Elizabeth Bleecker Tibbitts Pratt
27.I.1860 – XI.1928
Countess de Gasquet-James
Duchess von Mecklenburg-Schwerin
In mid to late 19th century America, as most of us know it was a very common practice for the cash rich Yankee daughters of the nation to marry abroad in the hopes of attaining what they felt their more democratic brethren lacked stateside, namely titles of position or rank. Although sometimes this type of international coupling was not always the case! In some instances, it was in their very own backyard that these erstwhile princesses in training found their future partners.
Typically the home grown version lacked the older more refined status patina of the European titled variety, however, they would do in a pinch! The “Dollar Princesses” who found such spouses amongst the “smaller fry” of titled ne’er do wells residing in the United States, were typically of a variety that were a bit harder to offload. This was usually determined by the fact their respective bank balances lacked the excessive abundance found in say a Vanderbilt, Astor, or Goelet heiress. As a result, they had no choice but to throw their marriage nets into the “more shallow eddies” of the “titled tide pool” and had to make due with a catch closer to shore. One such lady was Elizabeth Bleecker Tibbitts Pratt of Kingston, New York. However, to her credit, she practiced both aspects of matrimonial “title fishing” when she landed both a small fish and a much larger fish later on after losing the first.
Elizabeth was born in Albany New York, on January 27, 1860, the only daughter and surviving child of Col. George Watson Pratt and his wife, Anna Attwood Tibbitts. George Watson Pratt was a Civil War Union Army Officer, who served during the Civil War as Colonel and Commander of the 20th New York State Militia "Ulster Guards" (80th New York State Volunteers.) Unfortunately, he was wounded, shot in the left shoulder and spine at the 2nd Battle of Bull Run (2nd Manassas) on August 30, 1862. Not long afterwards, he died as a result of his wounds in Albany, New York, leaving Elizabeth without a father.
As a granddaughter of United States Congressman Col. Zadock Pratt, the role of “father figure” fell to her grandfather after the death of his son, at the time the older Pratt owned the largest tannery business in the United States as well as the rest of the world and was the founder of Prattsburg, New York. Prattsville was conceived and built to accommodate the labor force necessary for the tannery, raising the town's population from around five hundred to over two thousand. Elizabeth also shared a tenuous connection with the Gould family, as her grandfather had given the future railroad magnate Jay Gould his start in the business world. It was primarily due to her grandfather being a banker that Elizabeth owed her heiress status, although on a far lower strata then the gilded edged daughters of the railroad barons.
In lieu of ready cash and from a lighter purse, when Elizabeth first married on April 21, 1881, in New York City, her quasi-noble groom, Amédée Gasquet James only hailed from as far as New Orleans. Amédée had been born on June 6, 1846 in New Orleans, descended from a very old French family who although initially refugees living in the South at the time of his birth, had eventually returned to France. It was through his mother Louise, that Amédée was related to the Gasquet family. Louise was the daughter of William Amédée Gasquet and Martha Jefferson Vaughan, and related to the House of Lapeyre, founders of the old New Orleans firm, Pike, Lapeyre & Co., Bankers. Amédée was the son of plain Mr. A. B. James. No title in sight. Yet, before too long, the young married couple became reborn as Count & Countess de Gasquet-James!
After their marriage they resided the greatest part of the time in France and in other countries within the borders of Continental Europe. However, as with most couples of substance and with ties to the states, they did spend some time in America. In fact all four of their children were born in the United States. Together, Elizabeth and Amédée had three daughters and one son. Traveling back and forth between Europe and America, and migrating between European capitals became the tenor of their lives until July 28, 1903 when Amédée suddenly passed away just a little over a month after his fifty-seventh birthday, at the family villa in Dinard, France.
When he died, Amédée left an estate of approximately 1.5 million dollars. Since he had been born in New Orleans, was a citizen of the United States and in his will written a short time before his death, stated that he was an American subject, he was of a mindset that settling his estate would be a fairly straightforward endeavor. Nothing could have been farther from the truth, in fact, his last will and testament set off a familial firestorm the likes of which had not been seen since the Renaissance and was akin to the feuding that occurred in such Italian families as the Borgia’s or Sforza’s!
In his will Amédée provided for his heirs as follows:
“I give and bequeath to Elizabeth Pratt, my wife:
1. The full ownership of La Belle Issue, which I inhabit, without exception, including therein all the furniture which furnishes it without exception, together with the objects d’art, pictures, silverware, household plate, linens, household provisions, horses, carriages and harness.
