Walter Palmer of Stonington's father

do not confuse with Sir John Palmer

comments

Last updated July 2016

"Walter's ancestry, or more correctly lack thereof, has been confirmed by Elmer Hall Palmer, Society Genealogist, of the Walter Palmer Society and, from the Parham House "The Family of Palmer" pedigree chart. [January 1999]

"Unfortunately, Elmer -- a legend in Connecticut genealogy -- died a couple years ago, but that man *scoured* for every possible record and analyzed things six ways to Sunday, and if he "confirmed" a "lack thereof," that's worth noting. ... The stance of the Walter Palmer Society is that the best candidates for parentage would be Walter Palmer and Elizabeth Carter of Yetminster, but it's not officially documented. When both they and, last I checked, NEHGS, aren't comfortable "officially" making him their child, I'm not inclined to have Geni do it ...If I remember correctly, the Walter/Elizabeth theory is based on him coming over on the same ship as an Abraham Palmer with those connections, but 1) they weren't identified as brothers or any other type of relatives and 2) names like Walter, Elizabeth, and Palmer weren't exactly uncommon for a bunch of Dorset folks coming over at the time. It sure seems like a good fit, but with our Walter and Abraham never being identified as relatives...that would be very odd for Puritans to never note anywhere, which I think is a big source of the scholarly hesitation." (Ashley Odell, Geni volunteer curator)

The submitted pedigree pages, attached to this profile (pedigree page 1 & pedigree page 2) show William Palmer born to John (sir Knight) Palmer and Elizabeth Verney, abt 1588 died abt 1627, spouse Frances Blossom.

However ...

"Claims that William Palmer was the son of Sir John (William) Palmer and Elizabeth Verney have been proven in error by Carlton Palmer in an article in The Colonial Genealogist [XII:3, p 115]. The bishop's transcript at Parham had been read: "Willm, younger sonne of William Palmer, Esquire, was baptized on 18 April 1585." Actually it should read "the child, William, was buried on 18 April 1585."

And ...

"Many researchers have incorrectly recorded Walter of Stonington as a son of Sir John and/or William Palmer and Elizabeth Vernai. Some records even show Sir John and William as one person, William John Palmer.
"In reality, William Palmer, I b. 15 Jul 1544 married Elizabeth Vernai and their son William, II, b. 1583 but died April 1585, in his second year, is incorrectly thought to be Walter. ...."

In other words, William (not Walter) son of William (not John) Palmer, who married Elizabeth Vernal (not Verney), was buried (not born) on 18 April 1585. Apparently there "had been" many that misread this record -- and it was quite difficult to read. So submitted pedigrees were backed by a good quality record, but the record had been misunderstood. (Erica Howton, Geni volunteer curator)

• MYTH & Collector of PALMER immigrants