Gleason Family Discoveries
Providing Information to descendants of Thomas Gleason, born 1609 in Cockfield, Suffolk, England
Gleason Family Discoveries
Providing Information to descendants of Thomas Gleason, born 1609 in Cockfield, Suffolk, England
About this Site
Thomas Gleason, born 1609 in Cockfield, Suffolk
This site is dedicated to the presentation of recent discoveries relating to the life of Thomas Gleason (baptized Gleson) and to the lives of those who are his descendants. Much false information has been published about this remarkable man and his family. It is hoped that here we will separate the true from the false and fact from myth.
The editor of these pages has spent over twenty years researching the Gleason genealogy in retirement and has uncovered a great deal of information about the Gleason family heretofore unknown or misrepresented. Although a book about personal Gleason ancestry has been in the works for some time, it seemed prudent to begin sharing with others. Hopefully, over the next months the site will continue to grow.
Scroll down to view the following:
- Presentation of recent DNA test results of the Y-chromosome characteristics of the male line descendants of Thomas.
- An abbreviated pedigree (lineage) chart of the DNA test subjects.
- The English origin of Thomas and the time in which he lived including a brief discussion of his immediate family.
- Important corrections to errors in the widely-quoted book on Gleason Genealogy by John Barber White.
- Notable Descendants.
Comments and suggestions are welcome. Please scroll to the end to send your message.
Saint Peter's Church of Cockfield where in 1609 Thomas Gleson was baptized (click picture for info)
DNA Test results for Descendants of Thomas Gleason
STR Results of Y-37 DNA tests at Family Tree DNA (www.familytreedna.com)
Y-chromosome DNA is passed from father to son and can remain unchanged for generations. Over time mutations occur that characterize the lineage. The results above are unique to the descendants of Thomas Gleason and are matched by no other groups who have DNA tested. The chart shows the STR values found on specified areas of the Y-chromosome of male volunteers. Members are grouped according to their descent from the patriarch Thomas to illustrate how certain mutations tend to characterize the sub-lineages. The colored fields indicate the degree of genetic difference from the standard Y-STR values (green) for Haplogroup R-P312 on the world genetic tree. The terminal SNP (the unique leaf on the tree) for the family is downstream of R-Z37492 and has been confirmed by advanced testing of four subjects. These results imply that the ancestor shared between this family and their nearest genetic neighbors lived approximately 3000 years ago.
Origin of Thomas
Pedigree of Thomas
Interior of Saint Peter's
Interior of Saint Peter's
The origin of his father is undiscovered, but the Armesby family can be found in Cockfield for several generations.
Interior of Saint Peter's
Interior of Saint Peter's
Interior of Saint Peter's
Where Thomas was baptized and married. His parents also married here.
Mistakes were made...
Mistakes were made...
Mistakes were made...
Everyone who uses John Barber White’s book, Genealogy of the Descendants of Thomas Gleason of Watertown, Massachusetts, as a research source should be aware that White himself had doubts about the origin of Thomas Gleason suggested in his work. He states in his brief foreward, “Of the parentage and birthplace of this Thomas Gleason no positive knowledge has been obtained.” One cannot fault him for trying, however, although his hypothesis of a Northampton--shire origin has been found to be incorrect. The book was written in 1909 and certainly genealogical research was a challenge in those days. Today we are fortunate that resources are available everywhere, often digitized and online. One hundred and five years after White, the true origin of Thomas was published. (See note below.)
Facts
Mistakes were made...
Mistakes were made...
- THOMAS GLEASON was christened as Thomas Gleson in Cockfield, Suffolk, England, 3 September 1609, the son of Thomas and Anne (Armesby) Gleson.[1]
- He is believed to have died about 1687 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.[2]
- On 31 July 1634, he married Susan[na] Page in Cockfield.[3]
- She was baptized on 4 December 1614 in Ingham, Suffolk, the daughter of Thomas and Susanna (___) Page of Ingham and Hawstead, Suffolk.[4]
- Susanna (Page) Gleason is believed to have died in Boston, Massachusetts, 24 January 1691.[5]
Suffolk History of Thomas
A time of turmoil...
Early 17th century in England was a time of political and religious upheaval, leading to the Civil War of 1642-1651 between the Royalists and the Parlimentarians and resulting in the overthrow of the monarchy. Perhaps not coincidentally this is the period when no English records of Thomas Gleason or his family can be found. The last Suffolk known record of Thomas and Susanna is in 1644 with the burial of their fourth child, Frances, in Hartest, Suffolk at one year of age. They are not heard from again until Thomas took the Oath of Fidelity in 1652 in Watertown, Massachusetts.
There is no doubt that both the family of Thomas, and the Page family of Susanna, were of the Puritan persuasion (Congregationalists). In fact, tiny Cockfield might be called a “hotbed” of Puritan activity at the time. Thomas’s mother Anne (Armesby) (Gleason) Sowgate, after widowed for the second time, is recorded as having made a monetary gift to the Puritan military cause of Suffolk during the war. One might well wonder if Thomas may have served as a soldier in Cromwell’s “New Model Army” on the Parlimentarian side during the years of conflict. Perhaps Thomas and Susanna had planned to join the Puritan community in Massachusetts earlier, as did Susanna’s brother William, but the journey was unavoidably postponed due to war.
