Written in Stone?

By Bob Ferris

We often say that something is “written in stone” when we are certain that it is correct.  There is rock-solid permanence to this pronouncement. But sometimes it is just not so.  I think here of the headstone of Rachel Berry and William Britton Sr. in the Stewartsville Cemetery in Posey County, Indiana (pictured above).  Seems pretty straight-forward, but is it? 

First off the stone looks just a bit too new to be from the mid-1800s both in style and wear.  It probably does not help research-wise that Rachel Berry is the name of one of the main characters on the popular TV series Glee.  Moreover, Rachel’s birth year does not embrace any of the family legends about her or her purported ancestors—even giving the stories a healthy discount for temporal erosion or embellishment.  

So what were we told?  We were told that Rachel was the daughter of Thomas Berry and Mary Washington.  We were also told that Rachel sheltered a tory brother or tory brothers during the Revolution.  And we are told that the name Washington was applied to one of Rachel’s grandchildren (Washington Britton), which we know from experience could be a hint, distraction, or both.

Berry Plain in Dogue, Virginia ancestral home of many of the Berrys in question.  

There were a number of Virginian’s named Thomas Berry (1,2,3,4) born about the same time and in the same area.  The same is true for Mary Washingtons.  There is no evidence that any of the possible Thomases had a child named Rachel in 1757.  But we do see a reference on one website that creates a scenario:  What if this birth year is wrong and the Thomas who eventually married Elizabeth Corn Washington (daughter of John Washington and Mary Massey) in 1758 was married first to Mary Washington who was the daughter of Henry Washington and Mary Bayley (also known as Bailey or Butler)?   

Entries for both girls named Mary in copy of St Paul's Parish Registry

Not much is known about that Mary Washington except that she was born in August 9, 1728 and died after 1748 possibly as late as 1758.  Maybe.  In genealogical terms this gives us “opportunity” at least.   And with the paucity of illegible brides during colonial times we certainly saw serial marriages in fairly quick succession and there were likely no stigmas about marrying your late wife’s distant cousin.  Doubt but not disproof is cast on this by the fact that Thomas made no mention of Rachel in his will, but she arguably might have been alienated by geography, actions or time. 

Except from The Washingtons: A family history. Volume One

I see some arguing also that the Mary Washington in question is actually the sister of Elizabeth Corn.  That strikes me as fantasy as that Mary seems to have wed James Mayberry and moved to England.  Certainly one could press and say that Rachel still could be the illegitimate off-spring of Thomas and Mary, but the dates simply do not work. 

The tory brother story? Brother or brothers could mean many things: brother, half-brother or, perhaps, brother-in-law.  Given their ages Mary and Thomas could have had other children.  Lots of "ifs" here and there are no records.  I could not find any indication that any of Thomas and Elizabeth's children were tories either.  And the Brittons are numerous but seem more on the rebel side. So I am not sure what to make of this, if anything.

The use of the name Washington in subsequent generations could mean many things.  It could indicate a distant link to a large family.  It could simply be a tribute to the great man.  And it could also mean that the tory part of the story is true and that this generation wanted to erase that stigma with the cleansing, flag-like quality of the appellation.  

I recently stood above what I hoped was Rachel’s grave but had no way of asking her what was the truth of this is. So in the end I am left with the unsettling Jello of genealogy knowing only that something that I have been told, seen or held in my hands is wrong.  We who take any time looking in this arena know that we listen our family history played through an unseeable bell cracked by time and often clouded by myth and hopes.  But still we look on.