of ,200 was given to so good a use and purpose," entered
49
Consistory Court of Winchester, original wills, and Register F, f. 124 [FHL film #186,686].
50
Nicholas BLAKE was taxed for ,18 at Knights Enham in the subsidy of 1524/5, ,40 there in the subsidy
of 1545/6, and ,50 there in 1547/8 (PRO Subsidy Rolls, E179/173/182, 16 Hen. VIII., E179/174/279, 37 Hen. VIII,
and E179/174/276, 1 Edw. VI). Margaret BLAKE, widow, was taxed for ,25 at Kings Enham in 1549/50 (PRO
Subsidy Rolls, E179/174/299, 3 Edw. VI).
51
Edmund was still a minor when his father wrote his will, but William already had children.
52
It is interesting to note that Old Hall was merely called a tenement in the wills of Nicholas BLAKE and
William BLAKE of Eastontowne, and was not the residence of the family, though SOMERBY claimed that both
Nicholas and his purported father, William [gen. 7], had resided there.

21363309.doc Page 9
printed 24 August 2009
 53
This manor had been held by Nicholas BRAY of Andover and passed by inheritance to John
SEYMOUR, whose sister and coheir Jane married Thomas CORDEROY of Chute, Wiltshire, and was great-great-
grandmother of several Virginia immigrants. Another sister, Margaret SEYMOUR, married Thomas SOTEWELL,
also of Chute, and was great-grandmother of Dr. Richard SOTWELL, fellow of New College, Oxford, and an
advocate of Doctors= Commons, close friend and overseer of William BLAKE of Eastontown (see below). For the
CORDEROY and SEYMOUR ancestry, see Paul C. Reed, "The Royal Descent of the BERNARD, CORDEROY,
and IRONMONGER Families of Virginia through the SEYMOUR Family," TAG 74(1998):181-93, 294-311.
Semers is apparently the tenement called Brays in his son William=s will.
54
PCC 39 Alen [FHL film #91,922].
55
He was taxed for ,20 at Kings Enham and ,5 at Knights Enham in the subsidy of 1547/8, ,24 at Kings
Enham in 1549.50, ,26 at Andover in 1550/1, and ,30 there in 1551/2 (PRO Subsidy Rolls, E179/174/276, 1 Edw.
VI, E179/174/299, 3 Edw. VI, e179/174/312, 4 Edw. VI, e179/174/337, 5 Edw. VI). William BLAKE of Enham
was taxed for ,40 in goods at Andover in 1571 (Douglas F. Vick, West Hampshire Lay Subsidy Assessments, 1558-
1603 [Farnham, Surrey, n.d.], 1).

[page 27]

"into antoher [bond of] obligation . . . in the sum of ,400 to make good the loss." Richard BLAKE gave the land
for the site of the schoolhouse.57
The will of William BLAKE of Eastontowne, Andover, yeoman, was dated 27 July and proved 4
November 1582. He was father of nine children who survived to adulthood, all named in his will: five sons, (1)
John, (2) William, (3) Peter, (4) Thomas, and (5) Richard (the order is specifically stated in the entails and
remainders of his lands), and four daughters, Agnes KYNTON, Amye ROMBOLD, Margaret JARVIS, and
Elizabeth BEALE. His long, seven-page will mentioned many tenements, including the farm of Andover, a
tenement called Brayes, and the house called Smythes "whiche I nowe dwell in." He also mentioned his brother
Edmund BLAKE and sisters Elizabeth MONDAY and Alice GODWYN. He made his son William executor, and
requested Richard SOTWELL, "Doctor of the Civill Lawe," and Andrew READE to serve as executors. William
SOTWELL and John SOTWELL also witnessed the will. William BLAKE may be ancestor of the Maryland
immigrant Charles BLAKE (died 1733), whose son-in-law, Dr. Charles CARROLL, wrote that the BLAKEs
belonged to "an ancient family in Hampshire."58 I am currently preparing an article showing that Johane BLAKE,
wife of Major General Robert1 SEDGWICK of Charlestown, Massachusetts, is a descendant of this BLAKE family
of Eastontown.
This analysis helps us to understand Horatio G. SOMERBY=s tactics. Everything he presents at first
seems very believable. Enough details are provided to make the ancestry sound credible. The account is
interspersed with real documents, the citations for which also seems to add credence. But on closer examination, it
quickly becomes clear that SOMERBY changed a number of the facts to support his fabrications. In the end,
SOMERBY became sloppy, adding connections to families in Somersetshire who were completely unconnected
with the Hampshire family. Luckily, enough probate records survived in local courts to unravel his fabrication of
the Hampshire BLAKE family completely.
The remaining difficulty lies in the individuals he fabricated who never existed. Having no record to
check against these phantoms, it is difficult decisively to lop off the William BLAKE [gen. 6] "of White Parish" or
his purported son William [gen. 7], who was supposed to have removed to Andover. They remain in limbo without
any evidence to prove or disprove their existence. This paradox is the bane of anyone following up on fraudulent
lines such as this one.59 In this
56
H. Arthur Doubleday and William Page, eds., The Victoria County History of Hampshire and the Isle of
Wight, 5 vols. (London, 1900-11), 4:357 (hereafter cited as VCH Hampshire).
57
VCH Hampshire, 4:357.
58
There is no other BLAKE family recorded in early Visitations of Hampshire or prominent in the probate
records of the county.
59
Myrtle Stevens Hyde, FASG, and I both looked into the purported English ancestry of the SEARS
family, another SOMERBY production. We were unable to find any evidence of the existence of the three
generations immediately preceding the immigrant. An analysis of this extraordinarily colorful fraud, in which
SOMERBY used similar tactics to those presented in this article, can be [footnote continues bottom of next page]

21363309.doc Page 10
printed 24 August 2009
[page 28]

case, there is enough surviving evidence in other areas to prove the fraud. This examination is beneficial not only
because it exposes SOMERBY=s fraud, but also because the evidence presented here concerning the real people
adds to our knowledge of individuals now known to be genuine ancestors of other colonial Amercian immigrants.

[footnote continued from previous page] found in Samuel Pearce May, "Some Doubts Concerning the SEARS
Pedigree," NEHGR 40(1886):261-68. May said that one of the family "wrote me that he received the material
from Mr. SOMERBY, but had since made investigations and found 'that the details were not only not proven, but
also incapable of proof, if not altogether wrong, and opposed to fact.'" The author described SOMERBY=s style
as "placing 'the flesh on the wrong bones'" (p. 268), a phrase that we have adopted in the title of the current article.

21363309.doc Page 11
printed 24 August 2009