I do solemnly swear

By far the most fruitful  branch of my family tree grows from my maternal grandmother's lineage, most especially through her great-grandmother. Through her comes most of my connection to the founding colonies and to the aristocracy of England. (I know that sounds like bragging, but as I noted in my previous post, not all the famous people you might have in your past are particularly nice people. The English peerage and royal families aren't always people you want to be associated with.)

I have connections to lords and ladies, kings and queens -- probably. What I discovered in this week's poking about is that the version of the tree I'm working with may not be entirely accurate. When I first looked through my lineage many months ago, I discovered a link to Elizabeth Woodville, the so-called White Queen about whom books have been written and movies made. 

But as I trudged through the tree branches this week, I found she had been deleted and another Elizabeth's line now showed up. I can understand the confusion. Diversity in names didn't seem to be a big concern for the elite of the 15th century, or other centuries, for that matter. The husband in question, Edward IV, reportedly married this new Elizabeth before Ms. Woodville, though that is disputed. Complicating the matter is that he also had a mistress named Elizabeth later in life. 

Strangely, though, the line still ran down to a man named John Hoar, often referred to as General John Hoar, though nothing I read indicated how he came by that rank. Hoar immigrated to the Massachusetts Bay colony with his mother and brothers in 1641 or so, at the age of 19 -- going by the most common date of his birth. 

He settled in Scituate, MA, where he lived until about 1655 and somewhere about 1660 moved to Concord, MA. He owned a farm and practiced law. He was known for being contentious, and one account states that at one point in his career he was banned from coming to court unless he was directly involved in the case because he had been negligent in attending church. 

He took great interest in Native American affairs, which led to his claim to fame -- the rescue of a woman who had been kidnapped by one of the tribes. I'll go into that story in the next post. 

Another item caught my attention before I ran into the kidnapping: "We have not the date of his taking the freeman's oath," an unattributed quote in one of the biographical sources I read. I subsequently found a list of men who had taken the oath between 1630 and 1691. John Hoar's name is not there, Leonard's -- his brother is. Leonard, by the way, was the third president of Harvard. 

It seems that both the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies required oaths from freeman, swearing they were indeed free men and requiring fealty to the governing bodies of the colonies. The Plymouth colony's oath started out requiring allegiance to the king, then to the government of England, while the Massachusetts Bay colony dispensed with all that. Eventually the two colonies merged, and the Bay colony oath took precedence.

Governor John Winthrop wrote the Bay colony's first oath in 1631 and required submission to the government, specifically naming the offices of governor, deputy governor and their assistants. Those who took the oath promised to "advance the peace and welfare" of the commonwealth. The oath also required them to "give speedy notice to them, or some of them, of any sedition, violence, treachery, or other hurt or evil, which I shall know, hear, or vehemently suspect, to be plotted or intended against the said commonwealth, or the said Government established. And I will not, at any time, suffer or give consent to any counsel or attempt, that shall be offered, given, or attempted, for the impeachment of the said Government ..."

By the time great, great, etc., grandpa John would have been required to take the oath, it had been rewritten,  in 1634, with simpler language promising allegiance to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. The oath doesn't mention anything about church membership, but one of the benefits of taking the oath was membership in the General Court, which did require church membership. Taking the oath was also a requirement to be able to vote. The quote above about not knowing the date he took the oath follows a statement detailing Hoar's activities as a lawyer, so the oath may have been required for conducting certain businesses or professions.

The General Court functioned as the body through which annual elections were held and as the legislative body. The more elite members -- which I take to be the richer members -- of the colony originally dominated the court, but in time provision was made for election of delegates from different areas. Not long after, the court was divided into two bodies, with the elites in one group and everyone else in the other, not unlike Parliament or our Congress. A unique feature of this bicameral court was that each group had veto power over the other. 

About the image: This crest is part of the official seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Latin text is the Commonwealth's motto and translates to: By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty. I chose it because of Hoar's affinity with Native Americans.