After I submitted my post, I found this online from 2012, written by Lisa Ellis, who is also a direct descendent of Clement Briggs. She has other valid and specific reasons to question this connection. She mentions the leap of "Bigge" and "Briggs" being the same, which I do not believe they are, and which Geni members did not assume either, since a merge did not occur. I wanted to point that out to be sure no one thinks that this is the direction I want. :-)
Here are Lisa's points:
- John and Rachel were based in Cranbrook, Tenterden and Lydd, all in the county of Kent. This is almost 200 miles from Clement's (unverified) birthplace of Weymouth, Dorset.
- John was a clothier and Clement was a felsmonger. Families usually were in the same sort of profession. Would have made more sense if Clement had been a weaver, rather than a tanner.
- John was seemingly well-to-do, leaving some fine furnishings and silver objects in his will, being generous to the paupers of the town and his servants, leaving them money as well. Descriptions of Clement have me think he wasn't making it financially in Southwark, and went to 'the new world' to try to make more money there. In other words, I don't think he came from a wealthy, generous family.
- John and Rachel had 11 children. Nothing in "English Origins of New England Families, Vol. I (Bates, Bigge, Hyland and Stedman section)" has "Clement" listed among those 11 names.
- John died in England around 1605, and in 1635 Rachel, their daughter Patience and her son Hopewell emigrated to Dorchester, Massachusetts and settled in Roxbury, the same place John and Rachel's daughter Elizabeth and family emigrated the year before. Clement did live in Dorchester, but by 1633 he'd moved further away from Roxbury.