Thomas was raised as the lone male child in the family. He had two older Gleason sisters and two younger half sisters who were born after his widowed mother married Humphrey Sowgate, a prosperous farmer and landowner. No doubt Thomas grew up working on his stepfather's farm. There is no evidence that Thomas or his father were ever landowners; but the family of his mother, the Armesby family, can be traced back for several generations in Suffolk as owning land. Additionally, the family of Susanna Page was of the landowner class. Her father Thomas Page owned properties in both Hawstead and Finningham.
Details of the life of Thomas will be presented in a forthcoming book by the administrator of this website.
Sixteenth Century House in Cockfield
Errors in the Book by White
The First Generation
Besides the previously cited errors concerning the origin of Thomas and his family found in White's book, the following discussion points out other inaccuracies appearing in the first generation alone.
The Surname of Thomas - Gle[a]son not Leeson
The Gleason or Gleson surname was not common in England in the 17th century and was perhaps unfamiliar to many colonials, while the name Leeson, and its variants, were relatively well known. Thus the name of Thomas is sometimes found in records without the initial G in early Massachusetts. Since many of the colonists could not read or write, events were recorded by the few who could. It is not difficult to imagine that occasionally the pronunciation of the initial G was not understood by the scribe. However, variant spellings of the name with a G, such as Gleison, Gleeson, Glezen, etc., tended to predominate and eventually Gleason became the norm.
In his book, John Barber White makes much of the Leeson spelling and postulated Leeson to be the original family name of Thomas of Watertown. He conveniently discovered a prominent Leeson family of Northamptonshire as the “probable” family of Thomas Gleason. This was done without the slightest evidence or rationale for the connection. Furthermore, White never offered an explanation as to how an initial G came to be affixed to the name or why the eventual Gleason spelling was adopted.
White's book is available free online at: https://archive.org/details/genealogyofdesce1909whit
The Second Generation
The Children of Thomas: Susan[na], Thomas, Joseph, Frances, John, William, Philip, Isaac, Mary, and Ann - not Nathaniel
White lists nine children of Thomas and Susanna in his book, but his information is incorrect and incomplete. Ten Children were born to Thomas and Susanna, though birth records for only five have been found. Susan[na], Thomas, Joseph and Frances were baptized in Cockfield, Suffolk; and the death of Frances is also recorded there. The only colonial record for the birth of a child is for Mary, recorded in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1657. Baptismal records for John, William, Philip, Isaac and Ann have not been located. This may be due to the fact that all the records of the Watertown Church prior to 1668 have been lost. However, the names of all of the children (except Frances) are listed in the will of their aunt Anna Winn, widow of William Page of Watertown.
Susanna: White was apparently unaware of the eldest child Susanna (christened Susan in Cockfield), perhaps because she had become the wife of Thomas Pratt by 1655. She was baptised in St. Peter's Church of Cockfield on 13 Oct 1635. (See tree above.)
Frances: The fourth child of Thomas and Susanna was baptized in St Peter's Church in Cockfield on 4 May 1643. Her burial the next year is recorded on church records at Hartest nearby.
Other Corrections: (The numbers are those used as identifiers in White's book)
#2 Thomas - He was actually baptized in Cockfield on 21 Jan 1636/7. No record of a second marriage or mention of a second wife Mary has been found.
#3 Joseph - His baptism is also recorded in Cockfield on 19 Nov 1640.
#4 John - Based on his age given in two court records, he was born about 1645, place unknown; married 10 Jan 1678 to Mary Ross.
#7 Isaac - His wife Hester was the daughter of James and Hester (Kelsey) Eggleston. She was not related to Roger Williams.
#8 William - He was born about 1648 based on later court records. His wife was not Abiah Bartlett. (Click on red rectangle for discussion of William and Abiah.) He had no daughter Ann. It was William's sister Ann who was baptized as an adult in the Watertown church in 1687/8.
Not Nathaniel
Contrary to the myth begun by White in his book, there was no son Nathaniel.
Apparently he misinterpreted as Leason the hand-written name Seaver found in a record of the death of Nathaniel Seaver of Roxbury, killed by Indians in Sudbury, Massachusetts in 1676.
Joel Gleason, Jackie’s great grandfather, was born in Vermont. He was a tinsmith and an inventor who held several patents. The family was likely Congregationalist at that time since Joel’s son, Charles Nicholas Gleason, was a Congregational clergyman. (Google him, a Phillips-Andover Academy and Bangor Theological Seminary alumnus.) Similarly, Thomas Gleason of Cockfield, Suffolk, and his early descendants were Puritans, i.e., members of the Congregational Church in America. In contrast, immigrants from Ireland with the Gleason surname were typically of the Roman Catholic faith.
Unfortunately, there are no known living male descendants who could submit to a Y-chromosome DNA test that would prove the origin of Jackie’s male line. As long as the parentage of Joel Gleason remains a mystery, Jackie Gleason’s male line heritage will remain unknown.