2. All the furniture therein without exception which is contained in the house which I rented in Dresden, Saxony.
3. All the furniture contained in the apartment I rent I rent in Paris, No. 4 Avenue Bugeaud, without exception.
I also give to my wife, Elizabeth Pratt, the full ownership of all securities without exception by me deposited either in Paris or London bankers. I give to my wife the enjoyment during her life of all my jewels and diamonds and those of my mother.
My fortune which is in America shall be divided between my children. I authorize my wife to put this fortune into the hands of one of the big trust companies (American).
To complete my previous disposition, I give to my wife, Elizabeth Pratt de Gasquet-James, the full ownership of my two properties, La Belle Issue which I inhabit at Dinard, and La Coninals, which I possess at Taden and Dinan, with all the furniture contained within these two properties.”
In the reading of the will it does appear pretty cut and dried as to the final wishes of the deceased. However, the grieving widow had other ideas and eventually filed suit in the United States in 1909 to have the will set aside on the grounds that since Amédée was not a resident or citizen of France at the time of his death where the will was filed and probated, it was invalid and thereby she should inherit the lot for her full usage.
Even from a distance of more than a hundred years, it is not hard to picture Elizabeth as an early middle aged cash rich widow, enjoying the perks of her new found freedom. At the same time, Elizabeth had recently met a handsome young German princeling who had caught her fancy. His Highness, Duke Heinrich Borwin von Mecklenburg-Schwerin was just the sort of man who would appeal to the likes of the widow de Gasquet-James and she was just the sort of woman to appeal to him. Elizabeth was fifty and he was twenty-six at the time, younger than several of her children. Because of Heinrich’s excessive spending habits, the duke had been placed by his family under a legal restraint by the German courts and a curator was required to approve all his decisions. Throwing caution to the wind and appearances be damned, Elizabeth and Heinrich traveled to Dover, England and were they were married there at the registry office on June 15, 1911. Immediately after the civil marriage, the newlyweds returned immediately to France where a religious ceremony was performed at one of Elizabeth’s estates.
When all was said done, the new Duchess von Mecklenburg-Schwerin felt she could congratulate herself on her recent nuptials. Heinrich was a major trade up when it came to comparing husbands. Of course, it could not be completely overlooked that the deceased Amédée was providing the essential funding for the maintenance of the much younger second husband and the newly acquired position Elizabeth now enjoyed. In her mind, she had coronets dancing around in her head, as through her new marriage, Elizabeth was now closely related to the Crown Princess Cecilie of Germany, daughter-in-law to the Kaiser, and to Duke Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, husband of Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. In her estimation she was finally in the position she was born to hold and in the arms of her Teutonic knight.
As with most things that appear “to good to be true” it did not take long for the bliss of her new life to start to unravel at the edges. First, courts in the United States found against her attempt to have her late husband’s will set aside and then her children, believing that she was spending funds on behalf of the duke, promptly filed an action against her for an accounting of their funds. Worse yet, Elizabeth’s access to the money was then denied her.
The situation on the marriage front was no better, when a civil action was filed in France by the groom’s family to annul her marriage to the duke as it had not been approved or sanctioned by his family or his legal curator. Prior to the civil action, her marriage to the duke had already been declared unequal and it was then annulled by a tribunal in Mecklenburg-Schwerin in April 1913.
With no other recourse, and perhaps down but not out, Elizabeth retook her maiden name and filed suit in England seeking to have the marriage recognized as it had taken place there. This court, perhaps in light of not wanting to offend the more exalted relations of the duke, also found against her. Focused on their patrimony, her children sought the return of more than a quarter million dollars she had already expended, a lower court found in their favor, the appellate court overturned the decision in favor of Elizabeth and then a higher court reinstated the original judgment on behalf of her children.
In 1913, Elizabeth unsuccessfully sought a court order in France to force the sale of an automobile factory owned by her late husband, still her suit was unsuccessful. Elizabeth then moved to Austria and became a citizen there. When her mother died leaving her additional funds, the children also sought those in court, contending that their mother was an “alien” under the terms of a 1918 law requiring the return of any assets owned by nationals in countries with which the U.S. was then at war.
For the last twenty-five years of her life, Elizabeth was bound up in court case after court case, typically in suits brought by or against her children. In some instances, the very back and forth nature of these suits became confusing based on the vagaries of international laws, codicils, powers of attorney, and plain spite.
When Elizabeth drew her last breath in November 1928, she had come a long way from Albany, New York. In looking back, one might excuse her of failing to meet the expectations required of one of her class. Namely, and no pun intended, that one’s name only appeared in print three times, at birth, marriage and death.
