The information which relates to Edward and his descendants in America has been obtained primarily from the Genealogy of The Riggs Family written by Wallace [S3] some 100 years ago. If no source is indicated, it can therefore be assumed the information comes from Wallace.

The two other main sources are Savage's Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England [S5], an earlier work compiled in 1860 and which Wallace refers to in his Genealogy, and a recent book by Anderson on Immigrants to New England between 1620-1633 [S4]. If Wallace's information also appears in one or both of these, then the multiple source numbers are quoted. Conversely, some items will be annotated as coming from only Savage and/or Anderson, or from elsewhere, if they do not appear in Wallace's work.

Where these three main sources differ, please bear in mind that Wallace was an amateur researcher descended from Edward Riggs. Hence such incorrect statements as Edward being born "probably in Lincolnshire or Yorkshire, for it is understood the name is still to be found in that region" and "In England the name (Riggs) is I believe extinct".

Savage, on the other hand, was a former President of the Massachusetts Historical Society who had personally researched original documents, though some of his statements can be questioned with the benefit of hindsight.

Mr. Anderson is the Director of the Great Migration Study Project sponsored by the New England Historic Genealogical Society. He is a Certified Genealogist, a fellow of the American Society of Genealogists, a fellow of the Utah Genealogical Association, and has published numerous articles in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, The American Genealogist, the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, and The Genealogist, as well as the Genealogical Journal.

The only discrepancy I have detected in Anderson's work[S4] is where he describes Edward's education and states that he used a mark when signing his will in "1676"; this may be a proof-reading error because he later quotes the year correctly as 1670.

In quoting from the Roxbury Land & Church Records in the Report to the Boston Record Commissioners,[S39][S40] Anderson describes the dates given as being for the deaths of Edward and his second wife, whereas the entries state the dates are when they were buried[S17]. However, the Report itself may have made the original mistake, since the entries appear under "Deaths".

"In the Roxbury estate list done in the 1640s, Edward Riggs's valuation of twelve acres in the thousand acres at Dedham and £4 personal estate made him one of the least affluent in Roxbury."[S36]

"In the Roxbury land inventory of approximately 1652, Edward Riggs held seven parcels: house, barn and homelot, five acres; three acres upon the end of the Great Lots; seven acres "upon the said highway"; one acre in the fresh meadow with two rods of upland at each end; three roods of salt marsh in Black Neck; thirteen acres twenty rods in "the division of the Nookes being the sixth lot"; and ten acres in the thousand acres near Dedham.[S37] These comprised the usual sequence of grants, and did not include anything acquired by other means."[S4]

"On 24 January 1671 (after his will was written) Edward Riggs sold to Stephen Williams of Roxbury three parcels: house with three acres; one acre salt marsh; and one acre fresh meadow"[S38]. He used a mark when signing the deed (and when signing his will).[S4]

"In his will dated 2 September 1670 and proved 6 March 1671/2 "Edward Rigges of Roxbury...although very crazy and weak in body" bequeathed to "my daughter-in-law my son Edward Riggs his wife" 20s; to "my four grandchildren my son Edward's children" £4 (20s each); residue to "my daughter Mary Twitchell and her children"; to "my daughter Mary...a double portion namely twice so much of my estate as falls to any of her children"; to "my grandchild Elizabeth Allen" her portion paid soon after his death; "my grandchildren Joseph Twichell and Hanp [sic] Twichell" to receive their portions when they come of age or marry, in the meantime in the hands of Steven Williams; to "the rest of my grandchildren by my daughter Mary Twitchell" their portions when they come of age or at marriage; "loving friend John Steebins" executor; "loving friends Mr.Thomas Weld and Giles Parson"(sic) overseers. An undated codicil provides for the disposal of the estate in case of the early death of the grandchildren."[S41]

"The inventory of the estate of Edward Riggs was taken 5 March 1671/2 and totalled £128 7s., of which £93 was real estate: "his house and land sold in his lifetime," £80; and "more land sold by him," £13.[S41]

STEPHEN WILLIAMS

"Edward of Roxbury's Will entrusted Steven Williams with the portions to be paid to two of Edward's grandchildren.[S41] After making his Will, the bulk of Edward's Land Holdings were sold in his lifetime to Stephen Williams.[S38] Apparently, there was a tradition of selling out to a younger relative for perpetual care [S6], which implies that Edward of Roxbury and Stephen Williams were related.

