William Paul, #85 on “The Dunbar Prisoners” list

Every attempt has been made to ensure accuracy; please independently verify all data.

Published on: 23 Jan 2015
Updated: 19 June 2017

Descendants & Researchers

Surname variation:  Paul, Paule, Paull

111. William Paul, #85 on “The Dunbar Prisoners” list

First Generation in the New World

1. WILLIAM¹ PAUL, “a certaine Scote,” was born about 1624 in Scotland and died in 1704 at the age of 80. He married, at Taunton after 3 Feb 1656/7, MARY RICHMOND, of Newport, Rhode Island.

Biographical Notes:
According to Saxbe, William B., Jr., CG, FASG. “Who Was the Mother of James2 Paule (1657-1724) of Taunton, Massachusetts?The American Genealogist 73 (October 1998): 312-315, suggests that William Paul may have had an affair with the wife of Alexander Innes (a SPOW), KATHEREN (_____) INNES, which resulted in the birth of James Paule, his firstborn son. Another researcher, Charles Oliver, strongly disputes this, see his explanation HERE!

“My ancestor William Paul (1624-1704) was a survivor of the Battle of Dunbar, the forced march, Durham Cathedral, and 6 years of indentured servitude in Taunton Massachsetts.” ~ William Paul

Child of William Paul and ?:
2. i. JAMES² PAULE, “son of William,” (William¹), was b. at Taunton on 11 Apr 1657; died at Dighton*, Bristol, Massachusetts on 18 Feb 1724/5*. Illegitimate. He married*, at Taunton* by 1685*, MARY (_____)*.

Children of James and Mary (_____) Paul:
3. LYDIA PAULL*, b. at Dighton* on 11 Feb 1722/3*.
3. JAMES PAULL*, b. at Dighton* on 20 May 1725*.

Child of Mrs. Mary (Richmond) Paule by Richard Canterbury:
2. HANNAH² PAULE, b. at Taunton on 4 Oct 1657 (In 1658 Mary confessed that she was with child by Richard Canterbury before she married William Paul.)

Children of William and Mary (Richmond) Paull: Seven children, 1660 to 1681.
2.  ii. JOHN PAULE, (William¹), born at Taunton* on 10 Jul 1660*.
2. iii. (_____) PAULE, (William¹),
2.  iv. (_____) PAULE, (William¹),
2.   v. MARY PAULE*, (William¹*), born at Taunton* on 8 Feb 1667*.
2. vi. (_____) PAULE, (William¹*),
2. vii. (_____) PAULE, (William¹*),
2. viii. (_____) PAULE, (William¹*),

SOURCES AND NOTES:

Regarding William PAUL and Mr. and Mrs. Alexander INNES from Miner Descent:

“Life in Taunton – The Irish Catherine and Scottish Alexander clashed with the Puritans of Taunton on at least one occasion. Saxbe writes, “‘an Irish woman named Katheren Aines’ was brought before the court at Plymouth in February, 1656/57, ‘vpon suspision of comiting adultery.’ The trial was the following month, and justice was swift and harsh:

‘Att this Court, William Paule, Scotchman, for his vnclean and filthy behauiour with the wife of Alexander Aines, is centanced by the Court to bee forthwith publickly whipt…which accordingly was p(er)formed…Katheren Aines, for her vnclean and laciuiouse behauior with the abouesaid William Paule, and for the blasphemos words that shee hath spoken, is centanced by the Court to bee forthwith publickly whipt heer att Plymouth, and afterwards att Taunton, on a publicke training day, and to were a Roman B cutt out of ridd cloth and sowed to her vper garment on her right arme [for blaspheme]; and if shee shalbee euer found without it soe worne whil shee is in the gou(vern)ment, to bee forthwith publickly whipt…Alexander Anis, for his leauing his family, and exposing his wife to such temptations, and being as baud to her therin, is centanced by the Court for the p(re)sent to sitt in the stockes the time the said Paule and Katheren Ainis are whipt, which was p(er)formed…’

Understandably, the Innes family moved sometime within the next few years. In 1659, Alexander is found in the records buying land in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, fifteen miles south of Taunton (Clarence S. Brigham, Early Records of the Town of Portsmouth (Providence: E.L. Freeman &Sons, 1901), pg. 379). In 1664, Block Island became part of Rhode Island and a group of Scots settled there.”