ELIZABETH BLEECKER TIBBITTS PRATT
"A LIFE IN PRINT"
A Wedding In Park-Avenue
Miss Pratt Married To Mr. James At
The Residence of Mr. Dorsheimer
The New York Times
April 22, 1881
“A very quiet and unostentatious wedding took place yesterday afternoon at No. 101 Park-avenue, the residence of the Hon. William Dorsheimer, of whom the bride was a distant relavtive. The hall, drawing room, and library were decorated with exotic ferns and flowers, and the ceremony, fixed at 4 P.M., was performed by the Rev. Dr. Eliphalet N. Potter, President of Union College, who made the journey to the City for that purpose. The ceremony taking place at the house there were no ushers and no bridesmaids, properly speaking. The bride was Miss Elizabeth Pratt, daughter of Mrs. George W. Pratt. Her father, Col. George W. Pratt, was a very popular man in
when the war broke out, and had already served with distinction one term as a State Senator. In the enthusiasm that followed the firing upon Ulster County , he raised a regiment of volunteers and offered his services to the Government, in whose defense he fell severely wounded at the head of his command, and ultimately died of injuries thus received. The groom was Mr. Amédée Gasquet James, of Fort Sumter . Among the distinguished relatives of the bride whose presence graced the occasion were her grandmother, Mrs. Tibbetts, of Albany; her great aunts, Mrs. Nelson, of New Brunswick, N.J., and Mrs. Horatio Seymour, of Utica, wife of ex-Gov. Seymour; Mrs. Roscoe Conkling, wife of the Senator, and the venerable Mrs. Nott, widow of the late President Nott, of Union College. New Orleans
At the reception which followed the ceremony, and occupied from 4:30 until 7 o’clock, the parlors were thronged with representatives of the best society in this City and Albany, among whom were, Mr. and Mrs. John Jacob Astor, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Potter, Mr. Clarkson N. Potter, the Misses Potter, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Turnure, Miss Turnure, Mr. Turnure, Mrs. Remington, Miss Remington, Mrs. Jones, the Misses Maude and Fanny Barnard, Mrs. Lewis Case Ledyard, Miss Bruse, Miss Warren, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Whitehead, Lieut. Chadwick and wife, Miss Miller, Mrs. Carroll, Mr. Frank James, Mr. Isaac Vanderpoel, Mr. Failes, Mrs. Austin Flint, and Mr. and Mrs. James W. Gerard.”
No Title, Hats, Hair Or Worry
The New York Times
July 19, 1903
“…..among the passengers on one of the transatlantic ships this week was registered the Countess de Gasquet James, and the Vicomte de Gasquet James. The title, which no doubt has been found to be authentic, is a bit puzzling to those who are acquainted with the family. The Countess de Gasquet James was Miss Pratt of
. She married about twenty-five years ago Count Amédée Gasquet James of New Orleans, the grandson of one of the best known bankers in the South, James Gasquet, who is also the grandfather of Mrs. J. J. Wysong and Marshall Gasquet of this city. The Gasquets came from a very old French family who were refugees. Mr. James Gasquet of New Orleans, the son of the late James Gasquet and Marshall Gasquet, his son, who lives in this city, are alone entitled to call themselves the Count and Vicomte de Gasquet, but they have never done so, as they prefer to be plain American citizens. The James family possesses no inherited title. However, when one lives abroad, it is well, perhaps, to assume or to revive past glories. The Countess de Gasquet James is a charming woman. One of her daughters has recently married a title abroad, and she has one of the prettiest villas at Dinard, where the family entertains a great deal……” Albany
Count’s Will In Dispute
Countess de Gasquet James Asks
Court’s Construction Concerning It
The New York Times
October 28, 1909
“Elizabeth Pratt, Countess de Gasquet James, individually and as executrix of the will of her husband, Count Amédée de Gasquet James, who at one time lived here and died in Paris in 1908, has applied to the Surrogate’s Court for a construction of the will. The action is directed against the children, grandchildren, and other near relatives of the deceased, and includes George Watson Pratt, Count de Gasquet, and Count de Lebran.