Savage[S5] identifies Stephen Williams of Roxbury, the son of Robert Williams of Roxbury, as marrying Sarah Wise, the daughter of Joseph Wise, about 1666. He identifies Joseph of Roxbury, "a butcher late in his days" as having been a servant to a George Alcock, "perhaps been brought by him when he came the third time, 1636, from England.", and that he died in 1684.

ELIZABETH WISE

An Elizabeth Wise is shown as #93 on the Roxbury Church List following after John and Barbara Ruggles and right before Isaac Heath,[S6] who came on the Hopewell in Spring and Autumn 1635 respectively. As the records of First Church seem to have been entered by ship arrivals, this implies that Elizabeth Wise also arrived on one of these two sailings of the Hopewell.[S6] However she does not appear on the transcriptions of the Passenger Lists [S10] [S12] and may have arrived in 1636, the year Savage quotes for the arrival of Joseph Wise.[S5]

A recent eminent researcher states that Elizabeth Wise was a widow who came from Sudbury and that Thomas Weld (one of the two overseers of Edward of Roxbury's will) also came from there.[S6] He therefore suggests that she may have been the Elizabeth who was Edward's second wife, thus establishing Stephen Williams as a relative to Edward (through Edward's wife by Stephen's marriage to Sarah Wise).

Because Edward's will described Elizabeth Allen as "my grandchild"[S41], it was falsely assumed by most researchers, including Wallace and Savage, that she was the child of a "Mrs Allen" who was a fourth daughter of Edward and Elizabeth. Wallace stated that Edward landed in Boston "with his family consisting of his wife Elizabeth, two sons, and four daughters"[S3]; Savage concluded that, because Edward did not have any children by his second wife, he "had brought one other son and two daughters who lived to maturity"[S5]. But both authors would have made these comments based on their original false assumption.

If Elizabeth Allen's parent was a previous child of Edward's second wife Elizabeth, and thus Edward's step-child, he or she would either have to have been born out of wedlock (extremely unlikely within the Puritan community for Edward then to have married the child's mother), or the child of a previous marriage of Elizabeth, and there is no reference to Edward's second marriage being to a widow.

That leaves the possibility that Elizabeth Allen was a married daughter of Edward's daughter Mary Twitchell, becoming Elizabeth Allen when she married. This is consistent with Edward's will, since he left the residue of his estate to Mary and her children but then qualified that bequest by giving instructions regarding the portions they were to receive:

1.	Mary's portion should be a double one,
2.	Elizabeth Allen's was to be paid soon after his death (implying she was already of age or married),
3.	those for Joseph and Hand (Hannah?) were referred to next
4.	and lastly he referred to those for the rest of his grandchildren by his daughter Mary.

So, assuming that these clauses have been quoted in their correct order[S41], this implies that Elizabeth Allen was the married daughter of Mary Twitchell, and not of another child (or step-child) of Edward.

After reaching that conclusion, it has since been confirmed that Elizabeth Twitchell (believed to have been born in 1648 in Lancaster, MA)[S15] married William ALLEN on 15FEB1668 in Medfield, Norfolk, MA.,[S16] where Mary and her husband Benjamin were then living. Further confirmation came in the Comments section of Anderson's entry, where he states "Savage suggests that Riggs had two daughters who lived to marry, but this apparently assumes that grandchild Elizabeth Allen was born an Allen, when in fact she was a Twitchell who married William Allen of Medfield".