110. John Paul, #84 on “The Dunbar Prisoners” list (Not sure if John is related to William or not.)

Saxbe, William B., Jr., CG, FASG. “Who Was the Mother of James2 Paule (1657-1724) of Taunton, Massachusetts?The American Genealogist 73 (October 1998): 312-315.

Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850 (Online Database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001-2016).

Massachusetts Vital Records to 1850 (Online Database: AmericanAncestors.org, New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001-2016).

2 Responses to William Paul, #85 on “The Dunbar Prisoners” list

  1. William Paul says:

    It is correct except Catherine or Katheren (nee Aines ) Innis wife of Alexander is the birth mother of James b. 1657 . Kathleen was not her name. She was Irish and probably came in 1654, as she was forced out of Ireland by Cromwell again. She died on Block Island before her husband in 1679. There are 5 volumes of Paul genealogy at the Taunton Historical Society’ library. But it was your site that provided the link to how all these Scots ended up in Taunton.
    Thanks for all your efforts,

    • Charles Oliver says:

      Katherine Innes being the mother of James is rank speculation rooted in a single entry in the births for a “Hannah”, daughter of Mary. In an article published in The American Genealogist, volume 73, issue 4, October 1998, entitled “Who Was the Mother of James Paule (1657-1724) of Taunton, Massachusetts?”, the author makes the case that the birth refers to Mary (Richmond) Paul’s child by Richard Canterbury. There are several flaws in this argument, the most glaring of which (to me) are that 1) no mention is made in the court record of any pregnancy resulting from William Paul’s dalliance with Katherine Innes; 2) that on 5 March 1656/7 Katherine was sentenced to be publicly whipped as punishment for her infidelity—at a time when she would have (according to this hypothesis) been eight or nine months pregnant with James, who was born on 7 April; yet there is no record of her supposed condition, no record of the punishment being postponed until she had given birth, no record of ANYTHING to support the idea that she was pregnant. To me, it is at LEAST as curious that such a thing was not mentioned (had she been pregnant) as the unexplained birth record for Hannah. In contrast, Mary (Richmond) Paul’s pregnancy by Richard Canterbury is very prominent in the court records. As a final point, 3) any child born to Katherine Innes during her marriage (regardless of paternity) would legally have been a child of THAT marriage, which means that any theory of Katherine Innes’ being the mother of James Paul must explain how William and Mary (Richmond) Paul came to possession of James. On 6 October 1657, William and Mary (Richmond) Paul were expelled from Taunton, and the court record reflects that they had a sixth-month-old child. James Paul was exactly six months old on that date, and was clearly the child being referenced. No mention was made of a daughter who was born TWO DAYS before the court order.

      Now, I will stop short of dismissing out of hand the possibility of this scenario, because it is abundantly clear that William and Mary were both quite libidinous, but I have yet to see any evidence of Hannah belonging to this family. She is not mentioned in Joshua Bailey Richmond’s The Richmond Family, 1594–1896 and Pre-American Ancestors, 1040-1594, nor is she mentioned in Richmond Family Records, which is functionally source-notes to the former book, and the numbers assigned to individuals therein corresponds to the earlier book.

      The hypothesis of the TAG article supposes two children—which are both present in the record—resulting from two unsanctioned relationships. The record is not sufficient to support this. We have no evidence of a child resulting from the Paul–Innes relationship, and no proof that the Mary identified as the mother of Hannah is Mary Richmond, wife of William Paul. Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest solution to the problem is the one most likely to be correct: there was only the one pregnancy described in the court records—Mary Richmond’s by Richard Canterbury—and that James Paul (who was born AFTER the marriage to William Paul, and legally therefore a child of THAT marriage, regardless of the child’s actual paternity) was that child. If that leaves the birth entry for Hannah Paul unexplained… well, life is full of loose ends. Despite the apparent convenient explanation for the two births, the theory actually creates more logical questions than it seeks to explain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *