The Bliss Family of Rehoboth, MA

John Blysse (1550-1636) of Belstone, England m. Alice Smith (1565-1625).  They settled in Preston Parva, Northamptonshire, England. This was but a hamlet, about 5 miles south of Daventry, which was considered a market town. John was a blacksmith, along with his two sons, Thomas and George.

Thomas married Dorothy Wheatley, Nov. 22 1614 at Holy Cross Church in Daventry, Northamptonshire, England.  Thomas and Dorothy Bliss had seven children, all born in England.  Somewhere c. 1630-1632, a Dorothy Bliss died and another record shows Thomas Bliss married to an Abigail Southam in 1633, in Daventry, England. Here the confusion multiplies. Thomas and his children emigrated to the colonies c. 1638.  There is never any sign of a wife named Abigail in the colonies. Also, the Dorothy Bliss who died c. 1630 is not identified as the wife of Thomas, or anyone else. Furthermore, a Dorothy Bliss did die in Rehoboth MA around 1645. There was another Thomas Bliss living in the colonies at the same time.  He is the Thomas Bliss who moved on to CT and, over time, the records for the two men became entwined.

The Bliss home in England. 

For the purposes of this blog, Thomas Bliss of Rehoboth MA and his wife Dorothy Wheatley, will receive the focus. It is based on the premise that Thomas and Dorothy were in Rehoboth and that this Thomas did not marry a woman named Abigail. Dorothy’s parents were Frank Wheatley and Mary Fiennes of Tingsboro, Somerset, England.

Mary Fiennes has long been a thorn in the investigative side of family researchers and genealogists. It is claimed she is the illegitimate daughter of Gregory Fiennes, 10^th Baron Dacre. He was a 2^nd cousin of Anne Boleyn and a 5x gt. grandson of King Edward III (Plantagenet), through John of Gaunt. He was also, twice, a 6x gt. grandson of King Edward III, also through John of Gaunt, but different lines. He married Anne Sackville, a formidable woman with an imperious and dominating disposition. Anne was also a 1^st cousin to Anne Boleyn and served as a maid-of-honor to Queen Elizabeth I. She and Gregory had but one child, a daughter, who died as a young child. When Gregory died in 1594, his Will made no mention of an illegitimate daughter. His titles and estates went to his sister Margaret, indicating that he had no issue to inherit. I have read dozens of reports on this by reliable researchers and some not so reliable. The bottom line for some is that Mary Fiennes couldn’t possibly be his daughter, legitimate or otherwise, because she wasn’t mentioned in his will or acknowledged in any other way. Because of this, many insist she is from another family line.  Because there is no written record is definitely important, but that doesn’t mean Gregory was not Mary’s father.

Let me offer a possible scenario. In a day and age when really large families were the norm, there was only one child in this marriage. If his wife, Anne, was that formidable, it’s easy to speculate that he had a dalliance elsewhere. If Mary was the result of that event, then it would put Gregory in a difficult position. He wouldn’t want his wife to discover this. But let’s say she did and there was hell to pay. Perhaps he settled some money on Mary’s mother and then to keep his wife under control (remember she had Queen Elizabeth’s ear) he promised to never acknowledge the child. The mother could have given the child her maiden name and none would be the wiser, but Mary used the Fiennes name. Anne Sackville Fiennes died a little more than a year after Gregory. Perhaps after that, Mary’s mother felt there was nothing to fear in allowing the child to use her father’s name. After all, she hadn’t inherited anything and wasn’t claiming anything.

The point of all this is – we’ll never know unless someone unearths information about the woman who was Mary’s mother. We don’t even know where she came from. She could have been a servant at home or at court. She could have been just about anybody, so where to look is a giant hay stack.

While I am on this particular topic, I am compelled to relate how absolutely astounded I am at the complete and utter rudeness of some people when they are answering questions on forums and elsewhere. These are not your dual and triple degreed history divas, but people who seem to think they have all the answers. When family researchers, seeking information to help them with their confusion on an issue ask questions, they don’t deserve the high handed, snotty/snooty replies they get. The problem being that the replies are often from people who want to sound like experts but end up looking like dopes. For instance, on one forum, a woman wrote about Mary Fiennes wondering if there was any new information about her connection to Gregory Fiennes. One reply was she should be doing her own research and not expect someone else to do it for her and another was – “it was 400 years ago, who cares?” Really?? There’s no excuse for this kind of behavior. Generally speaking, over the years I have found the most wonderful and helpful people while doing research. Everyone has been generous with their help and their knowledge. These other types are simply dorks. My rant for the day!!

                                               A Bliss home in Rehoboth, MA

Descent from Mary Fiennes and Frank Wheatley:

Mary Fiennes m. Frank Wheatley

Thomas Bliss m. Dorothy Wheatley

Jonathan Bliss m. Miriam Harmon

Martha Bliss m. Nathaniel Toogood

Anne Toogood m. John Finney

Nathaniel Finney m. Hannah Wood

Anne Finney m. Benjamin Tower

Phoebe Elizabeth Tower m. Edward Buck

George Buck m. Phebe Palmer

Catherine Buck m. Edward Cole

Rebecca Cole m. Alexander Chambers

Alvina Chambers m. Patrick John Broderick          My grandparents

The Antiquary, Vol. 17, p. 48-49

Wikipedia

Rootsweb Gen-Medieval

Recollections of Emanuel School, Henry P. Maskell, London. 1904

Genealogy of the Wheatley  or Wheatleigh Family; A History of the Family in England and America, Hannibal Wheatley, 1902