The petition states that the Count left personal property in
, said to be worth, $1,000,000.00. His will was date June 10, 1903, and was probated in Ulster County, N.Y. . It provided that “my fortune which is in France shall be divided between my children, and I authorize my wife to put the fortune into the hands of one of the big American trust companies.” America
The Countess says that her husband was never legally domiciled in
France, that the above provision is unlawful and that he died intestate so far as his estate is concerned.” New York
Wed German Duke
Her Children Sue
Want Former Mrs. Pratt Tibbitts
Removed As Executrix Of
Their Father’s Will
She is 55; Duke is 26
Alleged Marriage Not Officially Announced
Duke Popular In Society
The New York Times
October 12, 1912
“BERLIN, Oct 11 – The alleged secret marriage of an American woman, Mrs. Elizabeth Tibbitts Pratt, formerly of Kingston, N.Y., with Duke Heinrich Borwin of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, a scion of one of Germany’s ruling houses and first cousin of the German Crown Princess, is the foundation of sensational proceedings about to be brought in America and European courts. It is declared by two of her children, who seek her removal as executrix of her late husband’s estate, that Mrs. Tibbitts, aged 55, was married to the Duke, aged 26, sometime in 1912.
Details of the case reach The New York Times correspondent from an official quarter. Papers in the suit have just been served on Mrs. Tibbitts through the
United States Consulate at , her present domicile being in that district. Until recently she had been known as Countess de Gasquet-James, having married a Trieste man named de Gasquet some thirty years ago. She has lived in New Orleans Europe many years, but how she acquired the title of Countess in unknown.
The children who have filed the citations against her are a son, George Watson Pratt de Gasquet, and a daughter, Countess Pauline Andree de la Mettri.
“Countess de Gasquet-James” is a woman of wealth possessing a villa at Dinard, and until recently a handsome apartment in
. She is now occupying a castle at Dresden . She has another daughter, Countess de Libran, and a daughter who died was the wife of Baron von der Decken, an officer in the Saxon Army. Littau, Austria
The two children who seek to have her removed as executrix on account of the alleged marriage to Duke Heinrich Borwin assert that money, investments, and properties which belong to them, and over which she now has control, are in danger.
The Duke is the son of the Duke and Duchess Paul of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, who for several years have been under the supervision of a conservator on account of their extravagant habits. Although penniless himself, Duke Heinrich Borwin is a prominent figure in German aristocratic circles, and also hobnobs with rich Americans visiting
from time to time. As recently as last week he was motoring with Mr. and Mrs. Peter D. Martin of New York and San Francisco and stayed with them at Bad Nauheim.” Germany
American Countess’s Suit
Mme. Gasquet James Sues Her
Royal ex-Husband in French Courts
The New York Times
July 4, 1913
, July 3. – An application was made in a Versailles court today by the Countess de Gasquet James, formerly Miss Elizabeth Pratt of New York, the widow of Count Amédée Gasquet James, a papal nobleman, to force her husband, Duke Heinrich Borwin of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, whom she married in 1911 in England, to give her the authorization to liquidate her husband’s automobile factory in France, in which she is interested. PARIS
The Countess still considers herself the wife of the Duke, who is a cousin of the Crown Princess Cecilie of
. She claims that the French courts should not recognize the decision of the exceptional tribunal of Germany , Mecklenburg-Schwerin, which last April annulled her marriage. Rostock
Judgment was postponed.”
American Woman Lost Suit
Countess de Gasquet James Cannot
Sell Her Late Husband’s Factory
The New York Times
July 12, 1913
“Versailles, July 11 – The court here gave judgment today against the Countess de Gasquet James, formerly Miss Elizabeth Pratt of New York, the e widow of Count Amédée Gasquet James, a papal nobleman, in the suit she brought to force her second husband, Duke Heinrich Borwin of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, to give her the authorization to liquidate her first husband’s automobile factory in France.
The court held that the decree of the exceptional tribunal of Rostock, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, which last April annulled her marriage to the Duke, not being contrary to public order, was binding upon the French courts.
The Countess was married to the Duke in 1911 in England.”
Countess Loses Her Suit
Court Says It Has No Jurisdiction
In Gasquet-James Case
The New York Times
February 17, 1914
“LONDON, Feb. 16 – Sir Samuel Evans, Presiding Judge of the Divorce Court, today ruled that the Court had no jurisdiction in connection with the petition of Countess de Gasquet-James, formerly, Miss Elizabeth Tibbitts Pratt of Prattsville, N.Y., who asked for a declaration of the validity of her marriage to Duke Heinrich Borwin of Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
The petition was dismissed with costs.
The Duke was married to the plantiff in the Registrar’s office at Dover, England, in 1911 and later went through a religious ceremony of marriage in the private chapel of the Countess’s castle in France.
Last year, the marriage was declared null and void by a special court sitting at Rostock, the reason given being that the Duke’s guardian had not consented to it.
The Countess’s first husband, Count Amédée Gasquet James died in 1903. The Duke was born in 1885.”
Duke Divorced American
Former Husband Of Countess Gasquet-James
Now In This Country
The New York Times
May 9, 1914
BERLIN, May 8. – Duke Heinrich Borwin of Mecklenburg-Schwerin whose visit to America is receiving notice here, is the cousin of the Crown Princess Cecilie and was recently involved in divorce proceedings with an American Woman in the English courts.
The Duke married the Countess de Gasquet James at the Registrar’s office in Dover, England, in 1911. A short time after the marriage was solemnized at a religious service in the chapel of one of the Countess’s castles.
The Countess was Miss Elizabeth Tibbitts Pratt of Prattsville, N.Y. and her first husband was Count Amédée Gasquet James, a papal nobleman who died in 1903. At the time of her marriage to Duke Heinrich she was 55 years old, and he was 27.
In March 1913, the Duke brought suit in Germany to have his marriage annulled on the ground that it was contracted without the consent of his guardian. The court, sitting at Rostock-on-the-Baltic, upheld his contention, and the marriage was declared void.
The Countess brought suit in England to have the marriage declared valid in February of this year, Sir Samuel Evans, presiding Judge of the Divorce Court in London, ruled that the court had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case and the Countess was forced to pay the costs of the action.”
French Law Upheld
In $1,500,000 Case
Appellate Division Decides In
Favor of Count de Gasquet James Widow
Gives Her Half The Estate
Will Giving Property Here To Children
In Europe Illegal Under Community Right
The New York Times
June 3, 1916
“A decision was has been handed down by the Appellate Division in the controversy over the $1,500.000 estate of Count Amédée de Gasquet James, a French nobleman who had at least two-thirds of his property in this country. The litigants were his widow, Elizabeth Pratt de Gasquet James, who was born in America and after her first husband’s death married again, her second husband being a member of the nobility of Germany, where she now lives, as do her grandchildren.
The international character of the dispute is emphasized by the fact that the children of Count de Gasquet James, who have sought an accounting of the estate from their mother, are all French subjects, the son having always lived in France and the two daughters having married French husbands, while the grandchildren, who join their cause, are German, their mother having been the fourth child of the Count, who married a Major in the German Army named von der Decken, who is said to have been killed in the present war. Count de Gasquet James was an American citizen, having been born in New Orleans. His wife was also an American citizen. They were married in New York in 1881. Count de Gasquet James came here from France for the ceremony, having removed there from New Orleans with his mother in 1863. After the marriage the couple returned to France, where they lived together until his death in 1903.
The estate consisted of several establishments and properties in France, a great many securities held in this country, which are on deposit with the Farmers Loan and Trust Company, and considerable property in Ulster County, N.Y. The children brought an action before the Surrogate of Ulster County and obtained a decree in their favor judicially settling their mother’s account as executrix of her husband’s will, the effect of the decree being that she had made use of more money than she was entitled to from the estate, although there was no imputation of anything like fraud or conversion.
The widow appealed from the Surrogate’s decree, and the opinion of the Appellate Division, by vote of three to two, now results in her favor. Several interesting legal precedents are made by the decision in which Justice Kellogg makes mention of the complicated nature of the case and the difficulty of deciding the issues as they involve a conflict between France and American law.
The gist of the decision is that as the couple were domiciled in France at the time of the Count’s death and when the will was probated French law holds. In France on the death of one party to a marriage, half the property reverts automatically to the other, community property, rights prevailing there. Therefore, the decision holds, Count de Gasquet James had not right to will his American property to his children, as part of it belonged to his widow since the European property which he willed her did not make up half of the estate, to which she was entitled by community right.
The decision holds that payments the widow has made to various of the heirs, which are not valid under American law because there were no vouchers had were thus charged against her own share, by the Surrogate of Ulster County, should be allowed as legal, as there is no proof they would not be valid under French law, and if the other heirs are not willing to do this, the matter should be remitted to the French courts for trial and determination.
Property Custodian Sued
Countess de la Mettrie and De Gasquet James
The New York Times
June 10, 1921
“WASHINGTON, June 9. – Countess Paula Andree de la Mettrie, formerly an American citizen, but now wife of Count Henri de la Mettrie, of Dinard, France, and George Pratt de Gasquet James, also a former American citizen, but now an officer in the French Army, filed suit today in the District of Columbia Supreme Court against Elizabeth Pratt de Gasquet James, now of Trieste, Italy, but formerly of Esopus, Ulster County, N.Y., and Thomas W. Miller, Allen Property Custodian, to recover $65.133.35 each, which they claim is being unlawfully detained by the Government under the Trading With the Enemy act.