BACKGROUND

The only entry in the marriage records of Roxbury for a RIGGS is an entry on 05APR1635 of an Edward RIGGS and an Elizabeth. Her surname has generally been interpreted as ROOSA[S42][S3], although Anderson states that the source is a manuscript copy. But Savage interpreted it as ROOKE[S5], the CD-ROM of the Roxbury Vital Records is said to record it as REOSA[S17], and Pope[S47] quoted it as ROOS (but also misquoted the year as 1633). All that can be said with any certainty is that Elizabeth's surname in that marriage entry is difficult to decipher.

Edward of Roxbury apparently married his second wife Elizabeth around the same period as his son Edward also married an Elizabeth. The concensus until now seems to have been that Edward of Roxbury married Elizabeth ROOKE and Edward his son married an Elizabeth ROOSA. 04FEB1638 has been quoted on some Charts as the date Edward remarried, and I would be extremely interested to learn the source of this.

EDWARD OF ROXBURY, OR EDWARD HIS SON?

Wallace[S3] states that the marriage in 1635 was between Edward of Roxbury's son Edward and Elizabeth ROOSA. He quotes in support a birth date of their eldest son, Edward, in Roxbury as about 1636, though no researcher has reported any entry in the Roxbury Vital Records (or elsewhere) for his birth.

Savage[S5] states that this marriage was on 05APR1636, not 1635, between Edward of Roxbury himself and Elizabeth ROOKE. His apparent alteration of the year would have been to reconcile it with the fact that Edward's first wife Elizabeth did not die until OCT1635.

Anderson[S4][S14] starts off saying "The death date for the first wife of the immigrant or the marriage date to the second must be wrong." but then redresses the balance, continuing: "In 1959 Donald Lines Jacobus argued differently, making Elizabeth Roosa the wife of the son of the immigrant:"

"Nothing whatever is known of Edward's wife or of any Roosa family, and the surname may be a misreading. Edward's mother died October 1635, and his father thereafter acquired a second wife Elizabeth; if the dates are misstated, the Roosa marriage could belong to the father, and one printed source so states the matter. However, we have to accept the dates as reported unless they can be proved wrong. Edward Jr. must have married about this time, and he left a widow named Elizabeth, so we follow the generally accepted account and believe it to be correct"[S43]

From the information currently available, and the conclusion drawn in the following sections, I believe that Edward of Roxbury's son Edward married Elizabeth ROSE and that Edward of Roxbury may have married an Elizabeth WISE.

ELIZABETH ROOKE, REOSA, ROOSA, ROOSE or ROSE?

Savage does not include any ROOKE, REOSA, ROOSA or ROOSE in his Dictionary of the First Settlers[S5], although this is negative proof rather than positive proof. The Ulster County Historical Society (of New York) has published a history of The Roosa Family of North America[S14]. This does not mention any Elizabeth Roosa of Roxbury, or any Roosa family in that time or place. The book does list an Elizabeth Roosa born in 1617 in Canterbury, England as the daughter of Heyman Guysbert Roosa, but Heyman and his family did not come to New Amsterdam until 1660[S14].

However, both Savage[S5] and Coldham's Complete Book of Emigrants[S13] quote the following as landing in New England on 30APR1634: "Passengers from Ipswich by the Francis of Ipswich, Mr John Cutting, bound for New England: Robert Rose 40 and Margery his wife 40, John Rose 15, Robert Rose 15, Elizabeth Rose 13, Mary Rose 11, Samuell Rose 9, Sarah Rose 7, Danyell Rose 3, Darcas Rose 2".[S19].

THE ROSE FAMILY

Adams & Styles [S67] describe Robert Rose as:
"Robert Rose, who left Ipswich, England in April 1634, probably coming directly to Wethersfield, CT. He was a fellow passenger with several Watertown families, and it is not clearly ascertained, says Bond, 'that this family settled in Watertown.'(MA) His sons Robert and John were with him. He was one of the largest original holders of 'adventurers lands.' His homestead was on the east side of Broad Street, between Lieut.Seeley's and John Clarke's. He became one of the first settlers of Totoket (Branford) in 1644. His son Robert remained in Wethersfield, where...his descendants have been numerous." Fuller details on Robert's residence in Wethersfield, and his serving in the Pequot War, are given in the separate Note on the Wethersfield plantation which follows below. This also refers to the fact that in the list of original planters at Milford, CT, Atwater [S66] identifies Edward as coming from Wethersfield as well.

Elizabeth's father Robert left her 20 pounds in his will but, unfortunately, did not refer to her by her married surname.[S32]. The will was made in Branford dated 25AUG1664. It is said that Elizabeth possibly died 02SEP1634 at Branford though this has not been corroborated [S69]. Admittedly, Edward of Roxbury's will dated 02SEP1670 makes a bequest to "my daughter-in-law my son Edward Riggs his wife" without mentioning her christian name, but no evidence has yet been found to prove Edward's first wife died and that he re-married.

Nevertheless, corroborating evidence that Edward married Elizabeth ROSE is provided by the will of Lt.Samuel Rose, Elizabeth's brother. In it, he left a cash bequest to his "cousin" Phebee Day (relationships were described far more loosely in those days, and cousin often referred to a more remote relative). Edward and Elizabeth's daughter Mary, who married a George Day, had a son Paul Day; he in turn had married a Phebee Brown,[S32] thus making Phebee Day Samuel's great-niece. When Samuel Rose made his will, he was living in Newark, NJ [S32], the settlement that Edward had helped to establish.

CONCLUSION

Having been described as 13 on 30APR1634 when she landed in New England, Elizabeth ROSE would have been about 14 or 15 at the time of the marriage on 05APR1635, but Wallace[S3] describes her as "quite a young girl"). Edward, having been baptised on 17OCT1619[S1][S2], would have been 15 and a half. I assume the early settlers in the Massachussets Bay Colony observed the same law as in England at that time, in that the youngest age for marriage was 14 for boys and 12 for girls).

In all probability, based on the above facts, the marriage on 05APR1635 at Roxbury was therefore of Edward of Roxbury's son Edward, not Edward of Roxbury himself, and was to Elizabeth ROSE. Edward and Elizabeth named one of their sons Samuel, probably after her younger brother who settled near them in Newark NJ (one of Elizabeth Holmes's brothers - Edward's uncle - was also named Samuel, but there is no evidence that he followed them to New England, or was as close as Elizabeth and her brother Samuel seemed to have been).

Adams & Styles [S67] quote Drake [S68] as saying:
"Wethersfield, the oldest town in Connecticut, received from Watertown its first considerable emigrations in 1634. Pyquag, its Indian name, was changed in 1635, to Watertown; and later to Wethersfield.".
They also identify Robert Rose as one of the original ten "adventurers" (though they say all were from Watertown, MA). The "adventurers" are defined as the occupants of the land not by title from the town but who settled in person or had someone settle in their name before 1640.[S69]

When Robert arrived in Wethersfield is uncertain, since there are no surviving land records for Wethersfield until 1640 [S69]. However, on May 1, 1637 the first line of the organized Court at Hartford states "It is ordered that there shall be an offensive war against the Pequots" and ninety men were levied out of the three plantations - Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield [S69]. Adams & Styles [S67] provide a list of 21 men who they say "From the best data obtainable we may feel pretty sure ... were among the twenty-six who went forth from Wethersfield". This list includes Robert Rose which confirms his presence there at least as early as 1637. And the fact that they identify him as one of the original adventurers may mean he was there from the outset in 1634.

In the very early colonial period, with little exception the groom married the bride in the Church where her family resided, and Wethersfield's first church does not appear to have been organised until 1636 [S69]. This may well be why Robert's daughter Elizabeth married Edward Riggs at Roxbury in 1635, in the church where the groom's family resided.