This money represents a judgment obtained in the courts of New York against Elizabeth Pratt de Gasquet James, as ancillary executrix of the estate of the late Count Amédée Gasquet James, who was charged with a deficiency of $253.756.98 in her accounts as executrix.
Before the judgment could be satisfied, and while the plantiff, George Pratt de Gasquet James, was serving with the French Army, with the husband of the Countess, it is alleged the Allen Property Custodian, seized the property of the defendant, Elizabeth Pratt de Gasquet James.
The seizure, it is set forth, was made upon the ground that the French Republic had not accorded the reciprocal rights to American citizens as to alien enemy property sequestered by that Government. But late it is declared the French Government did accord such reciprocity, but the plaintiffs were unable, they declare to obtain satisfaction of their judgment.”
Elizabeth Bleeker Tibbitts Pratt
Comtesse de Gasquet James
Duchess von Mecklenburg-Schwerin
1. Elizabeth Bleeker Tibbitts Pratt. 27.I.1860 – XI.1928 m: (1) 21.IV.1881
Count Amédée de Gasquet James. 5.VI.1846 – 28.VII.1903
(1). Elizabeth Bleecker de Gasquet James.
2.III.1882 – 24.XI.1907 m: 28.VI.1904
Leo von der Decken. d. 1915
(2). Victoire Louise de Gasquet James.
28.VII.1883 – AFT. 1966
m: (1) 27.XII.1902 d: 24.VI.1920
Raymond d'Abel de Libran. 22.IX.1869 -
m: (2). Adolphe Neil 1879 – 1966
(3). George Watson de Gasquet James.
25.VI.1885 – 18.X.1950
(4). Andree Pauline d Gasquet James.
1.III.1887 – 8.V.1977 m: 21.IV.1909
Henri de la Choue de la Mettrie.
15.XI.1877 – 19.IV.1954
m: (2) 1911
Duke Heinrich Borwin von Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
16.XII.1885 – 3.XI.1942
2. Col. George Watson Pratt.
13.IV.1830 – 11.IX.1862 m: 3.VI.1855
3. Anna Attwood Tibbits.
6.IX.1833 – 8.X.1921
4. Zadock Pratt.
30.X.1790 – 6.IV.1871 m: (3). 12.I.1828
5. Abigail P. Watson.
1807 – 5.II.1834
6. Benjamin Tibbets.
14.IV.1798 – 16.IV.1859 m: 29.IV.1829
7. Elizabeth Bleeker.
3.VIII.1804 – 12.I.1882
8. Zadock Pratt.
15.I.1755 – 27.VII.1828 m: 1781
9. Hannah Pickett.
3.IX.1755 – 17.IX.1832
10. Wheeler Watson.
18.XII.1772 – 1.IV.1857 m: 5.XI.1799
11. Sarah Taylor Peckham.
12. George Tibbits.
14.I.1763 – 19.VII.1849 m: 9.III.1789
13. Sarah Noyes.
14. John Rutger Bleecker.
20.XII.1771 – 12.IV.1849 m: 26.XI.1799
15. Eliza Ten Eyck Attwood Bridgen.
7.II.1783 – 20.V.1805
Great Great Grandparents:
16. Zephaniah Pratt.
1712 – 1758 m: 1750
17. Abigail Pell.
1710 – 1758
18. Benjamin Pickett.
21.X.1724 – 1803 m:
19. Eunice Bennett.
20. John Watson.
23.V.1737 – 24.VIII.1796 m: 11.X.1764
21. Desire Wheeler.
25.XI.1748 – III.1784
22. George Hazard Peckham.
14.IV.1739 – 29.XI.1799 m: 7.I.1763
23. Sarah Taylor.
1747 – 16.VI.1795
24. John Tibbitts.
1737 – 27.I.1817 m: 7.I.1760
25. Waite Brown.
3.IX.1741 – 10.III.1809
26. Oliver Noyes.
27. Sarah Badger.
28. Rutger Bleecker.
6.VI.1745 – 4.X.1787 m: 31.X.1768
29. Catherine Elmendorph.
30.I.1747 – 8.VII.1808
30. Thomas Bridgen Attwood.
31. Susannah Ten Eyck.
© 2010 The Esoteric Curiosa