Wallace says nothing was known of the whereabouts of Edward between 1635 and 1640, but it is reasonable to assume he may have gone to live with his wife's parents in Wethersfield after his marriage:
(a) He was under 21, and therefore too young to receive a grant of land or to purchase property in his own name.
(b) As well as the actual 'town' of Wethersfield on the immediate west side of the Connecticut River, the actual 'farm' plantation lay directly east across the river. Robert Rose had a very large grant there and it would have been quite natural for young Edward Riggs to have resided on his father-in-law's farm grant whilst Robert resided in his own house in the 'town'.[S69]
(c) Elizabeth was still only 13 or 14 and she had 5 younger siblings aged between 3 and 11. As the elder daughter, she may still have been valuable to her mother in helping with these younger siblings, whereas only Mary survived with Edward's parents at Roxbury.
(d) Edward Riggs served in the Pequot Indian War of 1637 (see next Note), for which men were levied out of the three plantations at Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, and Adams & Styles [S67] identify Robert Rose as being part of the Wethersfield levy. Edward may have come to serve in the War by being recruited as part of the same levy that recruited his father-in-law (Adams & Styles only name 21 of these 26 men).
(e) Significantly, in the list of original planters at Milford, CT, Atwater [S66] identifies Edward as coming from Wethersfield.
(f) Although in the account of his act of bravery during the Pequot War Edward is described as "of Roxbury", this might be a type of 'nickname' reflecting where he had previously lived.

"In a letter to William Bradford dated 28 July 1637, John Winthrop wrote of the exploits of Edward Riggs in the Pequot war:"[S4]

"... they gave order to surround the swamp, it being about a mile around; but Lieutenant Davenport, and some twelve more, not hearing that command, fell into the swamp among the Indians. The swamp was so thick with shrub wood, and so boggy with all, that some of them stuck fast, and received many shot. Lieutenant Davenport was dangerously wounded about his armhole and another shot in the head, so as fainting, they were in great danger to have been taken by the Indians, but Sergeant Rigges, and Jeffery and two or three more rescued them, and slew diverse of the Indians with their swords."[S44]

Drake's History of Boston describes this incident as taking place on 13JLY1637:[S46]

"... Animated by success, the English, by the aid of their Indian allies, were able to scour the country far and wide. At length, coming to "a small Indian town seated by the side of a hideous swamp, into which they all slipt, as well Pequots as natives of the place." ... Order was given to surround the swamp, but Lieutenant Davenport, rushing into the swamp with some twelve others, came near being cut off. He was "sorely wounded", as were two Ipswich men, John Wedgwood and Thomas Sherman. They were rescued at great peril by Serjeant(sic) Riggs of Roxbury."[S46]

Drake added a footnote identifying the quotations in the above excerpt as being from a Narrative by Hubbard and stating that:
"The "hideous swamp" mentioned by Hubbard ... lies in the town of Fairfield on the borders of Long Island Sound ..."[S46]

At the time Milford contained the area northwest of the actual town proper first called the Plantation of Paugassett, which later became the separate Township of Derby.[S69] A trading post was established at Derby Docks in 1642 by John Wakeman of New Haven, but fur traders from New Haven had been in the area previously. The first year-round houses were built around 1651, at which time the New Haven Colony recognized it as a town, but the residents of nearby Milford protested so vehemently that the order was rescinded and the settlement returned to Milford jurisdiction until 1675 when the former plantation of Paugassett was admitted as the township of Derby by the state legislature.[S26]

"Edward Wooster (nick-named Wolf Killer), the first permanent white settler in the Housatonic and Naugatuck river valley, arrived in 1654 and built his house north and west of Division Street Bridge" (which crosses the Naugatuck from east to west, placing Wooster on the west side of the river). ..."In 1655, Edward Riggs, also of Milford, built a stockaded house, a mile east of Wooster's, on the hill, at what is now Pulaski Highway, across from Upland Terrace." This is now within the boundaries of the Town of Ansonia, on the east side of the Naugatuck River, which in 1893 became separated from Derby on the west side of the river.[S69]

Whilst Edward's homestead may have been known as Riggs Hill locally, the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names recognises only two features with that name in the USA. One of these IS in Connecticut but in Litchfield County, some 40 miles to the north of Derby.

Derby is not only Connecticut's smallest city but its "Olde Uptown Burial Ground" is reputedly the United States' oldest public burial ground (i.e. not associated with a church organization), the oldest stone remaining being dated 1687. Photos and inscriptions of the graves of some of Edward's early descendants can be viewed on the Derby web site.

New Haven Colony consisted of the townships of New Haven itself, Branford, Guilford, Milford and Stamford, as well as Southampton, Long Island (Derby was considered part of Milford until 1675). It practised the Puritan beliefs far more strictly than the separate Connecticut Colony, insisting that only members of Puritan churches had the right to vote or reside in its towns [S55].

The Restoration of Charles II led to a royal charter unifying the colonies of New Haven and Connecticut, in direct opposition to the expressed wishes of the New Haven Colony. A constitution was imposed which conflicted with the practices of the strict New Haven Puritans; for example, it allowed children of non-members of the church to be baptised, whereas the Puritan faith permitted baptism only for children of 'the elect' [S55]. "The original settlers ... came to Newark because they opposed the absorption of their communities by the Colony of Connecticut. Newark was founded with its laws based on the Scripture and with full citizenship granted to only church members.[S70]

Prior to this, Capt. Robert Treat of Milford and Jasper Crane of Branford - anticipating the consequences of royalist rule being imposed - had begun negotiations with the Dutch of New Netherland so that their strict Puritan colleagues could find sanctuary there, as the English puritans had done originally in Holland [S55]. In 1664, New Netherland was captured by the English, part of the territory was appropriated and renamed New Jersey, and Capt. Treat resumed negotiations with the new proprietors of the Province who were offering land on easy terms [S23].

Wallace reports that Edward visited New Jersey, with some of his colleagues from the Derby Plantation, in 1665 and the site of Newark was decided upon [S3]. The first founders, from Branford and Milford, sailed from the New Haven Colony and settled in Newark in May 1666 [S55] - please see the separate note on the First Settlers of Newark, NJ.

"The first church building had the following dimensions: 'Four or six and Twenty Foot wide, and thirty Foot Long and Ten Foot Between Joists, which for the Better Carrying it to an end, the Town hath made choice of Five Men, Viz: Deacon Ward, Sarj.Harrison and his son John, Sarj. Obdh (Edward) Rigs and Michael Tompkins'. The church was Newark's first public building. It stood, on Broad Street, opposite the present First Presbyterian Church...For the next forty years all affairs of the town were held in this church."[S70] All of the first settlers were ardent Congregationalists stressing purity of religion inexplicably interwoven with the local government. and this first church was Congregational. However, it became the First Presbyterian Church in 1720. It is today referred to as the founding church of Newark.[S69]

According to Wallace,[S3] Sergeant Edward Riggs died in 1668, whereas Savage [S3] merely states that he died before his father (who died 05MCH1672N [S40])

The first mention of a Widow Riggs in the records is in the Newark Town Meeting of 25JAN1670N:[S69]

"Ten lots were drawn - Imprimis, Zachariah Burwell had the 10th lot, John Brown Senr the 1st, John Brown Jnr. the 4th, Ephraim Burwell the 9th, George Day the 8th, Henry Lyon the 6th, Widow Riggs the 7th, and Nathaniel Wheeler the 2nd."

Incidentally, there is a further reference to 'Widow Riggs' in the record of the Town Meeting 02JLY1670:[S69]

"Item--…Jno. Crane and Sam'l Rose are Chosen Viewers of the Fences. Ths. Richards and the Widow Riggs Her Son, are Chosen to Warn the Town Meetings, each of them his Part as they did the Last Year…"

An Edward Riggs is the only Riggs that is on the initial "quit-rent" tax list dated 25MCH1670, but in an agricultural context land rent in the United State has been paid "in arrears" (at the end of the tax year), so this probably refers to Edward Riggs Sgt, even though he had died before then.[S69]

However, in the record of the Newark Town Meeting of 10JNE1669 [S69]

"...Sarj. Ed. Riggs is to begin the work at Maple Island Creek...".

So the records apparently narrow the date of Sergeant Riggs's death to between 10JNE1669 and 25JAN1670N.